Good piece on the Potential Problems

[Guest MikeSC]

If it wasn't better, they wouldn't travel here for care. They'd go elsewhere. Our specialists are the best in the world and if we decide to go the gov't health care route, that will cease being the case.

If people can't afford them it doesn't matter if they're the best. Also, what about primary care?

 

 

 

People clearly can afford them as, well, they are still practicing. Well, OB/Gyn's are being run out of practice, but most specialists are doing just fine.

We also have a more varied and large population, with many people from countires with poor health care (thus, they do not know much about such things as prenatal care).

Other countries have immigrants, too.

Not close to the numbers here.

And the population is so varied because of social inequalities and economic disparity--symptoms of the type of thinking that has caused the health care situation to become what it has.

It's odd that the countries with command economies have underperformed to such a startling degree historically.

 

As Stephen pointed out, follow the money. If the people with money to burn come here for treatment, it indicates a high level of quality. And, unlike in many countries, long waits for surgeries just simply do not happen.

Why are you trying to explain away these bad health indicators?  Can't we just acknowledge that it's bad and something needs to be done about it?

Our system is imperfect. That's the way it goes. It's the best one out there. If you wish to focus on our problems, you need to ALSO focus on the problems of the solutions you recommend.

They do it because it is jumping the line. The weakness in the Canadian system is not the quality of care, it is the long wait times.

Long wait times are a quality issue.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Yes, but you were referring to how good the doctors and hospitals are. That's not the problem. The problem is that there aren't enough of them.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, but you were referring to how good the doctors and hospitals are. That's not the problem. The problem is that there aren't enough of them.

And why aren't there enough?

 

Because of the system in place.

 

And, Canadians ought to be concerned about the drug importation issue as it will likely do nothing but raise your prices.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

We are concerned. Most of us don't want our drugs headed to the US.

 

And there aren't enough not because of the system, but because the Liberal government spent 11 years cutting payments. It was never a problem before the mid-90s. Hell, outside of Ontario it isn't much of a problem now.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Don't bother arguing with him. He'll harp on and on and on and on how he's an economist and does this for a living, conveniently ignoring the flaws inherent in the medical system he is championing.

Yeah, God forbid he takes your points and shoots them down one by one.

 

And I thought he was a nurse...

When did I claim our medical system was flawless?

An efficient solution is not a perfect solution. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

I simply said its better than anything else out there, and asked for proof otherwise, and gave an incentive for such.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If you wish to focus on our problems, you need to ALSO focus on the problems of the solutions you recommend.

 

I didn't recommend any solution.

[CanadianChris 0]

How is it the most cost-efficient when we spend the most money but don't have the healthiest population?

One doesn't necessarily lead to the other. A population can be less healthy for reasons other than a less efficient health care system. When people engage in less healthy activities (such as overeating and lack of physical activity), they're more likely to die early, regardless of how good the health care system is.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Okay. If anyone can prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there exists a better healthcare system than the United States, that is more cost-efficient, provides as much variety of service, provides better quality service, and serves more people, and does it all with much reduced wait time, I will mail you 20 bucks.

 

Arguments I will accept: Statistical surveys, research articles from reputable journals, anything that is based on data that can be falsified if it is indeed wrong.

 

This probably wasn't what you were looking for, but I've found several articles that indicate a correlation between inequality and high mortality rates and other social problems. I know that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. However, George Kaplan, the lead researcher of the Berkeley (4th on the list) study suggests that "income inequality affects all segments of the population because it affects rates of violence and disability, as well as public spending on police protection, education, welfare and health care."

 

Articles:

 

George Davey Smith and others, "Socioeconomic Differentials in Mortality Risk among Men Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: I. White Men," American Journal of Public Health Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pp. 486-496

 

George Davey Smith and others, "Socioeconomic Differentials in Mortality Risk among Men Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: II. Black Men," American Journal of Public Health Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pp. 497-504

 

Robert Pear, "Big Health Gap, Tied to Income, Is Found in U.S." The New York Times, July 8, 1993, pp. A1.

 

George A. Kaplan and others, "Inequality in income and mortality in the United States: analysis of mortality and potential pathways," British Medical Journal Vol. 312 (April 20, 1996), pp. 999-1003.

 

Bruce P. Kennedy and others, "Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States," British Medical Journal Vol. 312 (April 20, 1996), pp. 1004-1007.

 

Alison Bass, "Income inequality, mortality linked; Gap found to hurt wide segment in US," The Boston Globe, April 19, 1996, Friday, City Edition, p. 14.

[Guest Regina Phelange]

If it wasn't better, they wouldn't travel here for care. They'd go elsewhere. Our specialists are the best in the world and if we decide to go the gov't health care route, that will cease being the case.

 

They do it because it is jumping the line. The weakness in the Canadian system is not the quality of care, it is the long wait times.

Exactly, the quality of care is very good, but the waits are a little long, depending on your illness.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

correct, correlation is not causation

 

the redskins winning and losing before an election hardly causes the electoral outcome. nice effort though

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

correct, correlation is not causation

 

the redskins winning and losing before an election hardly causes the electoral outcome. nice effort though

 

So you're not even going to address the content of the articles, then? And I assume the tome of the above would be characterized as "dismissive," perhaps "disdainful"?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

^^^

 

I meant tone, not "tome".

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

In 1996, Harvard and Berkeley published separate studies that examined income inequality in all 50 states. According to Bruce Kennedy, the lead researcher of the Harvard study, "The size of the gap between the wealthy and less well-off, as distinct from the absolute standard of living enjoyed by the poor, appears to be related to mortality." Both studies found that states with higher income inequality have all the following social problems:

 

Higher death rates for all age groups.

Higher rates of homicide.

Higher rates of violent crime.

Higher costs per person for police protection.

Higher rates of incarceration.

Higher rates of unemployment.

A higher percentage of people receiving income assistance and food stamps.

More high-school dropouts.

Less state funds spent per person on education.

Fewer books per person in the schools.

Poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills.

Higher infant mortality rates.

Higher heart disease.

Higher cancer rates.

A greater percentage of people without medical insurance.

A greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight.

A greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities.

A higher proportion of the population using tobacco.

A higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).

Higher costs per-person for medical care.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Again, you're correlating. What causes what? Does higher crime lead to a decrease in income (unsafe work conditions) which fuels more crime?

 

What other factors exist in those states...maybe location? How about social institutions in common of those various states.

 

Look, statistics is a difficult field, and I don't pretend to know each and every detail. What you have to be able to do though is examine effect as they are separated out from others, if you don't do that, you'll be picking up stronger signals than you otherwise would.

 

//Waiting in line, in a queue, is a cost. Hence, while the nominal cost of the Canadian healthcare system is lower than the US, its real cost may not be. What is the value of time wasted waiting. Add that to the nominal cost to get the actual cost to the person.