I have posted on this before, but I think that it is worthwhile to repeat it here. A study published by the New England Journal of Medicine in the summer found that Canada?s government-run public health care system was twice as efficient ? in terms of minimizing costs spent on administration vs. costs actually spent on care ? than the privately-run U.S. system. An astounding 31 per cent of health-care expenditures in the United States are spent on administration, most of this by private sector insurance companies.
Consider this fact when you see the direction of the new Medicare bill toward increasing the role of the private sector and the insurance companies. Taxpayers will pay plenty for this new bill (and, due to the tax cuts, it is increasingly lower-income taxpayers who will pay), while a disproportionate amount of the benefit will go to line the pockets of insurance companies. This is typical Republican social policy.
i'll take fast, expensive and good over cheap, slow and poor.
In this case you can have your cake and eat it too. There will always be people willing to pay for hospital care, just as there are people willing to pay for private school.
i've talked to them at length about the medical system in Canada.
it amounts to the Canadian system is cheaper and covers everyone.
however, it takes forever to get anything done up there and it's worse quality.
i'll take fast, expensive and good over cheap, slow and poor.
I have had a fair bit of care under the Canadian medical system and found it to be quick and and of high quality. The "waiting lines" in Canada just reflect anecdotal stories that conservatives in the United States love to trot out. It is especially hilarious to consider that they trot out these stories when even those Americans who are insured are, in many, many cases under HMOs. In return for your stories about Candian health care, I have heard nightmares about your managed care system.
So yes, if you are really rich in the United States, you can probably buy the best care than money can buy in the world. The vast majoriy of Americans, however, would be better off under the Canadian system, rather than being offered poor quality care under HMOs or little care at all. Are you not embarassed that a country as rich as yours has such high rates of infant mortality among the poor and working poor? And that is despite the fact that you spend the highest per capita amount on health care in the world. Where does that money go? To care for the rich and to line the pockets of insurance companies. What a joke.
Are you not embarassed that a country as rich as yours has such high rates of infant mortality among the poor and working poor? And that is despite the fact that you spend the highest per capita amount on health care in the world. Where does that money go? To care for the rich and to line the pockets of insurance companies. What a joke.
sorry mr. ontario, but the stories i've heard are from Canadians, who lived in both Canada and the United States.
All of them, without exception (8 for 8) have said the American health care system is much better, if you have health insurance.
so if we have private plus public health insurance, what do you think is going to happen?
the private health insurance will be higher quality, better machines, better medicines. only now, instead of elementary education, you'll be talking about lives.
so you think poor people should get subpar care? because in reality, that's what it's going to amount to.
also, should people who don't use this universal health care system have to pay for it? should they get health care vouchers?
sorry mr. ontario, but the stories i've heard are from Canadians, who lived in both Canada and the United States.
All of them, without exception (8 for 8) have said the American health care system is much better, if you have health insurance.
so if we have private plus public health insurance, what do you think is going to happen?
the private health insurance will be higher quality, better machines, better medicines. only now, instead of elementary education, you'll be talking about lives.
so you think poor people should get subpar care? because in reality, that's what it's going to amount to.
also, should people who don't use this universal health care system have to pay for it? should they get health care vouchers?
8 people you have talked to does not represent a scientific sample. But if you want anecdotal evidence, what about this:
Quote:
Originally posted by rok
you know, having come from canada (and having just had my wife in the hospital for a FAT bill after all was said and done), i definitely prefer the canadian way of doing things from a cost and efficiency standpoint.
[...]
the answer to it all? marry canadian. dual-citizenship all the way around, and get all the benefits of both sides of the border. they're really not bad, once you get to know them. and get past the "america the bully" they like to shout in your face at the drop of a hat. some of 'em are even hot.
And as I said, what about your HMOs? What about your infant mortality rate? And your comment about the poor getting subquality care under a public system is complete nonsense. It is the poor, uninsured and underinsured in the U.S. that currently get subquality care, and sometimes no care at all.
so you think poor people should get subpar care? because in reality, that's what it's going to amount to.
So healthcare roughly equivalent to what people in Canada now get for free is worse than no care at all? You're obviously wrong.
Would it be worse than what people could buy separately? Almost certainly, or at least years behind advances in technology.
Would it be worse than an HMO? I have to say that's a tough question. HMO's spend far more on administration than the Canadian system. So, our HMO system is already that many dollars behind. Turn those HMO administrative costs into more care and the system would have to be better than it is now.
Would it be worse than an HMO? I have to say that's a tough question. HMO's spend far more on administration than the Canadian system. So, our HMO system is already that many dollars behind. Turn those HMO administrative costs into more care and the system would have to be better than it is now.
Good post, bunge.
I think that perhaps the best way to think of the Canadian system is as a very good HMO: one that will always accept you, whether or not you lose your job; one that does not offer second class service (or no service) if are poor; one under which you don't have to worry that a long illness is going to completely ruin you and your family; and one that devotes far more of its dollars to actual patient care than under private insurance.
The Canadian system is not perfect - nor as good as what is available you are rich and ready and willing pay for the very best in the United States - but it is very good. And guess what, it is as good for the poorest of our population as it is for me, a fairly well-off middle-class Canadian.
A 1998 report on a particular situation on waiting ists in an Australian state does not address the New England Journal of Medicine overall study of the much greater efficiency of the Canadian system vs. that of the U.S.
Are you saying that uninsured or underinsured Americans would have this operation easily available to them? Besides, this is a NHS story. The NHS was underfunded under years of Thatcherism, and has not much recovered under the phoney Labour government.
You refer me to an insurance industry site? Give me a break (but please, give it to me in Canada, not in the U.S. - I could not afford to break anything in the U.S.) Meanwhile, U.S. citizens are the least satisfied of any in the world with their health care system: http://bcn.boulder.co.us/health/healthwatch/canada.html
so if you have no medical insurance, and you've been shot they turn you away?
if you're having a heart attack, and no medical insurance they won't help you?
Now quit with the strawman argument. The examples you brought up of the problems in the Canadian Health Care System weren't for emergency care like these two examples you're now using.
uh. yeah. good $$$$ing point then. oh, wait, that would be the straw man you're so obsessed with.
You were referring an example of a waiting list and how some people died while on the list waiting for care. I made a point that without the list at all, someone without health care would just die anyway. That's not a straw man argument, it's a valid point.
your "point", or innuendo is that in the States, if you don't have health insurance you have no options available to you than to just keel over and die. or did i misread your post?
your "point", or innuendo is that in the States, if you don't have health insurance you have no options available to you than to just keel over and die. or did i misread your post?
Anyone can walk into an emergency room if they're shot or having a heart attack. If you don't feel well, not everyone has an option, no.
The only reason the dems oppose this bill is that they didn't write it. What's the point of giving away peoples money if you can't even get a vote out of it?
Comments
He doesn't disagree with Bush on issues beacause he's partisan...
he disagrees because Bush is wrong.
Try reading his book and getting a freaking clue.
The only people who think Bush's policies are good... are big business.
I like when people call Krugman a moron but can't for the life of them tell you why.
Consider this fact when you see the direction of the new Medicare bill toward increasing the role of the private sector and the insurance companies. Taxpayers will pay plenty for this new bill (and, due to the tax cuts, it is increasingly lower-income taxpayers who will pay), while a disproportionate amount of the benefit will go to line the pockets of insurance companies. This is typical Republican social policy.
i've talked to them at length about the medical system in Canada.
it amounts to the Canadian system is cheaper and covers everyone.
however, it takes forever to get anything done up there and it's worse quality.
i'll take fast, expensive and good over cheap, slow and poor.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i'll take fast, expensive and good over cheap, slow and poor.
In this case you can have your cake and eat it too. There will always be people willing to pay for hospital care, just as there are people willing to pay for private school.
Originally posted by alcimedes
lol, here in MN we have a lot of Canadians.
i've talked to them at length about the medical system in Canada.
it amounts to the Canadian system is cheaper and covers everyone.
however, it takes forever to get anything done up there and it's worse quality.
i'll take fast, expensive and good over cheap, slow and poor.
I have had a fair bit of care under the Canadian medical system and found it to be quick and and of high quality. The "waiting lines" in Canada just reflect anecdotal stories that conservatives in the United States love to trot out. It is especially hilarious to consider that they trot out these stories when even those Americans who are insured are, in many, many cases under HMOs. In return for your stories about Candian health care, I have heard nightmares about your managed care system.
So yes, if you are really rich in the United States, you can probably buy the best care than money can buy in the world. The vast majoriy of Americans, however, would be better off under the Canadian system, rather than being offered poor quality care under HMOs or little care at all. Are you not embarassed that a country as rich as yours has such high rates of infant mortality among the poor and working poor? And that is despite the fact that you spend the highest per capita amount on health care in the world. Where does that money go? To care for the rich and to line the pockets of insurance companies. What a joke.
Originally posted by Chinney
Are you not embarassed that a country as rich as yours has such high rates of infant mortality among the poor and working poor? And that is despite the fact that you spend the highest per capita amount on health care in the world. Where does that money go? To care for the rich and to line the pockets of insurance companies. What a joke.
^Somebody disagree with that. I dare you.
All of them, without exception (8 for 8) have said the American health care system is much better, if you have health insurance.
so if we have private plus public health insurance, what do you think is going to happen?
the private health insurance will be higher quality, better machines, better medicines. only now, instead of elementary education, you'll be talking about lives.
so you think poor people should get subpar care? because in reality, that's what it's going to amount to.
also, should people who don't use this universal health care system have to pay for it? should they get health care vouchers?
Originally posted by alcimedes
sorry mr. ontario, but the stories i've heard are from Canadians, who lived in both Canada and the United States.
All of them, without exception (8 for 8) have said the American health care system is much better, if you have health insurance.
so if we have private plus public health insurance, what do you think is going to happen?
the private health insurance will be higher quality, better machines, better medicines. only now, instead of elementary education, you'll be talking about lives.
so you think poor people should get subpar care? because in reality, that's what it's going to amount to.
also, should people who don't use this universal health care system have to pay for it? should they get health care vouchers?
8 people you have talked to does not represent a scientific sample. But if you want anecdotal evidence, what about this:
Originally posted by rok
you know, having come from canada (and having just had my wife in the hospital for a FAT bill after all was said and done), i definitely prefer the canadian way of doing things from a cost and efficiency standpoint.
[...]
the answer to it all? marry canadian. dual-citizenship all the way around, and get all the benefits of both sides of the border. they're really not bad, once you get to know them. and get past the "america the bully" they like to shout in your face at the drop of a hat. some of 'em are even hot.
And as I said, what about your HMOs? What about your infant mortality rate? And your comment about the poor getting subquality care under a public system is complete nonsense. It is the poor, uninsured and underinsured in the U.S. that currently get subquality care, and sometimes no care at all.
Originally posted by alcimedes
so you think poor people should get subpar care? because in reality, that's what it's going to amount to.
So healthcare roughly equivalent to what people in Canada now get for free is worse than no care at all? You're obviously wrong.
Would it be worse than what people could buy separately? Almost certainly, or at least years behind advances in technology.
Would it be worse than an HMO? I have to say that's a tough question. HMO's spend far more on administration than the Canadian system. So, our HMO system is already that many dollars behind. Turn those HMO administrative costs into more care and the system would have to be better than it is now.
Originally posted by bunge
Would it be worse than an HMO? I have to say that's a tough question. HMO's spend far more on administration than the Canadian system. So, our HMO system is already that many dollars behind. Turn those HMO administrative costs into more care and the system would have to be better than it is now.
Good post, bunge.
I think that perhaps the best way to think of the Canadian system is as a very good HMO: one that will always accept you, whether or not you lose your job; one that does not offer second class service (or no service) if are poor; one under which you don't have to worry that a long illness is going to completely ruin you and your family; and one that devotes far more of its dollars to actual patient care than under private insurance.
The Canadian system is not perfect - nor as good as what is available you are rich and ready and willing pay for the very best in the United States - but it is very good. And guess what, it is as good for the poorest of our population as it is for me, a fairly well-off middle-class Canadian.
I loooove nationalized health care.
500 die on waiting list
Where can I sign up for such an effecient system?
Once you have that there nationalized system, it's all effeciency.
But once you're nationalized, it won't matter if you don't have money!
But of course waiting 5 months to get an angiogram is peachy in Canada!
63% of Canadians wished they could pay for better service. Oops
Originally posted by alcimedes
oh baby. where can i sign up for my waiting list?
I loooove nationalized health care.
500 die on waiting list
This might not be quite the same issue in the U.S., I admit. Lots of Americans would not even be on the waiting list, they would just die.
Where can I sign up for such an effecient system?
Ditto
Once you have that there nationalized system, it's all effeciency.
A 1998 report on a particular situation on waiting ists in an Australian state does not address the New England Journal of Medicine overall study of the much greater efficiency of the Canadian system vs. that of the U.S.
But once you're nationalized, it won't matter if you don't have money!
Are you saying that uninsured or underinsured Americans would have this operation easily available to them? Besides, this is a NHS story. The NHS was underfunded under years of Thatcherism, and has not much recovered under the phoney Labour government.
But of course waiting 5 months to get an angiogram is peachy in Canada!
Are you saying there are not long waits under the U.S. system (for those lucky enough even to have access to care they can wait. for)?http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../19994666.html
Are you saying that HMOs do not completely deny service to even those who have insurance?http://www.progressive.org/mpflor699.htm
63% of Canadians wished they could pay for better service. Oops
You refer me to an insurance industry site? Give me a break (but please, give it to me in Canada, not in the U.S. - I could not afford to break anything in the U.S.) Meanwhile, U.S. citizens are the least satisfied of any in the world with their health care system: http://bcn.boulder.co.us/health/healthwatch/canada.html
Originally posted by alcimedes
oh baby. where can i sign up for my waiting list?
If you don't have health care in the US...you can't. Just go die instead!
if you're having a heart attack, and no medical insurance they won't help you?
Originally posted by alcimedes
so if you have no medical insurance, and you've been shot they turn you away?
if you're having a heart attack, and no medical insurance they won't help you?
Now quit with the strawman argument. The examples you brought up of the problems in the Canadian Health Care System weren't for emergency care like these two examples you're now using.
Don't cross your wires, it dishonest.
If you don't have health care in the US...you can't. Just go die instead!
uh. yeah. good $$$$ing point then. oh, wait, that would be the straw man you're so obsessed with.
Originally posted by alcimedes
uh. yeah. good $$$$ing point then. oh, wait, that would be the straw man you're so obsessed with.
You were referring an example of a waiting list and how some people died while on the list waiting for care. I made a point that without the list at all, someone without health care would just die anyway. That's not a straw man argument, it's a valid point.
Originally posted by alcimedes
your "point", or innuendo is that in the States, if you don't have health insurance you have no options available to you than to just keel over and die. or did i misread your post?
Anyone can walk into an emergency room if they're shot or having a heart attack. If you don't feel well, not everyone has an option, no.