Got it, your Senate is similar to your House of Commons as well as our House of Representatives. Senators based upon population. You have both houses based upon population.
What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
BS
I see. So it isn't a fact until it is counted.:roll:
Don't be stupid. What I am saying is that Canadian healthcare isn't the model of perfection you are making it out to be. I'm not "trashing" it. And there are loads of anecdotes. Those anecdotes are the incidents that make people want change.
Gawd, you're sooooo funny.
Well, come here so I can kick you in the shin then. roflmao
I say that about government whoever is sitting in the PMO. Get a grip, Peewee. lmao
And you copmmented like a true moron. So what?
roflmao Grow up, Peewee. I didn't say either of those things. YOU said I said them. But, you are lying again, so all you're doing is showing everyone what a complete backside you are. lmao
Who said it wasn't? I just said it wasn't a big difference.
Whatever you say, Chairman Maio. lol
Not quite. I am not sure how the original Senate numbers were decided, but they are not according to population. Thus New Brunswick has more Senators than Alberta, even though its population is smaller.
The Senate in Canada is appointed by the PM. Even though senate is powerful, has as many powers as the House of Commons, it rarely uses them. It usually goes along with whatever Commons passes. Currently Senate is Liberal majority but to my knowledge, they have not held up even one of Harper’s legislations (though they have the power to do so). The reason for that is that Senate is not elected and it defers to the elected chamber, House of Commons.
This is unlike your (elected) Senate, which is as powerful as the House.
Last edited:
AS long as you don't need major medical attention it works OK. The "anecdote" was an actual case history that illustrates very well the major deficiencies in the system. There are thousands of cases like his. Obviously you've never had to wait in line yourself.
Non emergency proceedures such as cancer treatment? We wait for them too frequently. I have personally been denied treatment because of the limitations of our system. Fortunately it wasn't all that serious, just reconstructive plastic surgery on my face to put the bones back in place following an accident. So I'm slightly disfigured. Oh well, it's not that noticeable. But they don't wait for cataract or hip replacement in Germany with its public/private system and I would have had my surgery there.
Exactly. So why not let the private sector look after those who are willing to pay, and there will be less waiting for poor folks like me.
Who said it's bottomless? And it can also be done in the public/private systems of all the western developed countries.
Health care is only one factor in life expectancy. Seems to me Japan's life expectancy is higher than ours, and they have public/private health care. I recall reading a couple years ago the the WHO ranks Canadas health care as #30 in the world.
ONce again you confuse the quality of health care with life expectancy. And if you pay attention to the debate going on in the US right now, they aren't arguing about their health care costs, but rather the quality of their health care.
"No they don’t, Anna. Individual anecdotes are not evidence."-
I beg to differ, if it's something I've seen with my own eyes it's enough evidence for me.
I beg to differ, if it's something I've seen with my own eyes it's enough evidence for me.
It is not evidence, JLM. I know we have been having a running argument about this for a long time now. Anecdotal evidence is not considered scientific evidence. It may be used to bolster statistical evidence. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there may be a problem, but it does not tell us if there is a problem.
But nobody (government, an organization, a corporation etc.) acts on anecdotal evidence alone. At most if there are enough of such anecdotes, they may carry out an inquiry to establish if there is a problem. But very rarely would anybody act because of anecdotal evidence.
AS long as you don't need major medical attention it works OK. The "anecdote" was an actual case history that illustrates very well the major deficiencies in the system. There are thousands of cases like his.
It works fine even for major medical attention most of the time, Extrafire. As to your anecdote about cancer treatment, again that is not evidence. What is the cancer survival rate in Canada compared to Europe? Do you have any statistics for that? If cancer survival rate in Canada is appreciably lower than that in Europe, obviously there is a problem. If there was problem with cancer treatment as you say, we don’t know if it is a localized problem, peculiar to that one area or that one hospital or a general problem. We need statistical evidence to tell us that.
And there are thousands of cases? Again, do you have the statistics?
Obviously you've never had to wait in line yourself.
I am fortunate in that I have never needed any major medical treatment. If I need antibiotics for throat infection or similar, I can get them from my wife, I don’t have to visit a doctor for that. Other than that, I haven’t really used our health care system, except for annual check ups.
Non emergency procedures such as cancer treatment? We wait for them too frequently.
Again, do you have the statistics?
I have personally been denied treatment because of the limitations of our system. Fortunately it wasn't all that serious, just reconstructive plastic surgery on my face to put the bones back in place following an accident.
I think reconstructive surgery is usually covered by health plans, I don’t know about your particular case.
But they don't wait for cataract or hip replacement in Germany with its public/private system and I would have had my surgery there.
I don’t see anything wrong in principle in private sector involvement in medicine. The question is how it is done and to what extent. Anyway, it doesn’t seem to be a burning issue at the moment.
Who said it's bottomless? And it can also be done in the public/private systems of all the western developed countries.
Again, do you have the statistics to compare German, or European system with Canadian system, how do they compare in the outcome?
Health care is only one factor in life expectancy. Seems to me Japan's life expectancy is higher than ours, and they have public/private health care. I recall reading a couple years ago the the WHO ranks Canadas health care as #30 in the world.
Sure it is only one factor. But my point is that a country cannot have a lousy health care system and be No. 7 in the world in terms of life expectancy.
It works fine even for major medical attention most of the time, Extrafire. As to your anecdote about cancer treatment, again that is not evidence. What is the cancer survival rate in Canada compared to Europe? Do you have any statistics for that? If cancer survival rate in Canada is appreciably lower than that in Europe, obviously there is a problem. If there was problem with cancer treatment as you say, we don’t know if it is a localized problem, peculiar to that one area or that one hospital or a general problem. We need statistical evidence to tell us that.
And there are thousands of cases? Again, do you have the statistics?
Obviously you've never had to wait in line yourself.
I am fortunate in that I have never needed any major medical treatment. If I need antibiotics for throat infection or similar, I can get them from my wife, I don’t have to visit a doctor for that. Other than that, I haven’t really used our health care system, except for annual check ups.
Non emergency procedures such as cancer treatment? We wait for them too frequently.
Again, do you have the statistics?
I have personally been denied treatment because of the limitations of our system. Fortunately it wasn't all that serious, just reconstructive plastic surgery on my face to put the bones back in place following an accident.
I think reconstructive surgery is usually covered by health plans, I don’t know about your particular case.
But they don't wait for cataract or hip replacement in Germany with its public/private system and I would have had my surgery there.
I don’t see anything wrong in principle in private sector involvement in medicine. The question is how it is done and to what extent. Anyway, it doesn’t seem to be a burning issue at the moment.
Who said it's bottomless? And it can also be done in the public/private systems of all the western developed countries.
Again, do you have the statistics to compare German, or European system with Canadian system, how do they compare in the outcome?
Health care is only one factor in life expectancy. Seems to me Japan's life expectancy is higher than ours, and they have public/private health care. I recall reading a couple years ago the the WHO ranks Canadas health care as #30 in the world.
Sure it is only one factor. But my point is that a country cannot have a lousy health care system and be No. 7 in the world in terms of life expectancy.
This is a YouTube video that was made of Tom Price, Georgia's 6th Dist. Representative, on Wednesday.
Tom is a member of the House Healthcare Committee, and the video was shot in the Wednesday Committee meeting.
Please share this with everyone you know.............this healthcare legislation MUST be defeated.
Tom has said that our Constitution is being burned right before our very eyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD_YOlUBoIk
Extrafire, I decided look into the cancer survival rate claim by you, and you couldn’t be more wrong. Canada has one of the highest cancer survival rates in the world.
CTV.ca | Canada gets high ranking for cancer survival rates
Canada has some of the best cancer survival rates in the world, and doctors are pointing to our much-maligned public health-care system as the reason.
In a report on worldwide cancer survival rates, Canada ranked near the top of the 31 countries studied with an estimate five-year survival rate of 82.5 per cent.
"Canadians always tend to complain about our health-care system," Dr. Mary Gospodarowicz, a cancer researcher with Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital, told CTV News. "But this study shows us that in an independent study done by external bodies, the survival of cancer patients in Canada is among the best in the world."
Now, about your beloved Germany. Survival rate, 58.8 % female, 50% male Germany has fairly low cancer survival rate, it is about mid point in European countries.
UK cancer survival rate lowest in Europe - Telegraph
Out of the 21 countries examined, Germany ranks No.9 for female survival and No. 8 for male survival.
So your anecdote was just that, an anecdote, it does not reflect the health care system as a whole. When it comes to cancer survival rates, Canada does very well indeed.
This reinforces my faith in Canadian health care system.
I think that is our Canadian trait. We have one of the best countries in the world, one of the best living standards in the world, a very good health care system, but we just like to grumble.
I have always said to those who grumble as to how conditions are bad in Canada. Go and live in a foreign country for a year or so, it is sobering experience. I have lived in USA and UK for several years each. You will come back a changed man.
Canada is one of the best countries in the world (if not the best) to live in. Even with Harper as the PM (I always like to add that caveat).
Anyway, Extrafire, so bottom line:
Cancer Survival rate for Canada – 82.5 %
Cancer Survival rate for Germany – 58.8 % female, 50% male.
CTV.ca | Canada gets high ranking for cancer survival rates
Canada has some of the best cancer survival rates in the world, and doctors are pointing to our much-maligned public health-care system as the reason.
In a report on worldwide cancer survival rates, Canada ranked near the top of the 31 countries studied with an estimate five-year survival rate of 82.5 per cent.
"Canadians always tend to complain about our health-care system," Dr. Mary Gospodarowicz, a cancer researcher with Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital, told CTV News. "But this study shows us that in an independent study done by external bodies, the survival of cancer patients in Canada is among the best in the world."
Now, about your beloved Germany. Survival rate, 58.8 % female, 50% male Germany has fairly low cancer survival rate, it is about mid point in European countries.
UK cancer survival rate lowest in Europe - Telegraph
Out of the 21 countries examined, Germany ranks No.9 for female survival and No. 8 for male survival.
So your anecdote was just that, an anecdote, it does not reflect the health care system as a whole. When it comes to cancer survival rates, Canada does very well indeed.
This reinforces my faith in Canadian health care system.
I think that is our Canadian trait. We have one of the best countries in the world, one of the best living standards in the world, a very good health care system, but we just like to grumble.
I have always said to those who grumble as to how conditions are bad in Canada. Go and live in a foreign country for a year or so, it is sobering experience. I have lived in USA and UK for several years each. You will come back a changed man.
Canada is one of the best countries in the world (if not the best) to live in. Even with Harper as the PM (I always like to add that caveat).
Anyway, Extrafire, so bottom line:
Cancer Survival rate for Canada – 82.5 %
Cancer Survival rate for Germany – 58.8 % female, 50% male.
Last edited:
If I recall, yesterday you were telling somebody that quoting an American source about an issue that relates to America is not credible as it is probably nothing more than flag waving.
That said, is it any wonder why we have such a high life expectancy and cancer survival rate. We get to see a doctor any time we want for free and, since we mostly live along the US border, we get to go there when our doctors can't do anything.We have the best of both worlds.
Did you read the news the other day about Cuba may have to reduce the care they give their people? Seem their free healthcare is bankrupting the country.
Canadian care for breast cancer overall is very good, rated 3rd behind the U.S. 2nd and Cuba 1st.
The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, while Europe's is much lower at 57.1 per cent. However, survival rates within the U.S. can vary. Survival rate for the seventeen regions in the United States that were included in the study ranged from 78 per cent to 90 per cent.
In Canada, the five Canadian provinces included in the study had almost identical results.
The range of survival rates across the five provinces was quite narrow, from a low of 79.3 per cent in Nova Scotia to a high of 85.4 per cent in British Columbia.
There is nothing to debate between our two countries as to quality of healthcare, they are almost identical.
Canadian care for breast cancer overall is very good, rated 3rd behind the U.S. 2nd and Cuba 1st.
The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, while Europe's is much lower at 57.1 per cent. However, survival rates within the U.S. can vary. Survival rate for the seventeen regions in the United States that were included in the study ranged from 78 per cent to 90 per cent.
In Canada, the five Canadian provinces included in the study had almost identical results.
The range of survival rates across the five provinces was quite narrow, from a low of 79.3 per cent in Nova Scotia to a high of 85.4 per cent in British Columbia.
There is nothing to debate between our two countries as to quality of healthcare, they are almost identical.
There is nothing to debate between our two countries as to quality of healthcare, they are almost identical.
Thanks, ironsides. Tell that to Canada bashers in this forum.
Thanks, ironsides. Tell that to Canada bashers in this forum.
I remember reading that Japan and Australia also have high cancer survival rates, comparable to Canada and USA.
My major argument with what Obama is trying to do is the cost increase for so little difference. Obama sounds great wanting to get health care to everyone, but it is not everyone who needs it. We do not need more governmental health organizations, no more bureaucracies, just adequate funding for what we now have. (Medicade and Medicare). Add free yearly medical checkups in the Medicaid program, Medicare already allows that. One thing that has not been mentioned is dental care, a very important problem in the U.S.
Ironsides, I really don’t have any strong views on what Obama is doing trying to reform health care, it does not concern me.
But I do know that USA spends much more per capita than any other country in the world, and does not have a whole lot to show for it. In many health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality, it lags behind other countries.
So something is wrong somewhere, clearly the money is not being spent wisely.
But I do know that USA spends much more per capita than any other country in the world, and does not have a whole lot to show for it. In many health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality, it lags behind other countries.
So something is wrong somewhere, clearly the money is not being spent wisely.
You're missing a main point. Life expectancy has very little to do with "healthcare" and a lot to do with the life style of the individual. Longevity is obtained by healthy people, who aren't spending a lot of money on getting patched up after parts of their bodies start blowing up. From what I've read the medical system in the U.S. is among the best in the world, it's the financing part that's in shambles. When every citizen values health on an even footing with family and credit rating, then the people will see to it personally that they have ample health insurance. I don't think Obama should be trying to do anything until the people decide what it is they want.
You're missing a main point. Life expectancy has very little to do with "healthcare" and a lot to do with the life style of the individual. Longevity is obtained by healthy people, who aren't spending a lot of money on getting patched up after parts of their bodies start blowing up.
Heath care is a big part of life expectancy, JLM, though obviously good health care alone is not enough. Good health care is necessary, but not sufficient for long life.
From what I've read the medical system in the U.S. is among the best in the world, it's the financing part that's in shambles.
Indeed US health care system is the best in the world. For those who can afford to pay for it, that is. And that is the problem.
Heath care is a big part of life expectancy, JLM, though obviously good health care alone is not enough. Good health care is necessary, but not sufficient for long life.
From what I've read the medical system in the U.S. is among the best in the world, it's the financing part that's in shambles.
Indeed US health care system is the best in the world. For those who can afford to pay for it, that is. And that is the problem.
Were getting better and Obama had nothing to do with it. "Indeed US health care system is the best in the world. For those who can afford to pay for it, that is. And that is the problem." I think the same could be said for you also. As I have said before, the problem is not with the doctors, hospitals, health providers, it is with the insurance companies who own everything from hospitals to the health policies people have to purchase. The insurance companies set the prices for everything. They are the only ones Obama has to go after and regulate.
Federal report cites decline in heart disease, other major causes of death
ATLANTA - For the first time, U.S. life expectancy has surpassed 78 years, the government reported Wednesday, although the United States continues to lag behind about 30 other countries in estimated life span.
The increase is due mainly to falling mortality rates in almost all the leading causes of death, federal health officials said. The average life expectancy for babies born in 2006 was about four months greater than for children born in 2005.
Japan has the longest life expectancy — 83 years for children born in 2006, according to World Health Organization data. Switzerland and Australia were also near the top of the list.
“The international comparisons are not that appealing, but we may be in the process of catching up,” said Samuel Preston, a University of Pennsylvania demographer. He is co-chairman of a National Research Council panel looking at why America’s life expectancy is lower than other nations’.
U.S. life expectancy tops 78 for the first time - News Wires - CNBC.com
Federal report cites decline in heart disease, other major causes of death
ATLANTA - For the first time, U.S. life expectancy has surpassed 78 years, the government reported Wednesday, although the United States continues to lag behind about 30 other countries in estimated life span.
The increase is due mainly to falling mortality rates in almost all the leading causes of death, federal health officials said. The average life expectancy for babies born in 2006 was about four months greater than for children born in 2005.
Japan has the longest life expectancy — 83 years for children born in 2006, according to World Health Organization data. Switzerland and Australia were also near the top of the list.
“The international comparisons are not that appealing, but we may be in the process of catching up,” said Samuel Preston, a University of Pennsylvania demographer. He is co-chairman of a National Research Council panel looking at why America’s life expectancy is lower than other nations’.
U.S. life expectancy tops 78 for the first time - News Wires - CNBC.com
"Indeed US health care system is the best in the world. For those who can afford to pay for it, that is. And that is the problem. "-
And for those who can't afford to pay for, whose fault is it in at least half the cases? It has a lot to do with where you priortise your health. Health falls within my top 3 priorities, hence I have no problem paying for it. A lot of people see healthcare in the wrong light, like it's something that is magically paid for by someone else, and that just isn't the reality. We the people pay for our health care, and it costs a lot of money, professionals like doctors, nurses, technicians deserve a good salary, but still I'd bet the cost per person for good health care is less than the average smoker and drinker fork out.
And for those who can't afford to pay for, whose fault is it in at least half the cases? It has a lot to do with where you priortise your health. Health falls within my top 3 priorities, hence I have no problem paying for it. A lot of people see healthcare in the wrong light, like it's something that is magically paid for by someone else, and that just isn't the reality. We the people pay for our health care, and it costs a lot of money, professionals like doctors, nurses, technicians deserve a good salary, but still I'd bet the cost per person for good health care is less than the average smoker and drinker fork out.
For the first time, U.S. life expectancy has surpassed 78 years, the government reported Wednesday, although the United States continues to lag behind about 30 other countries in estimated life span.
That is the point, isn’t it ironsides? No doubt USA has made progress, but so have other countries, and USA continues to lag behind.
That is the point, isn’t it ironsides? No doubt USA has made progress, but so have other countries, and USA continues to lag behind.