Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - US life expactancy, health care, standard of living, etc

KMA-628 · 07-12-2004, 05:35 PM

highthief,

read the analogy entirely, it is not faulty. Also, compare healthcare expenses paid out by the Canadian gov't as compared to healthcare expenses paid out by the U.S. (I am referring to the percent of total budget), there are some interesting things to pull from those facts as well.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a longer wait to see a doctor in Canada for most procedures?

Obviously there is something wrong when people came to the U.S. for procedures and go to Canada for the prescriptions.

I also read that patients above the age of 55 that need diaysis (sp?) can't get it. I can't remember if that is Canada of the U.K.

I gave a specific example that shows how this has not worked and why it did not work.

Seriously, look at how medicare was created. Look at the model and the plan. Then look at the statistics. You will find that they back up my candy theory 100%--in regards to the U.S. Medicare cost the U.S. many, many times more than was originally anticipated, from the beginning. One of the main causes of this was that way more exams, reports, etc were done than needed to be. Why stop them. The patient gets them for free and the doctor and hospital make more money.

We are only speaking about the U.S. How come we spend a lot more per person on healthcare than Canada does with less coverage? The answer to that question will help you understand my point better.

This is all factual data, nothing is being made up or modified.

Brianna,

Bottom line, while your argument tugs at the heart, it is just not feasible. Throwing more money at the problem will not fix it. You wouldn't do it with your personal finances and you shouldn't expect your gov't to do the same thing. At some point, you have to close the pursestrings and come up with a different method of attack. Especially when the existing method fails miserably.

I want to spend some time with your "facts". That website hasn't really sold me, seems a littled skewed.

I would like to see a percentage that is substantiated by more than one source.

You can really mess with the statistics on something like this by simply changing the requirements. (i.e. In Denver, the percent "homeless" includes people that moved back home with their parents. They are in no way homeless, but the "statistics" count them as such causing the final number to be far from accurate and politically slanted).

I am just not comfortable with your source, yet. Doesn't mean that I won't, it just means I want to see more sources than just one that obviously has a motive to obscure the data.

07-12-2004, 05:35 PM	#79 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	highthief, read the analogy entirely, it is not faulty. Also, compare healthcare expenses paid out by the Canadian gov't as compared to healthcare expenses paid out by the U.S. (I am referring to the percent of total budget), there are some interesting things to pull from those facts as well. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a longer wait to see a doctor in Canada for most procedures? Obviously there is something wrong when people came to the U.S. for procedures and go to Canada for the prescriptions. I also read that patients above the age of 55 that need diaysis (sp?) can't get it. I can't remember if that is Canada of the U.K. I gave a specific example that shows how this has not worked and why it did not work. Seriously, look at how medicare was created. Look at the model and the plan. Then look at the statistics. You will find that they back up my candy theory 100%--in regards to the U.S. Medicare cost the U.S. many, many times more than was originally anticipated, from the beginning. One of the main causes of this was that way more exams, reports, etc were done than needed to be. Why stop them. The patient gets them for free and the doctor and hospital make more money. We are only speaking about the U.S. How come we spend a lot more per person on healthcare than Canada does with less coverage? The answer to that question will help you understand my point better. This is all factual data, nothing is being made up or modified. Brianna, Bottom line, while your argument tugs at the heart, it is just not feasible. Throwing more money at the problem will not fix it. You wouldn't do it with your personal finances and you shouldn't expect your gov't to do the same thing. At some point, you have to close the pursestrings and come up with a different method of attack. Especially when the existing method fails miserably. I want to spend some time with your "facts". That website hasn't really sold me, seems a littled skewed. I would like to see a percentage that is substantiated by more than one source. You can really mess with the statistics on something like this by simply changing the requirements. (i.e. In Denver, the percent "homeless" includes people that moved back home with their parents. They are in no way homeless, but the "statistics" count them as such causing the final number to be far from accurate and politically slanted). I am just not comfortable with your source, yet. Doesn't mean that I won't, it just means I want to see more sources than just one that obviously has a motive to obscure the data. __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.