Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
bush_cheney2004

Obama Best for Canada?

Recommended Posts

Living until 80 with three years spent waiting for a hip replacement sucks.

Not getting the hip replacement at all because your insurance company has decided that your bad hips were a pre-existing condition sucks even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not getting the hip replacement at all because your insurance company has decided that your bad hips were a pre-existing condition sucks even more.

If you can't get 'em...you can't afford 'em! Health care is not a right....not even in Canada. But if I do have the cash and/or insurance, I will get those new hips one helluva lot faster in the USA than I would in Canada.

Canada's system is great for those who want to do their patriotic duty and suffer equally.

You still haven't explained why all those Canadians come south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It certainly isn't perfect, but infant mortality and life expectancy are the best indicators of results.
No, they're not.

It's nonsensical to measure the quality of an entire health system on a single statistic - least of all a statistic that is difficult to measure and subject to gaming. (Yes, I know. According to "official" statistics, Cuba has a lower infant mortality than than America. For all I know, Cuba also has a higher per capita number of toilets too - if you have a broad enough definition of toilet.)

Life expectancy? So many factors well beyond the control of a health system determine longevity. On average, the life expectancy of US astronauts and presidents is not high compared to ordinary Canadians. Does that mean that the astronauts and presidents have poor health care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can't get 'em...you can't afford 'em! Health care is not a right....not even in Canada. But if I do have the cash and/or insurance, I will get those new hips one helluva lot faster in the USA than I would in Canada.

Canada's system is great for those who want to do their patriotic duty and suffer equally.

You still haven't explained why all those Canadians come south.

Bad hips hugh? Goes to show you that some old mutts have hip displacia from inbreeding. Would have been better if your grandfather breed outside the clan...just joking...me myself - I would rather hobble along on naturally worn out hips then to have my bones sawed through and some metalic thing stuck in my body held together by dental cement....oooh...try not walking as much and go easy on the pop and whiskey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is infant mortality subject to gaming? Last I checked it was a rather black and white statistic: the baby is either breathing or it isn't.

And the entire American population is not in a high-risk profession like astronauts, etc. The U.S. population, like any other, spans the full range of human experience. True, their mortality rates might be higher because of that vile corn sugar they seem to put in all their food, but a good healthcare system would neutralize that and even encourage positive lifestyle choices to prevent illness.

Simply put, a healthcare system shows results with a healthy population. The U.S. system is better than most, but for the money they pay, it should be the best of them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You still haven't explained why all those Canadians come south.

Because there is a lot of waste in the U.S. system. Too many doctors and not enough people with coverage. Resources are available because so many don't have the insurance to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....The U.S. system is better than most, but for the money they pay, it should be the best of them all.

Why? That is not the objective of the US system. Fully 15% of GDP is comprised of "health care", but many of the products and services have nothing to do with your advertised goals. Excess US capacity (also used by Canada) and n-tiers (including numerous state and federal programs) co-exist. Choice is good.

There is no best...and no way to measure it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because there is a lot of waste in the U.S. system. Too many doctors and not enough people with coverage. Resources are available because so many don't have the insurance to use them.

That doesn't make any sense. Why do some Canadians choose to spend their own money on American health care services and products when the exact same procedures are covered by the CHA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't make any sense. Why do some Canadians choose to spend their own money on American health care services and products when the exact same procedures are covered by the CHA?

Because if you're rich in Canada, it doesn't matter. You get the same treatment. If you're rich in the U.S., you can enjoy five-star treatment. That's the way the system works here, and that's the way the majority likes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because if you're rich in Canada, it doesn't matter. You get the same treatment. If you're rich in the U.S., you can enjoy five-star treatment. That's the way the system works here, and that's the way the majority likes it.

Still don't follow your reasoning....rich and not-so-rich Canadians go abroad for treatment to get better/faster services. Having that extra capacity costs more. My cat gets faster care than most Canadians.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My cat gets faster care than most Canadians.

It gets faster care than you do, and all your fellow citizens too.

Why do Americans come to TO for cancer care? Why are some US kids sent to Sick Kids? I dont get it.

Sadly, you keep on with the 3 yr waiting lists that supposedly abound here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
How is infant mortality subject to gaming? Last I checked it was a rather black and white statistic: the baby is either breathing or it isn't.

I'm not defending our healthcare system by any means, and I think healthcare for all Americans will be a high priority with the voters come November, but statistics alone don't always tell the whole story. The WHO sets guidelines for what's considered a live birth and the U.S. follows those guidelines, but not every nation does.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life - such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat - should be counted as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition. But many other countries do not.

Switzerland doesn't count the death of very small babies, less than 30 centimeters (11.8 inches) in length, as a live birth, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, a former visiting fellow at Harvard's Center for Population and Developmental Studies. So comparing the 1998 infant mortality rates for Switzerland and the U.S. (4.8 and 7.2,respectively, per 1,000 live births) is comparing apples and oranges.

In other countries, such as Italy, definitions vary depending on where you are in the country.

Eberstadt notes "underreporting also seems apparent in the proportion of infant deaths different countries report for the first 24 hours after birth. In Australia, Canada and the United States, over one-third of all infant deaths are reported to take place in the first day."

In contrast, "Less than one-sixth of France's infant deaths are reported to occur in the first day of life. In Hong Kong, such deaths account for only one-twenty-fifth of all infant deaths."

As UNICEF has noted, "Under the Soviet-era definition ... infants who are born at less than 28 weeks, weighing less than 1,000 grams [35.3 ounces] or measuring less than 35 centimeters [13.8 inches] are not counted as live births if they die within seven days. This Soviet definition still predominates in many [formerly Soviet] countries. ... The communist system stressed the need to keep infant mortality low, and hospitals and medical staff faced penalties if they reported increases. As a result, they sometimes reported the deaths of babies in their care as miscarriages or stillbirths."

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It gets faster care than you do, and all your fellow citizens too.

Why do Americans come to TO for cancer care? Why are some US kids sent to Sick Kids? I dont get it.

Sadly, you keep on with the 3 yr waiting lists that supposedly abound here.

Because it works....you can site any American-goes-to-TO story you want, but it pales against the reality of Canadians and provinces spending far more time and money in the American health care system. The irony is delicious...a single payer universal system being bailed out by the excess services capacity of the EVIL for-profit system.

My cat sends his best regards while you wait in a much longer line than either of us. But at least the wait time is shared equally, right? (Except for your fellow citizens voting with their feet.)

Ding ding! Two tier is a reality in Canada, but it is blasphemy to admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The irony is delicious...a single payer universal system being bailed out by the excess services capacity of the EVIL for-profit system.

I suppose schadenfreude is something you relish. That is too bad.

Yours is not an "evil" for profit , I certainly dont know why you would post that it is.

But when the best Doctor or treatment is here, and people from all over the world come for that, why is trying to slag that a source of enjoyment for you? The US has some of the best treatment and Doctors, thus people go there.

Whats the difference?

Do people gloat about the lack of services for certain treatments when nationals from the States or other countries come here? I would hope not.

My cat sends his best regards while you wait in a much longer line than either of us. But at least the wait time is shared equally, right? (Except for your fellow citizens voting with their feet.)

Ding ding! Two tier is a reality in Canada, but it is blasphemy to admit it.

Sadly you are wrong. We dont wait in lines like you think. And coming from someone who has had to use the medical system and been in a hospital , at one point daily, for three years, I assure you I have some first hand knowledge.

Triple bypass, three days. I could go on. I needed to see a sports physician for a bum knee, one phone call and I was in to see him in three days, could have been two, but I wasnt available. The Cleveland Clinic. Funny thing is, freinds visiting from New York this weekend, astonished I could get in so soon. They are on a waiting list. I dont recall gloating at their experience. It would be shameful to do so.

As for two tier, in any system that can and does occur. Its called ":knowing someone" .

Edited by guyser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose schadenfreude is something you relish. That is too bad.

Yours is not an "evil" for profit , I certainly dont know why you would post that it is.

But when the best Doctor or treatment is here, and people from all over the world come for that, why is trying to slag that a source of enjoyment for you? The US has some of the best treatment and Doctors, thus people go there.

Whats the difference?

The difference is that I champion more such choices over your legislated limitations to market based access, insurance, and procedures.

Do people gloat about the lack of services for certain treatments when nationals from the States or other countries come here? I would hope not.

Yes...you just did.

Sadly you are wrong. We dont wait in lines like you think. And coming from someone who has had to use the medical system and been in a hospital , at one point daily, for three years, I assure you I have some first hand knowledge.

Hmmm...then I suppose the mandated provincial wait-time web sites are a figment of my imagination! PM Harper wants all provinces to offer one stop shopping for wait time performance reporting.....who will win the waiting game?

Triple bypass, three days. I could go on. I needed to see a sports physician for a bum knee, one phone call and I was in to see him in three days, could have been two, but I wasnt available. The Cleveland Clinic. Funny thing is, freinds visiting from New York this weekend, astonished I could get in so soon. They are on a waiting list. I dont recall gloating at their experience. It would be shameful to do so.

Do tell....they have other choices not available in Canada's official medical gulag. Run for the border!

As for two tier, in any system that can and does occur. Its called ":knowing someone" .

No, it's called supply and demand. Health care is not a right, not even your bypass surgery. But don't get me wrong, it is always good sport to bust balls over CanAm health care systems. I hear that Hillary is going to make another run at it...tally ho!

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Health care is not a right, not even your bypass surgery.

That's what the debate ultimately comes down to. Some will say "yes, it is," and then you could both go all night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what the debate ultimately comes down to. Some will say "yes, it is," and then you could both go all night.

Saying "yes it is" still does not make it so. One cannot demand a triple organ transplant as a state sponsored right. In Canada (or the USA), it is logistically impossible to provide such a right to all who would qualify.

Health care is not a right because it would also violate the rights of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

This is interesting:

Link

In the hunt for superdelegates who could determine the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are looking north to Toronto.

Seems to me delegates who live in Canada could/would be influenced by Canadians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is interesting:

Link

In the hunt for superdelegates who could determine the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are looking north to Toronto.

Seems to me delegates who live in Canada could/would be influenced by Canadians.

It's "one for one" for the American delegates living in Canada, so that doesn't tell us much.

The Obama phenomenon is not about Obama as much as it's a statement against Bush and everything he has stood for. Nobody is voting for Obama because of his policies, as nobody knows yet what they really are. Hillary's connection to politics of the past, will be her demise and not because she is incapable or did a hell of lot wrong. People want a complete disconnect from politics of the last 8 years and that's what it's all about in a nutshell. The Rebublicans are merely going through the motions and have no chance whatsoever of being re elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Rebublicans are merely going through the motions and have no chance whatsoever of being re elected.

It's looking more and more like that every day. I think McCain looks a whole lot more like Bob Dole than Obama looks like McGovern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's looking more and more like that every day. I think McCain looks a whole lot more like Bob Dole than Obama looks like McGovern.

True. We have not seen the likes of Obama before. The only thing I can liken it to is that John Kennedy was a Catholic and not expected to win on that fact and Obama is African American and would not be expected to win on that fact. It almost makes ya think that the people DO actually have some power after all. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's looking more and more like that every day. I think McCain looks a whole lot more like Bob Dole than Obama looks like McGovern.

It's not about "re-election"....neither nominated candidate will have been president. Bob Dole ran againt an incumbent president. Just watching from across the border can lead to a false understanding of what is yet to come.

Most Canadians have never experienced the direct democracy of voting for the head of state. It is not a forgone conclusion until the dealing is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not about "re-election"....neither nominated candidate will have been president. Bob Dole ran againt an incumbent president. Just watching from across the border can lead to a false understanding of what is yet to come.

Most Canadians have never experienced the direct democracy of voting for the head of state. It is not a forgone conclusion until the dealing is done.

I'm talking about the Republicans being re elected, they are in office right now are they not? Learn Canuck speak will ya?

Good Lord, we read all the same stuff you do, listen to the same speaches and the same talking heads. Talk about condescending. :angry:

Edited by Carinthia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm talking about the Republicans being re elected, they are in office right now are they not? Learn Canuck speak will ya?

Good Lord, we read all the same stuff you do, listen to the same speaches and the same talking heads. Talk about condescending. :angry:

Then be angry... the USA is not Canada. I would never pretend to know the workings or experience of your election system. Several posters (including you) have demonstrated an unfamiliarity with such things in America(closed vs. open primaries, Veep selection, etc.) regardless of what "stuff" you read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then be angry... the USA is not Canada. I would never pretend to know the workings or experience of your election system. Several posters (including you) have demonstrated an unfamiliarity with such things in America(closed vs. open primaries, Veep selection, etc.) regardless of what "stuff" you read.

I have learned a massive amount about the U.S. elections throughout this campaign, although I will say that Einsteins Theory of Relativity is easier to understand than caucuses, primaries and who gets to vote what and where etc. The rules and regulations of how an election is conducted have nothing to do with who we think will win in November. The people go in to a booth and mark an x on a ballot, the end.

I have followed with avid interest, how the U.S. has been run thoughout the past 7 years. On that basis, as well as the fact that McCain goes against what the majority of Americans want (the war ended, a vastly improved health care system, no tax reductions for the rich) I am sticking to my story that the Republicans don't stand a chance. McCain is a very old 72 years old and out of touch with reality, right along side of the current regime. Oh, and lets not forget that his own party doesn't trust him either.

Edited by Carinthia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...