| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lunarblade
White Wolf Templars
Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Post Count: 2081
Location: L'renouille
1428 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:38 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
Arcana, I'm not quite sure how the paper is different from the Harvard study, other than the fact that they found different conclusions. The study you refer to compares the relative health of Canadians vs. that of the US, am I wrong? (as I've noted, I cannot see the actual study, so correct me if that is the case) The article I've cited compares the Canadian health care system to that of America's.
I think we need to know what we're debating here. Are we debating the countries that are healthier? Because I agree, Canada is most likely much healthier than America is.
However, if we are debating the relative merits of health care systems (America vs. Canada in this regard), we need to discount the actual health of the populations. This sounds like it might not make sense, but health care is not nearly the end-all be-all of the human population's health. It is a result of many, many other things of which we could make a topic to itself.
Since we're discussing the comparitive merits of health care systems, we have to compare how they work and what services they provide. As cited in the article I've provided, the Canadian healthcare system is by and large inefficient and inferior when compared to that of America. The numbers do not lie.
The point is that while Canadia may have a healthier population than America, it does not necessarily have a better health care system.
_________________
| Sinocard wrote: |
| I dont think I am above women, I think I am above everyone. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see no British people have weighed in on this. I know it seems to be America Vs Canada around here but what the hell.
I myself as a British citizen pride myself on a health care system that does'nt discriminate or charge for what I beleive is a basic human right. The right to have good health. A poltician a couple of years back was planning on annoucing the liqiudation of the health care system after he was voted into power. This info was leaked to the public and he kissed his ass good bye.
It goes without saying that there is a lot of political foreplay going on with free health care but by privatizing health you are saying that rich people deserve the best and the poor people deserve the worst. And for some people that may be no health care at all.
As lunarblade wrote earlier he does'nt see why he has to pay taxes to pay for other peoples health care. Then you may as well say that you should'nt have to pay taxes for the police until you get robbed or taxes for the fire department until your kitchen is burnt down. Private hospitals in this country are of a great standard and if you can afford them thats great. But to say to anyone and everyone either pony up the cash or stay the way you are is simply unfair. As for the qaulity of the treatment who knows but even if the Canadian health care system cant even touch the American system it does'nt change the fact that its based upon a system that draws a cruel line between the poor and the rich. And good, hardworking people will suffer for it.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amyral
Windriders
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think a public health care system is a great idea for the US. I'm basing my opinion on the sheer size of the US population and how spread out it is. There are significant problems with public health care systems that makes me wary to just switch to one, especially considering some of the countries are far better suited for it (Fewer people spread out over a smaller area than the US).
I also look at how existing systems that more or less provide some sort of "free" health care (Medicaid, for those that apply) affect what people do. It causes them to abuse the system, using the emergency room for basic needs solely because they don't want to wait in a doctor's office for a check up, which costs everyone. It's a basic economic truth, when people perceive something as free, they will overconsume, and I've not seen an example that proves the contrary to me.
If you consider the fact that you're going to have more than 300 million people, you're going to see an already taxed system that has so much stress put on it, I think the whole thing could collapse.
I think a better option would be to try to get a low deductible, government provided insurance for the a lower-income percentage of the population (the percentage itself would be debatable). The existence of a deductible would deter people from over-using the system, which would limit the amount of stress put on the system. It wouldn't be for everyone, so it wouldn't be as costly for everyone (and, face it, the way it works, the people who couldn't afford health care to begin with would be the ones paying the bulk of it for the rest of the nation). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luceit
Defender of Highland
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Post Count: 1002
Location: Blight's Bay
371188 Potch
2170 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't pride myself on the Malaysian health care system. Here are some recent problems:
1) Faulty hospitals. There was one case where the sewer pipes were busted, spewing waste all over the place.
2) Lack of good quality doctors. When visiting my cousin in Batu Pahat, my aunt discovered that a doctor had given her steriods for a simple cough, worse still, it had been done before. Also, one of the doctors at the hospital was discovered to be a fake.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sailor Sexy
Mikan weeps for Brady
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Post Count: 2150
Location: Blight's Bay
246380 Potch
175 Soldiers
50 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Honestly, trying to compare the US and Canada, or the United Kingdom, or pretty much any other nation that I know of that has public heath care doesn't work. The US has nearly 10 times the population of Canada, about 5 times the population of the UK, and so on. Does China have public health care? Really, I don't know the answer to that, I'm asking. Show me data from countries that have a similar population if you want to make your point. Using these smaller countries doesn't do it for me.
I guess I'm part of that group that doesn't go to the doctor because there's nothing wrong with me. I've always had health insurance, either through my parents when I was in college, or through my jobs, but I still don't see the point in going in for checkups. It's too much of a pain, and I'll deal the with consequences when that time comes. That is what I have the insurance for anyways. Apparently I have it pretty good because I don't pay very much for my insurance, but I get good coverage. I guess this is a case of me not seeing the problem because I personally don't have a problem with the system. It does what I wish for it to, and I see no reason to switch to public health care where I have to help pay for others. I say so what if that's selfish? I don't ask for help from others, so I just kind of expect the same in return, that's all.
_________________
~Uguu!~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camus the Noble
Les Renés
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Post Count: 1881
Location: Vinay Del Zexay
1056014 Potch
224 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony Stark wrote: |
| In ethics, we talked about Peter Singer. His basic ideology was that not helping a kid right next to you who is dying is the exact same thing as not helping someone far away starving or whatnot. He thought it was man's obligation to help other man regardless of kinsmanship, and to send all money that you do not need to other countries with starving, poor and sick. Of course, this is the same man who completely follows speciesism; the idea that killing a cow and a man is basically the same thing. |
I've read a fair bit of what Pete Singer has written, and he's the philosopher that has had the most influence on my own ethical beliefs. And let me tell you that this is a pretty serious misunderstanding of his work. First, Singer does not "follow" speciesism, he argues against it. Speciesism is the idea that the members of a species deserve more moral consideration of their interests than members of another species, simply by virtue of their membership in their species. I'm sure you knew what you meant, though. Second, and more importantly, Tony, Singer does not believe that killing a cow and killing a human (an average one, anyway) are morally equivalent. He does think that causing pain to a cow and causing an identical amount of pain to a human are equivalent; but when it comes to killing, he thinks that there are moral differences. This is because cows are on a cognitively lower level and therefore simply do not care as much (one presumes) as a human does if they are killed; cows, unlike most humans, do not have a desire to keep on living that killing them would thwart. Thus, to kill a cow is to wrong it less than one would be wronging a human by killing it. See this Q & A with Singer, thirteenth question down. Your ethics class misrepresented Singer's views.
On the topic at hand: I favor the Canadian system of health care over the American one. The overall welfare of the Canadians over the Americans seems to me to be reason enough to support it. Perhaps Lunarblade is right and Canada's system isn't quite as efficient per dollar; however, I do believe it is more effective. The fact is that regardless of how "efficient" the U.S.' health care system is, it fails to insure millions of Americans, who cannot meet unexpected health care needs. This is a moral catastrophe. For this reason alone, I can't regard the American system as justifiable, unless it could be shown that any other system would be a greater disaster.
I think that the fact that Canadians seem, on the whole, satisfied with their health care system is good evidence that it works. Arcana, Blasphemy, and Elzamine all appear to be comfortable with the system, and I get the impression that their views are mainstream among Canadians and, indeed, residents of other nations with publicly-funded health care systems. (Of course, if I'm wrong, and it turns out Canadians loathe their socialistic health care system, that would turn my argument on its head.) If the people most familiar with the system like it, and feel it works for the country, why mess with it? The same simply cannot be said about Americans.
A number of people have brought up that America's population is too large for a public health care system to work here in the States. This might be true; I'm not familiar enough with economics to say. So I'm not necessarily saying that America should adopt a system identical to Canada's, simply that, at present, Canada's system works better for Canadians than America's does for Americans. I'm skeptical, though, of the claim that some government intervention wouldn't make for an improvement over the system we have now, the flaws of which are numerous and striking. But again: I'm no economist.
| Lunarblade wrote: |
| Harvard is stationed right at the ..let's say left-of-center stronghold on the east coast of the US. Liberals in the US have been clamoring for a public health care system for years, despite its many faults. |
It seems a bit paranoid to me to suggest that the Harvard study is driven by political ideology. Harvard is one of the most prestigious institutions in the nation; forgive me if I'm not persuaded that they lack credibility.
| Lunarblade wrote: |
| Moreover, that's 10% of the GDP. Imagine that sort of bloated bureaucracy in America, with a population substantially higher. Thanks but no thanks. |
According to Wikipedia, 15% of the United States' GDP goes toward health care, which is the highest in the world. That's certainly higher than Canada's ten percent. I can't find this specific statistic in the 237-page document Wikipedia references, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't in there somewhere. Edited to add: The 15% figure can be found directly on the World Health Organization's website: http://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/.
| Sailor Sexy wrote: |
| Does China have public health care? |
I don't think it does. However, the problem you raise about differing populations tarnishing comparisons would apply to comparisons between China and the U.S. as well. China's population is over four times that of the United States. So if you want a country with a similar population China certainly won't do.
Last edited by Camus the Noble on Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amyral
Windriders
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Camus the Noble wrote: |
According to Wikipedia, 15% of the United States' GDP goes toward health care, which is the highest in the world. That's certainly higher than Canada's ten percent. I can't find this specific statistic in the 237-page document Wikipedia references, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't in there somewhere. |
I'm sure we don't have to go over why Wikipedia isn't a valid source, but even then, 15% of the GDP goes to health care now when everyone isn't guaranteed it, imagine what that would inflate to if everyone was.
| Camus the Noble wrote: |
| I'm skeptical, though, of the claim that some government intervention wouldn't make for an improvement over the system we have now, the flaws of which are numerous and striking. But again: I'm no economist. |
Because government intervention typically makes things worse? In many, many economic issues (which is, more or less, what this is), government intervention has caused more harm, coming too late and often exacerbating the problems. It has worked well, but many times, the initial efforts make things much worse (ie: The Great Depression).
The problem with the proposed alterations is that they don't take the differences between the US and other nations into account when trying to evaluate the system. It tends to either be privatized of a national health care system, both of which have their benefits and their faults. I don't think comparing how many people have health care and how many do not is the be all, end all for this debate, because how good the health care is is significant, and in many public health care systems, there have been major quality concerns, many of which stem from overuse of the system.
If you instituted a public health care system in the US and half of the hospitals had to fold, it wouldn't help anything. If you instituted one and the amount of time people had to wait for care after having a heart attack jumped up to one hour (times of which were reported in some Canadian hospitals), rather than the recommended 15 minutes, is it worth it? It's the issue of whether having bad health care for everyone is really any better. Funny how you don't hear about the negatives of public health care systems in the political debates.
If there is to be a government system, having it decided and higher than the state level could cause a collapse of the system. Trying to decide it on the national level would put a standard on areas that differ greatly in economy, population and geography. What might work in upstate New York is likely to be horrible for West Virginia or Montana. Thinking otherwise is silly. If they do consider a system, they would likely leave it up for states to each develop their own system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sailor Sexy
Mikan weeps for Brady
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Post Count: 2150
Location: Blight's Bay
246380 Potch
175 Soldiers
50 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Camus the Noble wrote: |
| Sailor Sexy wrote: |
| Does China have public health care? |
I don't think it does. However, the problem you raise about differing populations tarnishing comparisons would apply to comparisons between China and the U.S. as well. China's population is over four times that of the United States. So if you want a country with a similar population China certainly won't do. |
Oh, I know, but the point would be that if China did and it was an effective system, then there's no reason why it wouldn't work with the US, right? I suppose it would be tough to find something that's similar since the US is 3rd in population, behind India (over a billion) and China (well over a billion). I just chose China as the most extreme. I suppose the point could be made if you had a country of 200 million or so where the system worked. Of course, the only effect that would have would be to prove that it could work effectively in the US as well, in theory. It wouldn't change the fact that I'm quite happy with the way the system currently is and that is works fine for me.
_________________
~Uguu!~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tullaryx
Custodiae Corvi
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Post Count: 5577
Location: Apacheta
4092785 Potch
200 Soldiers
20 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Really, if we have to compare health care systems in terms of population then the United States' system should be compared to that of Russia. They're close enough in their population. I don't even need to look it up to know that comparing both nations' system the U.S. has a very successful one.
_________________
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kalidor
Blazing Conflagration
Joined: 04 May 2005
Post Count: 1538
Location: Valley of the Winds
1542036 Potch
308 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I present to you a quote from an article by Katherine Fierlbeck entitled "The Right to Health Care". I found it in one of the textbooks that I have for my politics and ethics course. The name of the textbook is Democracy, Rights, and Well-Being in Canada, Second Edition, compiled and edited by Don Carmichael, Tom Pocklington, and Greg Pyrcz. I'm sure that the article was originally printed elsewere as well. In any case, the article presents some interesting economic statistics for health care. Those who think that private care is more efficient economically may be surprised.
| Fierlbeck wrote: |
The comparison between the American and the Canadian systems is so intriguing because, until 1971, when Canada's health care system was made cully public, per capita expenditure in both countries was nearly identical. As Canada adjusted to a fully public system and the United States continued to rely upon the market to meet its health care needs, the spending gap between the two countries widened every year. To give an idea of how well the Canadian system was able to control costs, one group of economists calculated that, if the American rate of cost excalation since 1971 had been as low as Canada's, health spending would have been $450 per person less by 1987 - or over $100 billion less overall. 3(this three is supposed to be a superscript footnote reference) |
The footnote reference refers to this:
| Reference Citation wrote: |
Robert G. Evans et al., "Controlling Health Expenditures: The Canadian Reality," in Chernomas and Sepehri (Eds.), How to Choose?, p. 12. |
Fierlbeck then goes on to suggest various reasons why the American private system might cost the individual more than the Canadian public system does. She suggests that this has to do in large part with overhead. What is meant by overhead is that every single small incident in a private system must be tracked. Every single pill that a patient takes, every cleaning of sheets, and every meal are recorded by the hospital so that billing can be properly accounted for. Further record keeping is required to keep track of who is insured by which company, if people are poor enough to qualify for medicaid, and a host of other things. All of this billing requires a substantial amount of money spent on record keeping and on maintaining the paper trail of record keeping. All these minutia of detail and record keeping are not required of a public system since it is centralised, without all the need to go back and forth between patient to institution to insurance company and then perhaps back again. A quote used within the article suggests that:
| Himmelstein and Woolhandler wrote: |
| "the costs of running the American payment system itself, independent of the costs of patient care, may account for more than half the difference in cost between the Canadian and the U.S. systems." |
| Reference Citation wrote: |
| D.U. Himmelstein and S. Woolhandler, "Cost Without Benefit: Administrative Waste in U.S. Health Care," New England Journal of Medicine 314 (7) (Feb. 13, 1986): 441-45 |
Furthermore, since the American hospital system is private, the insurance companies must do all the things that are required of a free market system. They have to actively win customers to their brand and this requires advertising. Advertising is not an expense that must be accounted for in a public system because everyone is under the same plan and thus there is no need to attract customers.
Furthermore, the wait lists and response for urgent, medically necessary surgery between Canada and the United States are virtually identical. This does not hold true for elective surgery. In Canada if you wish to have elective surgery you do go on a waiting list while in the United States you can pay for quicker results if you have the money to do so.
I can provide further quotations and references for people to look at if they are so inclined. However, the article as a whole goes a very long way in showing that the Canadain public system, according to the data gathered, provides equally effective necessary care as the American system. It is only when non-essential care is brought into the equation that the American system can provide quicker results. Furthermore it shows quite conclusively that the costs of the public system are in fact less than the private system, even though the private system claims to be more cost effective because it is market driven. It was a very interesting read for me and one that definitly increased by faith and support for Canada's public health care system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amyral
Windriders
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kalidor wrote: |
Fierlbeck then goes on to suggest various reasons why the American private system might cost the individual more than the Canadian public system does. She suggests that this has to do in large part with overhead. What is meant by overhead is that every single small incident in a private system must be tracked. Every single pill that a patient takes, every cleaning of sheets, and every meal are recorded by the hospital so that billing can be properly accounted for. |
Those are all things not exclusive to a private system. Having a public health care system doesn't mean that they don't keep any less track of inventory of a hospital. If they don't keep those records, then they're not doing a very good job of preparation.
| Kalidor wrote: |
| Further record keeping is required to keep track of who is insured by which company, if people are poor enough to qualify for medicaid, and a host of other things. All of this billing requires a substantial amount of money spent on record keeping and on maintaining the paper trail of record keeping. All these minutia of detail and record keeping are not required of a public system since it is centralised, without all the need to go back and forth between patient to institution to insurance company and then perhaps back again. |
Those are all simply costs that are going to continue to be limited due to the improvement in technology. While they may have been applicable in 1971, they're not as applicable now and will continue to be less applicable. Record keeping is becoming easier and easier in hospitals.
| Kalidor wrote: |
| Furthermore, since the American hospital system is private, the insurance companies must do all the things that are required of a free market system. They have to actively win customers to their brand and this requires advertising. Advertising is not an expense that must be accounted for in a public system because everyone is under the same plan and thus there is no need to attract customers. |
This part I can agree with, advertising is a cost that comes from a private system.
| Kalidor wrote: |
| Furthermore, the wait lists and response for urgent, medically necessary surgery between Canada and the United States are virtually identical. This does not hold true for elective surgery. In Canada if you wish to have elective surgery you do go on a waiting list while in the United States you can pay for quicker results if you have the money to do so. |
Now this is where I completely disagree. I will use one of my own textbooks, Microeconomics: Theory and Application 9th addition by Edward Browning and Mark Zupan, to address this. Several Canadian hospitals are faced with overcrowding and, thus, slower care.
"An official at a Vancouver hospital estimates that 20 percent of heart attack patients who should be treated within 15 minutes now wait at least an hour."
This coincides with the economic principal that when someone perceives something as free (even though it rarely is), they have a tendency to consume in excess.
The long waits have also been noted by Michael Bliss, a Canadian health care historian. "So we have the absurdity in Canada that you can get faster care for your gum disease than your cancer, and probably more attentive care for your dog than your grandmother." It then gives an example where a man needing an MRI reserved a slot at a veterinary hospital because the waits were shorter.
Dental care, at the time this book was published, was still privatized (don't know if it's changed, but I haven't heard that it has). The fact is, the problem with overuse would likely only be exacerbated in the US, and the so-called overhead costs wouldn't likely be diminished very much, and possibly would even have to increase, as there would thus be governmental groups formed in each of the 50 states and on the federal level (and probably on a regional level of multiple states as well), in addition to the groups there are already. That article shows somewhat that the costs in the Canadian public health care system are less than the private American health care system, but so is the population.
The analysis in this book is based on a 2000 article in the New York Times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
