Subtard is an idiot. A misleading one, at that.

/How much do you get paid to spread FUD?

This is the Daily Mail. They normally push for letting people die in the streets.

What they pulled on smokers was bullshiat. You'd be pissed if you paid into the system and then all of a sudden you had to quit or not be covered. Mick Jagger is farked.

Vote Saxon!

Life Expectancy at Birth in the UK: 78.5
Life Expectancy at Birth in the US: 77.5

Expenditure on Health, percapita PPP US$, UK: 2508
Expenditure on Health, percapita PPP US$, US: 6102


To answer the submitter, I'd say, "quite well, thanks."

If there were a God subby would be stricken with a painful, treatable illness shortly after losing coverage and then be uninsurable because of a pre-existing condition. Nothing personal.

If there were a God subby would be stricken with a painful, treatable illness shortly after losing coverage and then be uninsurable because of a pre-existing condition

Situations like that are why we've got a second amendment.

Weaver95
Situations like that are why we've got a second amendment.

The right to bear arms means that we can, what, shoot insurance providers for doing precisely what their own business plan allows?

Do tell me how the American health care paradise is working!

inthejungle

You can't compare the price the pay with what the "average" american pays. We choose to spend the amount we do. We go to the doctor much more often and we have much more un-needed surguries performed. It's not a fair comparison.

You could, however, take their average income and divide their healthcare expenditure into it and then do the same with ours. Guess who spend a larger portion of their income on healthcare?

Guess who spend a larger portion of their income on healthcare?

Yeah but even though healthcare costs more in the US we get a higher medical error rate so it works out.

The right to bear arms means that we can, what, shoot insurance providers for doing precisely what their own business plan allows?

well if you can't out-lobby the health insurance companies then you might was well give them a nice .45 caliber counter opinion. Hey, if you're dying and they won't pay for your treatment you might as well go ahead and make your displeasure known.

bradkanus 2007-06-25 05:31:56 PM
What they pulled on smokers was bullshiat. You'd be pissed if you paid into the system and then all of a sudden you had to quit or not be covered. Mick Jagger is farked.

What did they pull on smokers? I hadn't heard that. Can you provide a link that isn't a lying tabloid like the Mail?

bradkanus
You can't compare the price the pay with what the "average" american pays. We choose to spend the amount we do. We go to the doctor much more often and we have much more un-needed surguries performed. It's not a fair comparison.

You say this as if it were a good thing.

You could, however, take their average income and divide their healthcare expenditure into it and then do the same with ours. Guess who spend a larger portion of their income on healthcare?

I did just that. See the figures of "per capita PPP US$"?

we have a higher medical error rate? really? That's not what the statistics say! Undiagnosed health problems are so bad in canada in and the UK they are willing to pay big bucks to come to America to be diagnosed. After all, we are the leader in medical science breakthroughs. It's that whole "free market" system driving ingenuity thing that has made the US the big dick on the porn set.

bradkanus 2007-06-25 05:50:13 PM
We go to the doctor much more often

I doubt that very much.

bradkanus

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/medical_errors.html

That's what these statistics say.

I note that you don't provide any statistics, you merely say "it's not what the statistics say".

bradkanus
After all, we are the leader in medical science breakthroughs.

I hate to break this to you, but that's not true. We do quite well. But the Germans, British, Italians, and, yes, the French make a handy share of the new discoveries as well.

Remember the guy who isolated HIV? French guy. Bayer? German. I could go on.

bradkanus 2007-06-25 05:57:31 PM
we have a higher medical error rate? really? That's not what the statistics say! Undiagnosed health problems are so bad in canada in and the UK they are willing to pay big bucks to come to America to be diagnosed.

It's probably happened a handful of well publicised times, but it's incredibly rare. it's just one of those myths that the Americans like to believe. The vast majority of people get good service from the NHS.

bradkanus
bradkanus
average income of an American is way higher than that of brit. So that 6,000+ per person hurts a lot less.

You would be right if the US per capita GDP were thrice the UK's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

United States 44,190 2006
United Kingdom 39,213 2005

So, yeah, not really a factor of 3, is it? Start going with the statistics, THEN go to the ideology.

jay_vee Uh no - many foriegners come here just to get into studies to treat their diseases because of the sheer number that are conducted in the united states. Our government's expenditure on health care dwarfs the UK's and we don't even have socailized medicine!

besides, what are you biatching about. If you are too poor to afford health insurance the United state government will provide it for you. You just have to get off your lazy ass and fill out the forms. Old people? medicare. Kids? medicaid and plethora of state run programs like CHIPs in Texas. We have socialized medicine and americans hate it so much we won't even join the programs. Do you think that our government provided healthcare will be better when there is no private industry? No, it will be just as shiatty as what we have now, but probably worse since a lot of private companies administer the government programs now.

any questions?

inthejungle that's GDP, not personal income. That measures "production" not "intake of cash."

keep trying.

bradkanus

You've kind of been spitting out rhetoric without supporting facts.

Then you've kind of ignored the facts - like the consumer affairs report on higher medical error rates.

This somewhat undermines your crebility.

many foriegners

You keep saying this, but I see no figures. Are you just spouting things that you've been told but really only apply to a handful of people, or are there really studies showing a significant percent of people with these diseases doing it?

And I really don't care what you do with healthcare in your country. Keep making the shareholders more important than the patients. It doesn't bother me at all.

Weaver95: Hey, if you're dying and they won't pay for your treatment you might as well go ahead and make your displeasure known.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

...and it's something how the people who just love our system are overlooking the fact that their blessed insurer's med formulary works exactly the same way as this detestable policy does, except apparently in the UK one is actually receiving health coverage whereas here sick people have to fend for themselves.

tigger I wasn't going to embarass you by pointing out that your "stats" are based on a SURVEY and not medical records. They simply asked 7,000 people world wide (6 billion people - you do the math) about their experiences - hardly scientific.

What you submitted was the equivalent of a political poll - just like the ones that had Kerry beating bush by 4 points the day before the election. They are never very accurate, espicially when you only interview 7,000 people out of a possible 6 billion.

jay_vee "many foriegners" I live in El Paso. right now there are no less a few hundred foriegners waiting in the emergency room of our county hospital. The kicker? the country they come from has socialized medicine. If the system was that good I don't think we'd have 12 million mexicans with access to free healthcare back home tracking across the desert with a granola bar and some piss water.

Do you want to get started on Detriot's booming boob examination business? Seems like Candadian women are tired of waiting to see if they are dying of breast cancer.

...and it's something how the people who just love our system are overlooking the fact that their blessed insurer's med formulary works exactly the same way as this detestable policy does, except apparently in the UK one is actually receiving health coverage whereas here sick people have to fend for themselves

I always like listening to people wearing $2000 italian silk suits and designer leather shoes tell me how they're going to solve health care issues for 'the poor'. I always wonder if they realize they're an asshat or if they're just completely unaware of reality.

It's a moot point. Health care legislation won't be decided by you or me. A bunch of lobbyists will go into a locked room with a bunch of politicans and when they come out they'll have a health care plan. It probably won't work for us, but it'll be the plan we'll have to follow. And those nice people in the expensive suits will tell us that it's for the best.

So again, no figures, just waiting rooms full of Mexicans. And you think Mexico is comparable to the UK, or Canada? You won't find waiting rooms full of Brits in the US.

What about all the people going to India or Thailand for heart surgery? They must have a much better health system, by your reckoning.

bradkanus: If you are too poor to afford health insurance the United state government will provide it for you. You just have to get off your lazy ass and fill out the forms.

That is such, SUCH bullshiat.

bradkanus: If you are too poor to afford health insurance the United state government will provide it for you. You just have to get off your lazy ass and fill out the forms.

That is such, SUCH bullshiat.

No, that's basically the truth. And if you don't get the answer you like, just sue the state welfare system (did you know there are actually lawyers who specialize in that?) and force them to do what you want.

Supersally, not bullshiat. We have programs for everyone. here in Texas they are begging people to sign up on the radio and TV all day long. Our CHIPs program (Children's Health Insurance Program) is running 250,000 kids low. People aren't signing up.

Heck, go to Thomason Hospital in El Paso. it's a county hospital and up until a few months ago they had no method on sight in which they could charge someone for service. They didn't ask for valid forms of ID (they are not immigration officers, they are doctors!). You give any name you wanted and the address and they'd send the bill there. Guess what - nobody pays.

They beg the people to fill out a governmental medical assistance form so they (they hospital) can at least go to the government and get paid through them.

Your asleep if you don't think there's plenty of free health care in the US. That's why our a insurance premiums are so high - we are paying for all those who choose not to.

it's not just tort reform folks, it's the millions of american receiving start of the art medical care for free in the US.

inTheJungle: Life Expectancy at Birth in the UK: 78.5
Life Expectancy at Birth in the US: 77.5

Expenditure on Health, percapita PPP US$, UK: 2508
Expenditure on Health, percapita PPP US$, US: 6102

Lies, damned lies, and statistics?

I'm no statistician, but I can see a few problems with that overview.
As for money spent, that's difficult to judge without seeing exactly what you get for that money. And as someone here already pointed out, some Americans may pay extra for an elective procedure that is not covered by insurance; dental braces, for instance, or various medical (but cosmetic) skin therapies.

As far as life expectancy goes, there are many factors involved. For instance, the US has a larger immigrant population than just about any nation on earth. Many of these people come from places where the health care is minimal-to-nonexistant, meaning that some of them have untreated problems or poor health. That, along with our country's famous penchant for fast food, most likely skews the life expectancy numbers in a manner that has nothing at all to do with our overall quality of care.

Look, I don't know enough about the UK's health care system to praise or denounce it, but I do know a number of people who've come to this country from Canada and the UK for medical treatment. Anecdotal though it may be, it's still something that should give blanket defenders of total socialized medicine pause.

Those of you who think that Americans don't know what they're talking about regarding nationalized health care... are probably right.

But again, explain that to my Canadian friends who tell me all manner of grim stories about the health care system there and how they're so much better off medicine-wise in the US. I recall remarking to my Canadian aunt how I wished that we had nationalized health care here in the US, and she was horrified.

Another vote for Saxon.

SuperSally: That is such, SUCH bullshiat.

No it's not. I've tried it. Granted, the forms are all in Spanish these days...

/Absolutely serious.
//Not racist. Just stating what I saw.
///They had to go searching for English language versions.
////doesn't care one way or the other.
//Explosive slashy hemorrhage!

When I lived in Canada the medical care was exceptional.

FarkingUpTheWrongTree 2007-06-25 06:48:08 PM

But again, explain that to my Canadian friends who tell me all manner of grim stories about the health care system there and how they're so much better off medicine-wise in the US. I recall remarking to my Canadian aunt how I wished that we had nationalized health care here in the US, and she was horrified.

Everybody has second hand stories about problems with their health care system. Americans too. I can't speak for Canada, but in the UK you'd be very hard pushed to find someone who thinks it should be privatised more than it has been. The bits that have (hospital cleaning and dental for instance) have been total disasters.

Here's some stats from the May 2002 issue of Health Affairs journal:

- 60% of US hospitals surveyed had treated non-resident Canadians in the past year
- the most frequently used services were MRIs and ophthalmologic procedures, particularly cataract surgery

According to the CBC, only 11.4% of family doctors are accepting new patients. It took me 5 months to find a new doctor after my previous one retired in 2000.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/06/22/to-doctor20060622.html

bradkanus

Your asleep if you don't think there's plenty of free health care in the US. That's why our a insurance premiums are so high - we are paying for all those who choose not to

And I think you're asleep if you think that free health care is available to all who can't afford it. Newsflash: There is a ridiculously large amount of folks who don't qualify for free assistance (Medicaid etc.) but at the same time can't afford health insurance. Sure there's health care for the poorest of the poor, but it's barely quality care (mainly because so few doctors will put up with the hassle of being Medicaid providers) and it doesn't even remotely cover all those who need health insurance but can't afford it.

bradkanus: we are paying for all those who choose not to.

I'm not sure that "choose" is the word that applies here.

bradkanus
inthejungle that's GDP, not personal income. That measures "production" not "intake of cash."

keep trying.


Very well, GNI (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf):

United States 43,560
United Kingdom 37,740

You have repeatedly been proven wrong with raw numbers. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you do a little more research.

FarkingUpTheWrongTree
Lies, damned lies, and statistics?

I'm no statistician, but I can see a few problems with that overview.
As for money spent, that's difficult to judge without seeing exactly what you get for that money. And as someone here already pointed out, some Americans may pay extra for an elective procedure that is not covered by insurance; dental braces, for instance, or various medical (but cosmetic) skin therapies.

People do that in other countries as well. This is a common misconception among those who defend our lamentably wasteful health system.


As far as life expectancy goes, there are many factors involved. For instance, the US has a larger immigrant population than just about any nation on earth. Many of these people come from places where the health care is minimal-to-nonexistant, meaning that some of them have untreated problems or poor health. That, along with our country's famous penchant for fast food, most likely skews the life expectancy numbers in a manner that has nothing at all to do with our overall quality of care.

Well, the immigrant problem is dealt with by the fact that the statistic measures life expectancy at birth, by definition being for people born in the US.

Moreover, it's just not true that the US has more immigrants per capita than the rest of the world. Canada, Australia, Austria, Israel, Singapore, many developed countries with better health care than we do have many more immigrants per capita. Others, like Germany, come damn close. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population )

This is a common misconception among people who think that the US is somehow special.


Look, I don't know enough about the UK's health care system to praise or denounce it, but I do know a number of people who've come to this country from Canada and the UK for medical treatment. Anecdotal though it may be, it's still something that should give blanket defenders of total socialized medicine pause.

No, it's precisely the oppose. We should not use anecdotal evidence to question statistics, we should use statistics to confront anecdotal evidence. And the statistics show very clearly that the United States pays about three times per capita more than the UK for health care, and our outcomes are worse. This should give blanket defenders of the American health care system pause. Unless they are ideologues.

mmmmm, I smell rationing.

Just remember, a visit to the ICU isn't free, and that's how a fair bit the US population ends up dying.

When all the fat-ass boomers start to come into the hospital for their bypasses and dialysis and chemo treatments, they're going to get them, and it's going to bankrupt us all. It won't matter if it's private insurance, or the goverment, or people paying cash--because it's going to cost an assload of money no matter how we try to pay for it.

Because everybody feels they have the absolute RIGHT to squeezing out that shiatty last six months of life.

Even when grandpa or grandma would rather just die, their families go all Schaivo on the hospitals.

Hospice care and euthanasia FTW.

The Daily Mail is evil. At least the Sun, Star and Sport don't try and pretend to be proper newspapers.

I'll be amazed if they didn't find a way to blame this on illegal immigrants or tie it to the death of Princess Diana.

America already has socialized medicine, there's just no preventative care.

which is dumbassery if you ask me.

Tigger: Yeah but even though healthcare costs more in the US we get a higher medical error rate so it works out.

We also have a higher infant mortality rate than most countries, so it helps to keep the workload light for pediatricians.

timmy_the_tooth: America already has socialized medicine, there's just no preventative care.

This.

Health Insurance is socialized medicine, but the bad form of socialized medicine.

The costs are socialized, but the profits are privatized.

ten_of_spades: the most frequently used services were MRIs and ophthalmologic procedures, particularly cataract surgery

Funny, I've had both an MRI and laser surgery to fix a vitreous tear in the last two years here in that debbil Canada. I was booked and had both procedures within two weeks of my family doc making the appointment, and when it came to the laser, I went into the hospital for a screening. The opthamolgist diagosed two tears and said "You want to have it now?" I said I thought there was a wait of a couple of months, he said "Yeah, I'm not busy today, it only takes five minutes." Zap zap, outta there, just had to sit in the shade for two hours so I could drive home after my pupils went back to normal. And I'm not a sickie, I don't go to the front of any line.

Total cost for all of it, just like the total for the births and post-natal care of my two kids = $2.25 for a couple cups of hospital coffee while I was killing time. But yeah, socialized medicine is teh EVIL.