Obvious you may still be asleep
HEY, namecalling namecalling. MOD MOD MOD!!!!
JACKASS.....NAME CALLING
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH
rotest::laughing6:
A National Shame?
- Thread starter Joffen
- Start date
Obvious you may still be asleep
HEY, namecalling namecalling. MOD MOD MOD!!!!
JACKASS.....NAME CALLING
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH
rotest::laughing6:
How would one go about judging the value of a country's healthcare? I submit to you the following criteria.
Quickness and quality and affordability.
1. Access to medical care. This means how quickly you actually get treated. After all, the point of medical care is to heal injuries. The faster one gets treatment the better it will be for a person's well-being.
2. Medical technology. If a country has superior medical technology, that will make a big difference in quality.
There are other criteria, however I'd argue that those two are THE biggest factors in judging a country's health care. You might be able to access medical care quickly, but if it is of poor quality, it actually may do more harm than good. Also, if you must wait and wait for care, but it turns out to be of better quality, then that might do more harm as well.
Cost is also a factor, and it's important, but I'd argue the other two take priority. Cost does indeed affect access, but in the United States we have Medicaid and Medicare. Yes, I do describe those government-run insurance programs as socialism. But America does not have government-run health care as thier national system.
So if a country excels against another in 2 out of 3 possible criteria, that country's health care system is better. I am sure you are chomping at the bit to argue that Canada has better technology and better access (as far as speed), but no.You can try, but no.
Quickness and quality and affordability.
1. Access to medical care. This means how quickly you actually get treated. After all, the point of medical care is to heal injuries. The faster one gets treatment the better it will be for a person's well-being.
2. Medical technology. If a country has superior medical technology, that will make a big difference in quality.
There are other criteria, however I'd argue that those two are THE biggest factors in judging a country's health care. You might be able to access medical care quickly, but if it is of poor quality, it actually may do more harm than good. Also, if you must wait and wait for care, but it turns out to be of better quality, then that might do more harm as well.
Cost is also a factor, and it's important, but I'd argue the other two take priority. Cost does indeed affect access, but in the United States we have Medicaid and Medicare. Yes, I do describe those government-run insurance programs as socialism. But America does not have government-run health care as thier national system.
So if a country excels against another in 2 out of 3 possible criteria, that country's health care system is better. I am sure you are chomping at the bit to argue that Canada has better technology and better access (as far as speed), but no.You can try, but no.
Technology does not mean better health care if not used properly. Percentage of preventable deaths, life expectancy, and infant mortality, are better tells than level of technology. Frankly, technology gets in the way of patient care at times, leaving doctors ordering expensive tests rather than sitting down, talking, and listening to their patients.
In the CIA world factbook's ranking, Canada is in 10th place while the US is 49th. That seems pretty damning until you look at the actual difference in age. For all Canada's marvelous health care, it increases the average life expectancy by a phenomenal....three years.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
The 2000 WHO rankings, and I can guarantee US technology outpaced Canada's at that time, yet we came out on par with US health care.
3 years is 3 years, especially given that you're implying your health care system should be blowing us out of the water, right?
Oh, and, don't forget... no one here has said our health care is marvelous other than you.
3 years is 3 years, especially given that you're implying your health care system should be blowing us out of the water, right?
Oh, and, don't forget... no one here has said our health care is marvelous other than you.
A Dr. that speaks to patients with care and answers their questions has healthier patients. A GP only gets 40hrs studying psychology and mental health training in med school and have trouble realting to what person may be experiencing. The person as a whole needs to be treated and they need to be able to have open dialogue. I know a couple men my age that were too embarassed to mention they were having trouble getting it up and had a hard time peeing.
Still not much of a difference.
See you're also looking at it wrong. What really determines the life expectancy and infant mortality? A country can have superior medical technology and fast access to doctors, but if the country as a whole has a high rate of gun deaths, car crashes, etc., then it really doesn't matter how good the health care is. Now, which country has more cars? America. Which country has more guns? America. So logically, a higher rate of cars and guns mean a higher rate of car and gun deaths. Also, Americans eat a lot more fast food and a fatty diet, which will also impact a country's life expectancy.
I know mentioning fast food and guns will tempt some of you to go on another anti-American tirade, but your jealousy is predictable and absolutely understandable. My point is, health care quality has a negligible impact on the average life expectancy of a country. You can have the best system in the world, but it won't matter much of citizens are dying from too many big macs.
Oh, please just go kidnap your mommy, drag her down to Buffalo, get her treatment, and shut the f.u.k. up.
I know you don't like Canada's health care system, so don't use it. I don't care. I use it, my parents use it, and my inlaws use it, and it works.
We have no lifetime caps on treatements for disease, we have no worries about not being able to afford to change jobs. If you prefer the US system, by all means, use it.
Just
Shut
the
****
up
You are so full of yourself, and bullsh.t that you are really, really, really annoying.
Not much of a difference. Precisely. I'm sorry but these systems have all been analyzed much more deeply by people who know much more about them than you or I could hope to, and we really come out fairly neck and neck. Our system has its flaws, your system has its flaws. Neither one is perfect, and neither one is a model that the rest of the world is looking to in admiration. So when you say that we should drop what we're doing, and be like you, sorry, you come off as nothing but wrong.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Just because life expectancy is similar doesn't mean both health care systems are the same. I'm saying the American model is superior, and the only reason we have a few years difference in life expectancy is due to factors that have nothing to do with health care. I'm looking forward to when that Maclean's series on healthcare comes out.
Do you really think the Macleans piece will be of any surprise to Canadians? Like I said, no one here has said our healthcare is perfect. You talked about delusion and blindness, but everyone seems to have their eyes quite wide open. Pretty much everyone knew right off the hop which country to look to for health care models. And sorry, but it's not the US, even if you come out better than us by a hair (which you seem to compulsively need).
Another quibbling point.... while you can claim that higher accidents rates etc. should be factored in to the US 'success' rates, perhaps you might want to stop and think about the infrastructure percapita needed in Canada to provide adequate health care, and what a unique challenge that presents. That we come out so successful with such a widely spread population is amazing in its own right.
Another quibbling point.... while you can claim that higher accidents rates etc. should be factored in to the US 'success' rates, perhaps you might want to stop and think about the infrastructure percapita needed in Canada to provide adequate health care, and what a unique challenge that presents. That we come out so successful with such a widely spread population is amazing in its own right.
OK, I'll bite.
I realize you said this tongue-in-cheek but man you can go ahead and outdo us on those stats any day. Nothing more dangerous than a 300 lb. pistol packin' Walmart shopper all hopped up on a McDonald's happy meal. If the bugger don't get ya with the bullet the noxious fumes from his over ripe body will make you gag. Oh yes, we have them here in Canada too, but without the nasty firearms. Perhaps if you guys addressed your over eating problem and put the guns away you might have some better numbers to make your argument on health care.
Otherwise, we're still the best...sorry.
Has Canada tried to improve the way it does health care? Has it been small tweaks or major overhauls? Any guesses as to how it might be improved in the future?
Has Canada tried to improve the way it does health care? Yes. I know, it's not nearly as newsworthy as when the US attempts to change something, but health care is a pretty constant conversation and is pretty constantly in change. The increase in privatized clinics that people have been telling you about, but you seem to not want to hear, is just one of the majors in the past while.
WHO rankings of health delivery systems:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 USA
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
See, the French are doing something right....Wow...the US is just ahead of Cuba.
How is it that a nation spends the most per capita on health at $ 4,631 has such a low ranking?
Not the best money managers that's for sure.
Btw....Canada spends $2,535.00 per capita
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 USA
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
See, the French are doing something right....Wow...the US is just ahead of Cuba.
How is it that a nation spends the most per capita on health at $ 4,631 has such a low ranking?
Not the best money managers that's for sure.
Btw....Canada spends $2,535.00 per capita
Last edited:
MMS: Error
In a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Philip Musgrove, the former editor of the WHO report recounts the unreliable data used to rank country health systems. In the case of the United States, the only data available were for life expectancy and child survival, which together only account for about half of the the attainment measure. Thus, the rest of the figures in the U.S. figures had to be imputed. In fact, the values of for many variables for many countries had to be imputed. With such an indictment for the editor of this report, putting much value in these rankings seems dubious. According to Dr. Musgrove:
“The number 37 is meaningless, but it continues to be cited, for four reasons. First, people would like to trust the WHO and presume that the organization must know what it is talking about. Second, very few people are aware of the reason why in this case that trust is misplaced, partly because the explanation was published 3 years after the report containing the ranking. Third, numbers confer a spurious precision, appealing even to people who have no idea where the numbers came from. Finally, those persons responsible for the number continue to peddle it anyway…Analyzing the failings of health systems can be valuable; making up rankings among them is not. It is long past time for this zombie number to disappear from circulation.”