Trump to halt 'massive' ObamaCare subsidies

Frederick

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
2,368
Reaction score
1,494
Location
Oklahoma City
Remember when the Prime Minister flew down here to get heart surgery? Pepperidge Farm remembers...

and yet, Canada has world-famous cardiovascular treatment at the University of Ottawa, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Ottawa_Heart_Institute

One of the top universities in the world, which has pioneered several great innovations in their field.

Also, their outcomes appear to show a different story.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/get_file.php3/id/25/file/OECDInFigures2006-2007.pdf

Life Expectancy

Canada

82.14 years

USA

78.74 years

Infant Mortality

USA

6.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births

Canada

5.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

a ranking by the World Health Organization of health care system performance among 191 member nations, published in 2000, ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th, and the overall health of Canada 35th to the American 72nd.

Here's a good comparison;

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Health

By most measures, Canada's health system is either equivilant or superior to the U.S. one. at less cost and more coverage.

that's not to say Canada's healthcare system is the best in the world amongst nations with universal healthcare. it could always be improved upon. we should take notes from those countries with superior outcomes to Canada. but given how similar we are as countries, it seems like we're getting the short end of the straw. paying more for less.

Infact, the WHO ranks the following top 10 countries for the quality of their health system;

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
...

30 Canada
...

37 USA
 

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
27,391
Reaction score
22,915
Location
Tulsa
North Korea? Venezuela? Cuba? :anyone:

Perhaps we should just consider outsourcing all our medical needs to Mexico? After all, no one turns to Canada when we need to economically handle our lawn or roofing needs, right? Come to think of it, perhaps the OSA socialists could explain how Canada's healthcare system is so superior, that medical tourism TO Canada is off the chain?

I had to look it up..... 50K per year. Doesn't bode well for junior.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/canadian-medical-tourism_us_5949b405e4b0db570d3778ff
 

Frederick

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
2,368
Reaction score
1,494
Location
Oklahoma City
I had to look it up..... 50K per year. Doesn't bode well for junior.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/canadian-medical-tourism_us_5949b405e4b0db570d3778ff

http://web.mnstate.edu/robertsb/390/A revolution in healthcare Medicine meets the marketplace.pdf

A report of McKinsey and Co. from 2008 found that between 60,000 and 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care.[69] The same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006)

Hmm. For such a great system we have, doesn't seem like a lot of Americans want to stick around to enjoy it.

Doesn't bode well for the OSA corporate bordello supporters, i guess.
 

YukonGlocker

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
993
Location
OKC
Evidenced-based? LOL Not in the standards of higher learning, rather what you previously posted wouldn't hold up in the scientific community. However, in the terms of what your boy said....

So if one actually reads what he posted, it refutes his claims of efficiency in the SECOND paragraph, stating that an apples to apples comparison is nearly impossible. This should appeal to you.... given you like "evidence."

http://mforall.net/files/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

Not to mention this is 11 years old, and the logistics and administrative environment has changed dramatically since then.

He then stated Medicaid was efficient.... sorry BIG guy.... that doesn't work either. He then goes on to claim that his family was poor but couldn't get insurance? I guess Medicaid isn't so efficient? Try finding a doctor that will take it now days.

But since you need evidence.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/15/c...medicaid-waste-worse-than-official-estimates/

Nevermind neither of you could apologize for the VA enough to justify it.

Thanks for playing though.
You're assuming the proposed "Medicare-for-all" plans would run exactly like Medicare currently runs, and the administrative/bloated-middle-man-insurance costs would remain, which are blatantly false assumptions. I posted the details in previous threads, backed up with evidence, and you ignored it there as well. Strike 1.

And you continue to assume that the proposed "Medicare-for-all" plans would operate like the current VA does, which is laughably incorrect. This point has been addressed in prior threads as well, with evidence that details why it's such a ridiculous strawman, yet you continue the with the "but the VA...but the VA" tirade despite the fact that the proposed plans would be nothing like it. If you're building a strawman with the VA (which is all you're doing), then either (a) you're being totally disingenuous, or (b) know nothing about the proposed plans. Given that those details have been posted before, and you commented on them before, I'm going with (a). Strike 2.

Universal heathcare in most industrialized countries has both (a) less cost in total, including taxes and all costs to individuals, and (b) better health outcomes for the entire society. Mountains of evidence to robustly support (a) and (b) have been posted across multiple threads here. If you intend to be effective in convincing anyone that we should stick with privatized health-care, you'll have to refute those points with evidence. Strike 3.

Thanks for playing, sport.
 

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
76,609
Reaction score
39,996
Location
Ponca City Ok
You're assuming the proposed "Medicare-for-all" plans would run exactly like Medicare currently runs, and the administrative/bloated-middle-man-insurance costs would remain, which are blatantly false assumptions. I posted the details in previous threads, backed up with evidence, and you ignored it there as well. Strike 1.

And you continue to assume that the proposed "Medicare-for-all" plans would operate like the current VA does, which is laughably incorrect. This point has been addressed in prior threads as well, with evidence that details why it's such a ridiculous strawman, yet you continue the with the "but the VA...but the VA" tirade despite the fact that the proposed plans would be nothing like it. If you're building a strawman with the VA (which is all you're doing), then either (a) you're being totally disingenuous, or (b) know nothing about the proposed plans. Given that those details have been posted before, and you commented on them before, I'm going with (a). Strike 2.

Universal heathcare in most industrialized countries has both (a) less cost in total, including taxes and all costs to individuals, and (b) better health outcomes for the entire society. Mountains of evidence to robustly support (a) and (b) have been posted across multiple threads here. If you intend to be effective in convincing anyone that we should stick with privatized health-care, you'll have to refute those points with evidence. Strike 3.

Thanks for playing, sport.

Have you ever personally been a patient of the VA?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom