Krugman Poll on Canadian Healthcare

[Cecilie1200]

You can site all the "personal experiences" you want to about various health care systems. There will always be someone with a contradictory opinion.

The only thing that you can take into account as factual material are the raw numbers, and the numbers say that among modern industrialized nations, countries with nationalized health care systems have longer life-spans and healthier citizenry in general.

Those are the FACTS. Everything that the politicians who have been bought out by private healthcare like to site are simply OPINIONS. And they are usually anonymous opinions (a friend of mine who lives up in canada says, or "Some" say).

Actually, "factual material" tells us that life expectancy has nothing to do with health care system in industrialized nations, and there is no "factual material" to suggest other countries necessarily have healthier citizenry, or that it's attributable to the health care system. All there is is conjecture and manipulation of statistics.

 

[Cecilie1200]

no I'm not....and nobody else should be either when you are citing a poll conducted on less than 5000 people on a media call list like it's a real indicator of how all Americans feel....... ABC - they should stick to T.V shows like Full House

Not satisfied with having fucked up your own country, you want to advocate others fuck up theirs. I guess you are a living example of how misery loves company.

That's hilarious coming from a tard who no doubt voted for Dubya twice.
Most Canadians would argue that having healthcare for everyone is not fucked up that's why we voted for it.

So go ahead and have it and shut up. We didn't come up there and try to tell YOU what health care system to have, so why do you feel the need to try to tell US what to do now? Talk about a tard.

 

[Coyote]

You can site all the "personal experiences" you want to about various health care systems. There will always be someone with a contradictory opinion.

The only thing that you can take into account as factual material are the raw numbers, and the numbers say that among modern industrialized nations, countries with nationalized health care systems have longer life-spans and healthier citizenry in general.

Those are the FACTS. Everything that the politicians who have been bought out by private healthcare like to site are simply OPINIONS. And they are usually anonymous opinions (a friend of mine who lives up in canada says, or "Some" say).

Actually, "factual material" tells us that life expectancy has nothing to do with health care system in industrialized nations, and there is no "factual material" to suggest other countries necessarily have healthier citizenry, or that it's attributable to the health care system. All there is is conjecture and manipulation of statistics.

What factual material?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not if you factor out the number of deaths due to homocide and car accident which are wildly higher in the US.

So now your againsnt the second amendment?

Feel free to provide a link to numbers that support that little theory of yours, cause it's complete BS.

And wouldn't a better healthcare system be better able to treat attempted homocide and motor vehicle accident victims? Thus less deaths. DUH.

You seem to be a very angry person. Perhaps you've been listening to too much FoxNews and Ruuuush Limbaugh for your own good. You might want to tone that down a bit before your head explodes from too much right-wing-nut-job brainwashing.

Reading for comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it? Did they have a special degree program in "wild-ass tangents" in your school?

 

[Cecilie1200]

High Risk Pregancies?

5x the cancer mortality rate?

LINK PLEASE, and no, again, opinion pieces do not count as valid source material.

Health Care in a Free Society: Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance | John Goodman | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

If you click the link to the policy analysis paper, it provides excellent breakdowns of all of the issues and arguments concerning health care in America, plus comparisons to various other countries.

It is a fact that the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than other industrialized nations in part because it does more to try to save high-risk pregnancies, which typically result in low birth weight babies. In addition, the United States counts EVERY birth in which the baby takes a breath outside the mother's body as a live birth, and many other nations do not. Since low birth weight is far and away the number one indicator of infant mortality in the first year of life, this means we are counting babies as having been born and subsequently dying, as opposed to stillbirths.

It is also a fact that if you have breast or prostate cancer, as well as a number of other life-threatening conditions, your chances of survival are much higher if you live in the US.

 

[Jay Canuck]

 

[Jay Canuck]

How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
How many Americans are happy with the healthcare they have?

Please do us all a favor and make the correct distinction between "health care" and "health insurance". All Americans have access to "health care" by law. "Health insurance" is something else entirely.

try reading the whole thread when you step into the conversation....that way you will know that I corrected myself on that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly

So, let me see if I have this straight.

The US beats Canada in ONE disease (cancer) by 3-4%? Wow, that sure proves your point that American health care is way better than Canadian...

And what's the reason for that? Early Detection! And what would help save even more lives through early detection? That's right, everyone having health insurance!

But aside from that, there is no good point to your entire argument, as no-one is currently suggesting full universal health-care in our government right now.

The current plan is to provide a public option as far as health insurance is concerned, to drive down prices, which have been steadily increasing over the past few decades, contrary to what free-market theory dictates should have happened.

Insofar as cancer is one of the top killers among diseases, I'd say it's saying a lot that we have a much higher survival rate. And no, detection is NOT the only reason for that. Although I'll admit it helps a lot that we don't have to wait in line for months just to get diagnostic tests the way Canadians do.

We also have better survival rates when it comes to premature babies, children with spina bifida and people with heart disease and chronic renal failure. This would be according to the Commonwealth Fund and Health Statistics Quarterly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, let me see if I have this straight.

The US beats Canada in ONE disease (cancer) by 3-4%? Wow, that sure proves your point that American health care is way better than Canadian...

And what's the reason for that? Early Detection! And what would help save even more lives through early detection? That's right, everyone having health insurance!

But aside from that, there is no good point to your entire argument, as no-one is currently suggesting full universal health-care in our government right now.

The current plan is to provide a public option as far as health insurance is concerned, to drive down prices, which have been steadily increasing over the past few decades, contrary to what free-market theory dictates should have happened.

Never mind. You are clearly too stupid to have a debate with. Have a nice day.

of course that extra 3-4% who survived cancer in the US had to pay for treatment and ended up homeless as a result.

Since you've been demanding links and proof for every word out of anyone else's mouth, I think it's time you prove this one. And I DO mean your ENTIRE statement that all the extra cancer survivors in the US ended up homeless.

I'll be waiting.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Never mind. You are clearly too stupid to have a debate with. Have a nice day.

of course that extra 3-4% who survived cancer in the US had to pay for treatment and ended up homeless as a result.

Since you've been demanding links and proof for every word out of anyone else's mouth, I think it's time you prove this one. And I DO mean your ENTIRE statement that all the extra cancer survivors in the US ended up homeless.

I'll be waiting.

that was called a joke - Joke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cecilie1200]

no I'm not denying some people who have the money to spend sometimes travel to other nations to recieve treatment from a Dr of their choice and that happens in your nation as well...but I fail to see what that has to do with your crumbling system that allows millions of it's own citizens to go with no coverage at all?

Please try to be more accurate.

Every single individual in the United States of America has healthcare.

Every one.

Even visitors.

Not everyone has insurance.

Inaccuracy is the hallmark of your posts.

if you don't have insurance wonder girl what happens?

Depends on why you don't have it. On one end, you pay for it yourself, because you have money. On the other end, you get medical services through a variety of clinics, hospitals, and programs for the indigent and poor.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Please try to be more accurate.

Every single individual in the United States of America has healthcare.

That is incorrect.

Every individual can receive EMERGENCY health care in life or death situations.

That is a very different animal.

That means that if you don't have health insurance, you probably won't be seeing a doctor in the early stages of a illness, only in the last stages of an illness, when it's too late.

Wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

if you don't have insurance wonder girl what happens?

I actually believe that yours is an honest question.

Judging by your level of sophistication, you are not aware that hospital emergency rooms will not turn you away. Insurance or no insurance.

There are also free clinics.

The financial argument about healthcare, is, in fact, due in large measure because of the costs to private hospitals and the system in general, of care to those who have no healthcare insurance and so use emergency rooms without recompense to same.

In the future, use the correct terminology: no insurance, not 'no healthcare.'

so everybody who goes to the emergency room in the U.S. without any insurance gets treated the same way as those who do and no one get's turned away? hmmmmm.......

Yes and yes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

so really you get the healthcare you can afford.

That's the way pretty much everything in life works. Fortunately, even the health care provided to the poor in the US is damned good. It may not be the Mayo Clinic, but most people in the US don't go to the Mayo Clinic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

uh Supergirl still waiting for your super answer....what happens if you don't have health insurance and you get sick or injured in the U.S?

She goes to the emergency room. No one in America is denied healthcare.

You are one stupid fuck!!!

I'm not speaking of just the emergency room Elmer....if you have been diagnosed with a serious disease/illness and you don't have insurance or your HMO decides it was a pre-existing condition and your denied coverage what happens to you?

The likelihood of your HMO "deciding" it was a pre-existing condition is very remote, so this is essentially just a scare tactic. In the event that you don't have health care coverage, you qualify for a number of programs already in existence for the poor and indigent, not the least of which would be Medicaid.

 

[Jay Canuck]

and your links to back up the massive generalities found in your statements?

 

[Cecilie1200]

do the elderly in the USA want to give up Medicare because that is Gov. run?.....how about vets?

of course I 'm not going to ask if those in congress dislike their coverage.

Congress doesn't have government-run health insurance. They have private health insurance. I know a number of veterans who think the VA is a pain in the ass, and seniors who feel the same way about Medicare. Certainly, many seniors did not want to be on Medicare when it was first implemented, but they and those who came after them were given no choice.

 

[Jay Canuck]

"I know a number of veterans who think the VA is a pain in the ass, and seniors who feel the same way about Medicare."

oh....you know people - well that settles it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
How many Americans are happy with the healthcare they have?

Please do us all a favor and make the correct distinction between "health care" and "health insurance". All Americans have access to "health care" by law. "Health insurance" is something else entirely.

try reading the whole thread when you step into the conversation....that way you will know that I corrected myself on that.

Having now read the entire thread, I can say that I don't believe you ever really did. In fact, I seem to recall you and others consistently trying to pretend that those without health insurance don't have health care, which is just a continuation of the same canard.

 

[Cecilie1200]

of course that extra 3-4% who survived cancer in the US had to pay for treatment and ended up homeless as a result.

Since you've been demanding links and proof for every word out of anyone else's mouth, I think it's time you prove this one. And I DO mean your ENTIRE statement that all the extra cancer survivors in the US ended up homeless.

I'll be waiting.

that was called a joke - Joke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, humor requires a grain of truth to actually work. What you did was called "flippant bullshit".

If you have nothing real to say on a subject, try not saying anything.