This is Canada:
It's a big, pretty country to our north where they like hockey and talk like that weird uncle of yours from Minnesota.
This is the United Kingdom:
It's a small, crowded country to our east where they have wizards and giant clocks.
Some people are having trouble keeping these countries straight!
I can't say I really blame them. Canada was once, in fact, a British colony. They both have red in their flags. They both have lots of really gross food!
One area where Canada and the United Kingdom don't have so much in common, though, is in health care. In Canada, they have a system called "single-payer". This is where the government pays for your health care. Need your tonsils removed? Some chemotherapy? Viagra refill? Great news! Johnny Canuck is footing the bill! Just make sure to bring some reading material for those long waits in line!
The really weird thing about Canada is, even though the government is paying the bill, they aren't actually providing the health care itself. Instead, they have private doctors for that, just like we do here.
I know this might be confusing for some of you, so let's try an analogy. This is a VISA card:
This is how you pay for things!
These are some things:
This is what you buy with your VISA card!
In Canada, the government is like the VISA card, and the health care is like the things. Kinda crazy, eh? ('Eh' is the Canadian word for 'huh'). We'd never do something like that in this country, except for old people who don't know any better.
But that's not what they do in Britain! Instead, they do something a whole lot crazier! Not only does the government pay for the things, they also make the things!
This is what they call "socialized medicine". If you're in Britain, your doctor is probably a socialist. Just kidding! But he does work for the government. The government pays his salary and buys all his tongue depressors and urine cups. Even old people wouldn't fall for that one over on this side of the "pond", so we only do it to our veterans.
Let's review:
See? They're actually pretty different!
It turns out that when you take a poll, most Americans don't want the government to provide health care coverage. But the idea of goverment providing health care insurance: a lot of folks think that's a pretty swell idea!
When someone confuses these two things, you can be pretty sure they're just ... well, confused. Just like this woman or these people. Nobody would ever, not in a million bajillion infinity years, ever mix these things up on purpose! Just send 'em over here and we'll get 'em straighted out! And if they're crossing through Canada, have 'em pick me up some poutine along the way. Eh?
8.11.2009
Not All Socialist Countries are Alike
@ 2:42 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
207 comments
Loved the graphics, will be showing this to all my socialist friends so they can get their facts straightened when they are doing their yelling contests with my healthcare-is-euthanasia-and-we're-all-going-to-die-in-a-waiting-room friends.
There's nothing to stop people in the UK buying health insurance and going to a network of (expensive) private hospitals, clinics, etc. There's a pretty buoyant health insurance market which proves that insurance companies CAN survive Government competition. BTW, you also have the right to choose who your Doctor is, and the right to a second opinion. There is an organisation that decides upon which drugs can be made available "on the NHS" called "NICE", but that's quasi-independent, and probably a lot more generous and scientifically-oriented than the Insurance Bureaucrats' arbitrary decisions.
Not to be humorless, but the United Kingdom doesn't include The Republic of Ireland.
I mean, you wouldn't show a map of the entire North American continent and call it the United States.
Great graphics!
Actually all Canadians have a health card - a credit card that pays any doctor or hospital - we just don't personally get the bill.
Watching the US go through this remarkable public debate about something that most civilized humans realize is pretty straight forward ethically and economically is quite bizarre.
What shit is getting injected into US food that is blinding a whole whack of the population from rational thought?
This northern socialist is very concerned about you all.
Yeah australias model is bit of a hybrid of the US, Canada and UK.
Theres medicare , which is the government health fund, and everybody from day 0 to day dead is on it. It covers MOST costs, but doctors can charge a gap, a small cost over and above that covered.
Most doctors however waive the gap for people on welfare, and the elderly, which is called "bulk billing".
So Canada style public cover and private doctors.
Added to that theres a network of major hospitals and clinics run by the govt that are free. They can get a bit congested sometimes, but they are usually very high-tech and if your in serious trouble you WILL be seen to. (if you turn up to emergency ward with a cold, expect a long wait to be seen. If you turn up in a stretcher you'll be surrounded by specialists immediately)
We also have private health cover that goes on top of the government. This gives you access to non medicare specialists and private hospitals and the like.
Most of the more popular private healthcare funds are run by non profits (like HBF, the hospital benefit fund), and they are highly regulated so that the fund has no choice over what it pays out for, as long as a govt registered doctor aproves and it is part of the plan (Ie if you sign up for basic cover, hbf wont cover your nose job, but they will never turn you down for cancer meds or the govt will get v. angry)
The conservatives here often try and defund medicare in favor of the privates, and labor swings toward medicare.
But the conservatives know that removing medicare would spell the death of their political ambitions for a long long time.
Just seconding what Chris said about the private alternative in the UK, because it's a point that never seems to get made. Germany seems to have a similar system.
james said...
Not to be humorless, but the United Kingdom doesn't include The Republic of Ireland.
I mean, you wouldn't show a map of the entire North American continent and call it the United States.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
but, but, but, N. Ireland is part of the Island that is both Ireland and N. Ireland and is kinda a given and hard to erase from Nate's colorful jigsaw puzzle map, eh if you try to remove it by getting rid of several pieces in this instance it would not be possible ;)
And as I say, it's a given/apparent, except for the 90% of high school children in the U.S. that can't find Florida on a map of America, I kid.
Anyway nice graphics Nate and even a small % of the birthers might be able to figure out your colorful logic! But most of faux news will be baffled by the simplicity of your explanation, especially the kindergarten challenged, Beck!
And then there's Germany, which currently has a quite good public / private health care system.
According to Rush and other conservatives, Germany had a socialist dictatorship under Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Now, I actually live in Germany, and when I told some of my German friends that there are some Americans who think Hitler and the Nazis were on the political left, they damn near spit out their drinks from laughing so hard.
Everyone in the free world (except conservative Americans) knows that despite having the word "socialist" in their name, the Nazis were -and still are BTW- a conservative party. Hitler was a far right politician, and the NSDAP (now called the NPD) was a far right party.
The Nazis had Goebbels, the US conservatives have Rush.
Hey,
As an Englishman, I wish we had the Canadian/French system here - although the NHS isn't that bad, most of the Republican false criticisms of reform are valid criticisms of the NHS.
- Government bureaucrats, here NICE (The National Institute for Clinical Excellence - a truly 1984-esque name) do decide what treatments are covered (although age does not factor in decisions). Many cancer patients with sufficient funds travel to the US to get treatments NICE refuses; given that the unit they use to make decisions is the QuaLY (Quality of Life Year), it is theoretically possible that disabilities might be taken into account.
- Delays have been a feature, although they have improved recently
- Costs have grown (although they are still FAR below US costs) due to poor negotiating with Unions, too many bureaucrats (US has this too, but private bureaucrats - insurance adjusters). Taxes are high - National sales tax of 17.5%, top marginal income tax of 50% over £150k (~=$250k).
That said, waits for non-emergency treatment are generally only a month or so, we don't have issues with over-testing or 'defensive medicine' (we have a loser-pays system of litigation), prescriptions cost around $10 to fill (or nothing for children and the poor), and our overall costs are lower than the US system, plus everyone is covered.
So, I'd rate Single Payer highest; the US system is better than the UK for quality and economic incentives but worse for cost and universality.
When the MSM is cheerleading for a right wing war, and some lefties show up to present an opposing viewto the MSM/ White House (even if they're admittedly kinda fringy), they're un-American.
When the MSM is promoting all sorts of right wing propaganda regarding health care, and some hypnotized wingnuts show up to prevent an opposing viewpoint to that BS, and try to silence the Dems now in power from addressing that propaganda, they're grass roots activists.
One small little detail. I'm not aware of any provincial drug plan that actually pays of viagra, that comes from your VISA card. More likely, being Canadian, your debit card cause we're addicted to those things ;-)
HI I AM DUCKMONSTER? said...
with the addition of a rider that, during the Oz Conservative (USA GOP) just past 12 year rule (which ended in Dec 2007) they scrapped the very "basic" Dental Health Care system that was/had been an integral part of our universal health care system. Though it was only available to social security/unemployed/pensioners/vets/ recipients, it still provided all our disadvantaged Australians (read: no job) with at least some access to basic dental health care.
In its place, theconservatives paid mothers of families a 30% tax rebate to take out private health care cover but gave absolutely nothing in return to the disadvantaged.
Right now, our current Labour gov't (= same in UK and equiv to USA Dems) is proposing to increase our Medicare tax levy to ensure all Australians are covered for basic dental as well as medical and hospital care. The Conservatives are fighting this equalising reform tooth and nail!
If passed by both houses of gov't (Reps and Senate) only then would we have universal halth care sponsored and paid for by a tax levy currently set to be 1.75% of income.
However, as HI I AM DUCKMONSTER? correctly says, anyone and everyone would still need to take out private health insurance to cover any "gap" fee that the gov't deemed that health service to be "worth".
I'm just tickled to death that Sam Bee is poting on 538 these days. What's that now? That was Nate? Holy vache!
wv: woriz, as in "no woriz, SOME form of substantial health care reform will pass during Obama's first term."
JMS - As an Englishman living in France, who used to have private medical insurance through my employer and also happens to be diabetic I disagree strongly. I didn't used to have much contact with the NHS as I was rarely ill. Most of the information I had on the system came second or third hand reading the horror stories in the newspapers, whose purpose is not to inform debate but to sell newspapers. Good news does not sell as much as Bad news or scandal. However five years ago all that changed with my diabetes diagnosis. Even then on my first visit to my GP I told him that I wouldn't be seeing him again as I had private health cover through work and might as well use that. He told me there was no point as he could offer me the same level of care. Over the next two years he proved it to the extent that on my last appointment I gave him a bottle of Whisky to say thank you. Under the UK system the health care is paid for directly by the government, which obviously comes from our taxes.
The French system is like the Candian single payer system in that the state pays the bulk of the bill, with the individual or their insurance picking up the rest, whilst the doctor's run private practices. Although I have no complaints regarding the quality of care I have received here my feeling is that the French system is a job creation scheme for administrators. When I go to see the doctor I pay, then later the Securité Social reimbourses me for their part, and my mutuelle for the other.
I doubt that I would want to live in the US as I have no faith in your Insurance companies. I would have no problem getting or paying from health insurance but the insurance companies would classify my diabetes as a pre-existing condition, and would use that as an excuse for not paying for any range of illnesses. Also, as a result of the diabetes I need to take pills (gliclazide, metformin and simvastatin) on a daily basis. I couldn't tell you how much they cost as both in the UK and France they are free.
While I think the post here is instructive, I would argue that Canada doesn't entirely fit into a single payer model but rather a mixed one.
Canada's provincial governments (and, by virtue of transfer payments, the federal government) have built and run a majority of Canadian hospitals. Additionally only about 70% of health dollars are public in Canada. In other words, I would characterize Canada as a 70-30 public-private mixed system. That doesn't stop us from having family doctors, private clinics, etc.
By the same token the US has many public hospitals, and public funds cover 46% of all health dollars through medicare, medicaid and the employer healthcare subsidy (this works out such that the US government spends more per capita than Canada).
I think JMS is painting an overly poor picture of the NHS. (One that rings more true of a Republican parroting talking points about it, rather than someone who has any real life experience of it).
First off, at least for this year, VAT (what the UK calls its national sales tax)is actually 15%, rising back to 17.5 at the end of the year, currently. And besides the NHS is payed (at least nominally) through National Insurance. I don't suppose a UK tax payer would have a clue what drugs costs are. I have never ever heard of a UK resident travelling to the US for cancer treatment, other than in VERY isolated cases. Those who were rich enough to do that would surely have enough private insurance to be able to get whatever treatment they want on that.
Secondly, no patient has any real idea of what NICE does. They go to a doctor, who writes a prescription, and you take that to the chemist, who dispenses your drugs, albeit once you have paid the prescription charge. (Pensioners also receive an exemption on that by the way, and I believe that the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales have scrapped prescription charges, and that they are free in those countries). Noone quibbles that the drug might not be the best thing.
Delays are always a feature of government run health care systems, simply becuase demand tends then to outstrip the resources that a government run system has. (I believe for instance that delays are an issue with the Canadian system?) But they have been reduced in the UK by allowing healthcare providers to buy treatment from private hospitals. (At this point i should point out that public hospitals are now run as 'trusts'. They get funding from central government, but basically make healthcare decisions for themselves. For instance my local healthcare trust has recently been streamlining services, essentially closing my local hospital to all but long term elderly care type patients, and meaning that any hospital treatment to most residents of my town is done in either of its neighboring towns (each about 10 miles away).
Bottom line, in my view, a mix of some public and some private run healthcare is the ideal. I honestly don't know if single payer is better than the UK system. I have little anecdotal evidence from Canada to judge their system, but other countries seem to use a single payer system reasonably succesfully.
I'm sensing a certain amount of snark in Nate's article.
As an American living in London, I have to say I love the NHS. I loved it in principle when I was paying more into it (in taxes) than I was getting out of it, and I loved it even more when I needed it.
At one point I had private insurance (BUPA) through my employer. When I needed a (non-urgent) procedure done, I tried to get it done through BUPA because I thought it would be quicker and better. BUPA made me get many different levels of approvals for each part of the procedure and required a longer wait than the NHS, who booked me in for the procedure within six weeks. And when my wife was pregnant, BUPA covered virtually nothing even though she was considered high risk.
And there have been a lot of improvements in the NHS in the past decade or so - there is more freedom of choice of health care providers, much shorter waits, and better facilities. I've never encountered a "government bureaucrat" and never had any hassle getting necessary treatment. In fact the only bureaucratic hassles I've had were from the private system.
Is it perfect? No - but no system is. The NHS works, and all the nonsense spewed by the likes of Rush and FoxNews can't change that. If this is socialism, sign me up.
Closer to home, Medicare is single payer and the Veteran's hospitals are wholly owned. Right?
Bradford,
You see, Medicare is a great deal like the single-payer system. It's kind of funny, but it's becoming clear that the loudest screamers at the town halls are mostly on Medicare. This means they are either ignoraant of their own insurance or are hypocrites. Probably both.
Not just veterans, but currently active duty as well are under a completely socialized medical system. Our doctors are government employees (typically given a commission as officers), the government pays for the entire system, the government provides the entire system. This has its good points and its bad points. On the good side, when I blew out my knee last year, I didn't have to pay for the MRI. On the bad side, the fact that I could walk again a month later was enough to cancel a follow-on MRI and my knee surgery. And we all remember Walter Reed Medical Center.
Just curious, maybe some of the Brits here can answer this: a few have commented about the availability of private insurance in the UK, and/or their employers providing it.
How common (roughly) is this? Are most "working-class" employees offered this, or is it considered a "high paying job" perk?
Matt, it tends to depend on the employer rather than the job. Though its largely true that say a restaurant worker or factory worker is not likely to have private health insurance. My sister-in-law works as a contracted temp for a large multinational, doing largely administrative duties, and gets health insurance with that.
Its not really THAT common, though probably as you go up the wage levels it would get more common for them to buy their own private insurance. Wiki suggests 8% of the population use private health insurance (Lol sorry I closed down the window before I could copy and paste the link!). My guess is that in a public healthcare America, that number will be much larger, however.
My brother died in a VA hospital. The VA and socialized medicine must therefore be bad. (Actually the VA provided him with wonderful and caring treatment as he went through espisodes of hospitalization due to the consequences of exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam.)
The effort to misinform and spook people on healthcare options -- and the exaltation of our current 100% American and market-driven healthcare system -- is the most shameless politics that I've ever seen in this country (in the last 7 months anyway).
But to tell you the truth, they're grinding me down. Just when I'm about to fall into my health safety net the b'tards are going to take it away??? We fought the National Socialists and the Vietcong for this?.
With Patrick Henry, I must therefore shout to the rooftops, "Give me Liberty Mutual -- or give me death!"
Many of the folks who associate all government participation in healthcare as evil socialism firmly believed last summer that the solution to all of our problems was to, "Drill baby, drill!" I'm not sure they've gotten any better at understanding the details of a complex problem.
I am not usually one for reposting a comment, but i made this comment in another thread, it seems to be relevant to the actions of the angry mobs at the moment.
'I really worry that Palin in the field would mean an energised 'nutjob' wing of the GOP. I'm not talking about the far right here. I am talking about the kind of people who turned up in 2008 at Palin rallies accusing Obama of being a terrorist, who took part in the teabagging protests (what were they actually about in the end? Getting rid of the frustration of losing the 2008 elections?) and who are currently taking part in disrupting healthcare forums. The kind of people who seemingly have no interest in debating policy, but instead just really are an angry mob. Thats my biggest fear for 2012.'
----------------------------------
I think the angry mob is one of the reasons its so important to pass health care reform and show them that a public option is not some evil nasty vision. Indeed many of us cope very nicely thank you with it.
Oh and the Canadian system will not pay for any prescriptions (like the above noted Viagra) or for that matter dental coverage except for children.
I believe there are exceptions for very low income people for prescriptions (and many doctors will give a lot of free 'samples' if you're not so wealthy)
We do have employer based health insurance here to cover that stuff though, if you're lucky.
@gzero:
The Nazis had Goebbels, the US conservatives have Fox.
I'm angry! It will be a cold day in hell when they pry my Medicare Card from my cold dead fingers!!
"Give me Liberty Mutual -- or give me death!"
As a US-Canadian dual citizen, I strongly object, in a very humorless way, to the grossly inaccurate stereotypes included here. Not the stuff about the health care system, which is accurate.
I spent much of my childhood in a small town in eastern Canada. I never heard anyone say "eh" until the first time I saw Bob and Doug McKenzie on television. That is an Ontario affectation, also sometimes heard in points west of Ontario. Contrary to popular belief in Ontario, "Ontario" and "Canada" are not the same thing.
Furthermore, all Canadians say "huh" from time to time.
Poutine is a Quebecois thing. It may now be served outside of Quebec, I don't know (and if it is, it's probably in New Hampshire and Vermont). There were some people who ate their french fries with gravy instead of ketchup back in the day, in Anglophone Canada, but there was never anyone eating full blown Poutine.
Poutine is not gross, it's just french fries, gravy (ideally from a can) and cheese. A pretty standard high fat meal. I'm just surprised that they didn't invent it first in the American south.
(Poutine is not associated with Vladimir Putin and predates his rise to prominence. Of course, Nate didn't make that mistake, but it's important to mention that.)
Also, Sarah Palin sounds depressing like a western Canadian. However, that makes sense when you look at a map and look at the land borders of Alaska. It is a mystery to me why Minnesotans sound like Canadians.
Obama’s Death Panel
I think the "Death Panel" meme originates in a few places. Not least of all is Obama’s own rhetoric.
First if you read the House bill it is littered with the creation of dozens of Committees and, yes, Panels to regulate healthcare and its consumption.
Many have pointed out that the intent is to do a cost-benefit analysis to see if certain conditions are worth treating aggressively, if lives are worth prolonging or saving.
We are all aware of how much harping there is on "end life care” the barrage of high estimates of the total spend on treating the elderly as a percent of the whole. (like saying 90% is spent in the last 3 mos, etc, etc.). It's like folks are just shouting, "SHUT UP AND DIE, ALREADY, OLD BITCHES!"
Obama himself contributes to the fear among the people, especially the elderly by suggesting at townhalls that we ought to consider whether granny should get a pacemaker or a pain pill. Despite betraying a shocking ignorance of medical conditions and their treatment, Obama seems to want to put himself and his government smack in the middle of people’s life and death decisions.
And perhaps he may need to be, if he is paying for it all. But that is a big if.
Many of us -- most of us it now seems -- don’t want him touching or going near our healthcare decisions. People would rather trust the insurance industry with these decisions as it is at least subject to competition and the marketplace (though it needs to be more so). Few people except the Liberal Loons who post here would trust the government with anything. And the Libs only trust the government when it is captive of the socialist left.
The fear of the "Death Panel" is real and we can thank Sarah Palin for giving powerful voice to what so many are afraid of and for crystallizing the argument.
Obama is long on emotional appeal and demagoguery on this issue, but he has yet to have a teaching moment on healthcare reform (Or is it now "insurance reform”? What is poll testing better these days, Rahm?). He won’t because he knows that knowledge and understanding are against him.
Made aware of the details of what is intended by this legislation the people have become outraged. And Pelosi and the media risk further alienating the people by attacking that outrage and the ouraged.
Obama knows he can only pass healthcare reform in authoritarian, Stalinist fashion, presuming and counting upon the ignorance of the people.
Thank goodness the American people are not yet sheep and can make up their own minds!
petekent01 (on twitter)
@Harold, who wrote:
"It is a mystery to me why Minnesotans sound like Canadians."
Well then maybe you should visit the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, eh?
Seriously, it is very unfortunate that people mock Canada and Canadians. Truly if I weren't an American, I would move to Canada. (I will be there tomorrow, in fact, but only for a short stay.)
I don't think even half of those who mock Canada could find it on a map.
@Petekent:
None of what you just said was supported by any fact...I'd like to see something, anywhere in HR 3200, that states there's going to be a death panel...Yeah I know pg 425 provides end of life consultation! Oh no! Oh, but wait a) it's not mandatory b) It's not them telling you to die it's them helping you cope with a situation some find difficult.
I don't know where you find these rumors but they're false.
Actually, we Brits are pretty proud of our National Health Service - and god help anyone who tries to take it away!
Frankly, if you explain to anyone here the debate over American health care you will be met with head-scratching incredulity.
Ultimately, it comes down to a simple truth: Leaving people without health care is just. plain. wrong.
Over here, universal health care is seen as one of the major upsides of living in a major industrialized democracy!
Oh, and one more thing - I have never in my life let anyone call me a Socialist and get away with it!
Yours sincerely, a proud Liberal Democrat
PK joked/said (I am not entirely sure which??)
'The fear of the "Death Panel" is real and we can thank Sarah Palin for giving powerful voice to what so many are afraid of and for crystallizing the argument.
Obama is long on emotional appeal and demagoguery on this issue'
-------------------------------------
Honestly PK, are you being deliberately ironic (props if you are) or accidentally stupid? Palin goes on about Death Panels and the goverment being downright evil, and its Obama who is being a demagogue and making emotional appeals? WTF??
And if we replaced the word 'Obama' with 'Private heathcare insurance companies' then it would read far more accurately. But then again maybe thats deiberate irony?
But take this section of what you wrote
'Made aware of the details of what is intended by this legislation the people have become outraged. And Pelosi and the media risk further alienating the people by attacking that outrage and the ouraged.'
---------------------------------
I've actually not heard a single republican, either an elected representative or a voter, who has made a criticism of the current healthcare proposals, that rings true. Take for instance the Death Panel comment. It has NO basis in fact whatsoever. Its just Palin feeding her angry mob with another tidbit to scream at town hall meetings. There is language that guarantees people a say in there decisions about the end of their lives, (added to the bill as I understand it by Georgia Republican Johny Isaakson). Gingrich made some comment about death panels on This Week, George Snuffalapogus put him right, and Gingrich just kept blathering on. There is no grip on reality amongst these people.
The right is getting more and more sidetracked by lies on this debate. I suggest that Democrats of all types don't. 'Death Panels' are not a pre requisite of a government run health scheme, as anyone in Canada or the US, or heck ANY other industrialised country. The point of health care is to keep people alive, not to kill them, and in my view it is criminal to scare old people with some of the messaging the right has come up with over the last few weeks. Really, you want to get some idea about why the GOP is losing popularity, look at the current healthcare debate. Not just the party of no, but the party of lies and the party of the angry mob. All to keep on the right side of the profiteers in the health insurance lobby. Pathetic.
*steps off soapbox*
Death panels exist.
The insurance companies who decide not to cover expensive treatments are directly condemning individuals to die.
This doesn't happen with Medicare, the government-run socialist single-payer system that the elderly prefer and defend. They cover any medically-necessary treatment, without regard to stage of life.
This only happens with for-profit insurers. It's called murder-by-spreadsheet.
So, I agree with the right-wing.. no more death panels. Let's enact a law that forbids any health plan, public or private, from denying care to the terminally-ill because they are deemed to be too sick.
It would hilarious to see how fast the same people screaming about it now on Fox would reverse course and start defending it.
The comparison between socialized health insurance and socialized health care is a distinction without a difference. In the end under both systems, the government determines what health care patients will receive, when they will receive it (if ever), and what compensation medical providers will receive for providing the government approved health care.
The fact that the Dems have switched to the spin term "insurance reform" from "health care reform" because it polls better says far more about the dishonesty of this discussion rather than any substantive difference between the two terms.
I get your point, and I sense your frustration with the sheer bone-headedness of the wingnuts, but whoa -- way snarky, Nate.
shorter PeteKent rant:
"It doesn't matter if the things you say about Obama are true or not, because "many" people don't trust him. And that is totally Obama's fault, but I'm not sure how."
harold said...
It is a mystery to me why Minnesotans sound like Canadians.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thought most Minnasootans sounded like Scandinavians. Do they say oot instead of out like western Canadians. OK, I'm no Canadian expert.
Interesting to note Ben Cartwright, Capt/Adm James Tiberius Kirk, Perry Mason/Robert T. Ironside, Monty Hall, Alex Trebek were/are from Canada.
was a Bobby Orr fan many, many years ago, oh and Shania "there is a god!" Twain :) and Jamie Sale
Just noticed Shania looks a lot like Danica Patrick, I digress.
Oh and back on topic, I've been to London, England and Hamburg, Germany, but oddly enough never to Canada and it's right up the road, always wanted to go to Toronto. ok, I'll just quietly leave ...
In my discussions over the healthcare bill, one of my English friends told me that the system in England is quite unequal.
The average person (and lower income population) will receive their care through the government. However, according to him, the best doctors (or highest rated doctors) have mostly opened private practices that only take private insurance (which only the wealthier population posseses). As a result, only the wealthy receive care from the top specialists. (He compared it to the system in Los Angeles where the "best doctors" take additional annual fees from wealthy clients to "gurantee" that they will be seen immediately if they have health problems. This I know for a fact happens in LA)
Can anyone with direct experience with the English helathcare system either confirm or deny his statements?
This article is rife with outrageous lies and mis-information from the left wing liberal media elite Acorn Black Panther Howard Dean Moveon.org camp!!! STOP DRINKING YOUR OWN KOOL-AID!!!! YOU ARE WRONG!!!!! I WILL NOT STAND FOR YOUR SLANDER!!!!!
POUTINE IS DELICIOUS!
oh yeah...the rest of the article with that health care stuff seemed pretty right on though, keep up the good work there.
Echoing Eaglman: to whomevr responds to his query, can you also tell us whether nearly 20% of the population in the UK has no health isurance at all?
Irish will take offense to the British Isles map. Pls destroy that thing.
Anyways, it's become pretty apparent Republicans will lie and cheat to stay in power. Staying in power means preventing Americans from knowing the truth.
Anyways, after this initial overreaction fizzles down by the end of September and we start seeing a finalized bill, people will slowly know the truth.
See, Sarah Palin, much like Orly Taitz, must know they've stepped in it when their outlandish claims become news because of how outrageous they are. When one outrageous claim comes out, people will start to question all the other outrageous claims.
Truth will prevail. Unless of course you watch Faux Noise who has an agenda as a 24/7 voice for corporate interests.
I understood perfectly until you said the word "Coverage." I'm not sure why the word "coverage" implies the government provides the doctors, so avoiding that term would help greatly.
You're missing the fact that in most Canadian provinces (health care is per province in Canada), prescription drugs taken outside a hospital (like Viagra) are not covered. That said, drugs inside the hospital (like chemotherapy) are...
Nate, you made my morning. I had a nice chuckle at the picture laden post you did, I'll definitely be forwarding it to some friends.
Hi Nate,
Looks like accessniagara.com doesn't allow hotlinking to their pics. It's always a bad idea to use someone's images /and/ bandwidth. Great post- can't wait for you to do the right thing with the pic so I can send some eyes your way.
I also, am a participant in socialized medicine. I am an active duty U.S. service member and LOVE my socialist system of health care. My government employed doctor has an office at my work place. I can get an appointment any time I want (I have two at the moment). My Doctor can and has sent me to specialists and surgeons for treatmant with little or no wait. The doctors love it too, Good salaries, no malpractice insurance, freedom from insurers to treat their patients and fully trained professional staffs who do ALL of the paperwork!
Awesome System. I wish the whole country could try it
I could have sent this post to everyone I work with if only it didn't have a picture of a blow-up doll in it. :-/
as pointed out above, the Canadian system won't buy you Viagra unless you use it in the hospital, and therein a consideration not often included in the debates South Of the Border: Our healthcare does not pay for everything. At best you might say that it pays for the minimum, and that in itself is a very good thing, but it is not the same as imagining that every little quirk you experience can get you a carte blanche at the clinic of your choosing.
And that is another aspect that frequently comes up in the debates here in the Great White North: Many respectable and effective treatments are not covered, other quasi-quack treatments are covered, and when people need medical care and are given the choice between that which is and that which is not on the approved list, guess which they choose? We have an expression up here that maybe you do too: We say "if all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails."
While yes, eventually the Chiropractor was added to the list what this should tell you is probably of great interest to the Yank psyche: Single-Payor medicare can stiffle medical innovation, and it is GROSSLY slanted against any medical procedure not pioneered by White Europeans.
I don't want to use the 'R' word, but you might; there is zero coverage for native american methods, traditional or even modern oriental methods or even millenia-proven ethnic folk herbal medicines.
So guess who this system best serves ...
Watching Arlen Spector's town hall and I completely despair of getting health care reform 1) because of the ignorance of so many people who are terrified that providing insurance to all means "socialism" 2) the fact that people seem to completely reject any answer that this is not so or any answer that tells them their information is WRONG and 3) Spector's utterly crappy job of answering questions. I mean, honestly, if all the senators are "non-answering" this badly, no wonder the misinformation is not getting cleared up.
I just despair.
Wow. Looks like Reid is toast. He's officially in Corzine Country now.
The Dems are starting to feel the heat of severe voter disatisfaction.
NV Poll: Reid Would Lose to Lowden
Posted by Tom Bevan | Email This | Permalink | Email Author
New poll in Nevada by Vitale & Associates (July 29-30, 510 LV, MoE +/-4.4%) shows incumbent Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid losing by six points to Sue Lowden, chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Party, 44-38, with 10% undecided.
From the Las Vegas Review-Journal write up:
Pollster Todd Vitale said the most telling numbers might be the ones related to Reid.
In three Reid-related categories -- image, approval and whether they would vote to re-elect -- respondents gave the senator a thumbs down. Just 39 percent viewed Reid favorably, and 34 percent said they would vote to re-elect him.
"All of those are very, very telling pieces of information," said Vitale, who has been a pollster for 15 years. "I've never seen an incumbent with numbers this bad who hadn't had some scandal."
Eagleman's point, whilst not being wholly without merit seems couched in Republican language to me. Private doctors probably do offer a 'better' standard of care in that they probably have little more freedom, but also fewer patients. Those receiving that top notch private insurace I would imagine are a fraction of the 8% using private insurance.
Juris suggests that nearly 20% of the population have no health insurance. That's false. If you pay NI, or have it paid for you through benefits, you have insurance coverage. (I guess some people working within the grey market, illegal aliens etc might not have coverage, but that would be nowhere near 20%)
Sometimes I can't believe there is only one site on the web where someone understands what is happening right now. People are afraid of government running hospitals, people are NOT afraid of government offering insurance, and those two are CONSTANTLY and intentionally being confused by health insurance opponents.
Every single person in favor of a public option for health insurance should start calling it 'insurance' and not 'health care'.
Things Nate might have mentioned:
1. GB is cheaper; they pay 40% per person of what we pay, but Canada pays about 50%.
2. Both do better than we do better than we do in the 16 bottom line public health statistics (life expectancy and life expectancy after 60, infant and maternal mortality, birth weight, etc.). In addition, they have better mortality rates (not survival rates which is the wrong statistic) for most diseases.
Here is the result for cancer:
Per 1000 people the US has 321.9, Australia 298.9, Canada 296.4, France 286.1, Austria 280, Sweden 268.2 Finland 255.4, and the UK 253.5.
3. The story about wait time in Canada is greatly exaggerated. Look at http://canadaonline.about.com/od/healthcarewaittimes/Wait_Times_for_Health_Care_in_Canada.htm and http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/reality+check+reality+check/1783177/story.html. Also everyone in Canada who needs treatment gets it. In the US thousands don't; their wait time is infinite. How do you average in infinity? Furthermore Canada spends half as much as we do. Can you imagine what our system would be like if we cut payments by half?
4. You hear stories of millions of Canadians coming to the US for treatment. The actual number is 150,000 (0.6% of their population) and half of these are sent here (and paid for) by their health care system because they have a rare disease that we see more frequently because we are 13 times bigger.
Just as an adjunct to Walker's post, this is also from the Sun Journal post
'On Monday, Lowden supporters, including political strategist Robert Uithoven, disclosed the results of a poll commissioned as part of an effort to persuade the Nevada Republican Party chairwoman to run, especially if Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., decides not to challenge Reid.
The poll by Denver-based Vitale & Associates was conducted July 29-30 and showed that 48 percent of respondents favored Lowden to 42 percent for Reid. Ten percent were undecided. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.'
----------------------------------
http://www.lvrj.com/news/52948952.html
In short, the poll was conducted to try and persuade Lowden into the race.
if you keep posting stuff like this people wont be confused and we will be a socialist country. stop before it is too late
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LIFE
WITHOUT RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE
Thanks for the information, Lensch. Why to you say looking at survival rates from diseases is the wrong statistic? Isn't that also worth considering, along with the incidence and prevalance rates?
we need more poutine in these posts
Off-topic but VERY important…
Time to take the fight right back to Fucked News. Here is a petition to all their advertisers. A lot of their ad revenue has already flown the coop, as advertisers like Campbell’s Soup have pulled all their stuff.
Rupert Murdoch and his shameless garbage-peddling should be hounded day and night, until they are cornered and set up for the kill. Money is the only stuff this guy understands, so let’s all see if we can deprive him of enough to force Fox to crumble into bankrupt dust.
Under ObamaCare who will decide if Granny gets a pacemaker or a barbiturate instead?
Oh, that must be the "Death Panel". Euthanasia by any other name would still smell as necrotic!
Obama wants to cut $500 BILLION from Medicare. That's a lot of dead and suffering seniors!
This thing is plain wrong. Obama, Pelosi and Reid (Oh, my!) are using this phony healthcare crisis (just like the phony global warming crisis) to take over our lives.
Obama is a dangerous Authoritarian and he must not be allowed to succeed.
Let us hope he fails!
I think he will –SNAG! The people are rejection the Liberal Agenda once again. You Libs can only elect one of your own by fooling the people. Shame on you! Everyone hates you and your policies!!!
None of this crap agenda will come to pass. Ha! Ha!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Walker…
Why don’t you give Sarah Palin a call and see if you can get an appointment with that Death Panel she’s been raving about.
Walker…
Take Pete Kent along to the Panel. You can carpool.
Laughs on you Pragmatus.
Fox news is crushing the competition. They had all the Conservatives now the Moderates and Independents are coming over so that they can get the real news -- the news that does not demean the people and call them "tea baggers' and suggests they are a "mob".
How do you explain Fox News' continued dominance and ratings surge while MSNBC and CNN tumble?
I guess it must be the stupid people. The tea bagging mob!
Eff U a-holes -- you have seen your day in the Sun!
petekent01 (on twitter)
You take back what you said about poutine. You take it back right now.
Here is the thing PK, Medicare is pretty much what elderly people will continue to be on. So who decides now if granny gets a pacemaker or a barbituate?
As for the actual provision in the bill, the 'Not Death Panels'
Q: Who supports the provision?
A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors' lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_end_of_life_q_a
And President Obama's approval ratings are still over 50%, so its not like 'everyone' hates liberals, and there agenda.
I must say, Nate, that your depiction of canadian healthcare isn't entirely correct.
First, healthcare, while mandated by the federal government, is run by the provinces. This means talking about "haelthcare in Canada" is a bit like talking about "Taxes in the US": there are lots of similarities, and everyone has them, but it varies a lot by state.
From now on, I'll talk of what I know, which is Quebec's Health Care system.
In Quebec's case, the situation is very similar to that of the UK. Hospitals ARE the property of the state, as are many clinics and other health-related institutions. There are private clinics, but their role is limited. Almost no surgery is done there (until recently it was actually illegal, but the Canadian supreme court struck the law down). Dentistry and eye care is, however, only in private sector.
For drugs, coverage is mandated by the government. It is either provided by the employer (in which case it is mandatory to take it), or, if you're employer doesn't provide it or you are unemployed, you have to take the government's coverage (which you have to pay for separately).
As you can see, we pretty much have socialized healthcare, with some exceptions.
We're not dead yet.
Sorry - got to pick you up on the fact that in the UK, GPs are self employed. They contract to the NHS but they aren't employed by the NHS.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/09/nhs.health1
Gosh what a lot of pedantic buggers we Brits are!
Frankly, if you explain to anyone here the debate over American health care you will be met with head-scratching incredulity.
Ultimately, it comes down to a simple truth: Leaving people without health care is just. plain. wrong.
Over here, universal health care is seen as one of the major upsides of living in a major industrialized democracy!
@Joe Taylor,
Over here, the "head-scratching incredulity" comes when we hear idiot foreigners - yes, even you Brits - deride us for not having "universal health care."
That is patently false. We do have "universal health care." Go to any emergency room in the country and you will not be denied health care. Our problem is with the delivery of care, insurance, and the costs associated with providing it.
But I repeat...IN THE UNITED STATES, WE ALREADY HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!
"but, N. Ireland is part of the Island that is both Ireland and N. Ireland and is kinda a given and hard to erase from Nate's colorful jigsaw puzzle map",
I think what you mean is:
"Northern Ireland is a part of the island that is called Ireland, and consists of both N. Ireland and the Republic of Ireland."
@ Patty P
"I could have sent this post to everyone I work with if only it didn't have a picture of a blow-up doll in it. :-/"
---------------------------------
You mean Geri Haliwell? She was kinda Britain's version of a blow-up doll.
@Chocolate Thunder
That cracked me up.
@Bart DePalma
"The fact that the Dems have switched to the spin term "insurance reform" from "health care reform" because it polls better says far more about the dishonesty of this discussion rather than any substantive difference between the two terms."
-------------------------------
I disagree. I've been trying to get people to realize that health care doesn't really need a lot of improvement. The US has some of the best health care in the world. What the US lacks is access to adequate health care. And that, appropriately named, is a health insurance issue.
It's not spin that's designed to fool you. Like giving your domestic defense department a warm fuzzy name like 'Homeland Security' so your constituents will feel fine about you bombing brown people in nations we have no business being in. Or wrapping your invasion force in a feel goody name like "Operation Enduring Freedom". Everybody likes freedom except terrorists, right? Or how about calling people who take extreme measures to protect the environment that conservative capitalist/corporations seem fine with destroying "eco-terrorists" rather than saboteurs? There's a whole memo out now that instructs people on what doom and gloom language to use when fighting the health insurance reform movement (see Bill Moyers show last week).
No, you conservative Republican dinosaurs have the market cornered on spin. How's that workin' for ya?
>I don't know where you find these rumors but they're false.
Fox, I would assume.
Anyway, my two cents...my dad is ex-military, so I always had health insurance through the government until I finished school. My second year working full time, I saw a doctor for a minor stress-related illness that never reoccurred; as a result, after I went back to school for my doctorate, I was unable to get private health insurance (denied for "pre-existing condition"); fortunately, Colorado has a public option for people in my situation, so I'm again getting excellent care at a reasonable cost.
Incidentally, I've been using the same doctor for the past 15+ years; the only different between being on private insurance through work and being on the government plan, is that in the latter case it costs me less. I started a new job recently that offers health insurance, but it would cost me literally twice what I'm paying now.
Thanks for the link Prag. Too bad they don't have a quick button to install it onto your facebook/myspace to get it spread quicker.
For anyone who missed it.
http://www.democrats.com/boycott-fox-news-advertisers?cid=ZGVtczU1MDY2NmRlbXM=
Sign the petition. Get FOX's advertisers to drop them for the race baiting rants of Beck and others on the network.
The lipstick is off the pig.
On intrade, passage of "Will a federal government run health insurance plan be approved in the US?" is languishing at 38%.
Someone (Soros?) keeps trying to boost it up every afternoon but its like shoveling water one bucket at a time off the Titanic.
Senator Durbin, as tenacious a partisan liberal Democrat as they come, said yesterday that he's open to a health care bill "without a public option".
The only person unwilling to accept the prevailing winds in the president.
And regarding Hilary Clinton...oh, my...the mask is starting to slip...she knows she was checkmated hard by Obama..
Int: Congo Hotel - Night
A mid-level state department official tip toes up to the Secretary holding an official looking folder. The
Secretary is alone, picking at some odd, local African delicacy, staring off into the corner.
Staffer: Umm, madam Secretary?
Clinton (exasperated): What?!
Staffer: I have brought you tomorrow's briefing file.
The Secretary grabs it and flips through it absently for a second or two. She then tosses it in front of her.
Clinton: What's the gist?
Staffer: Errr, well in the morning you are scheduled to meet the official Under-Minister of Mining and Pig Farming
for Upper Botswana...and then tomorrow afternoon, a presser with the recent graduates of the Smile Mamma School of
Hair Styling from rural Uganda!
Clinton shakes with rage. Her pastel-raspberry pantsuit stretches under the strain of hightened tension. The staffer
takes a few steps backwards.
Clinton: This is not how it was supposed to be!! THIS IS NOT HOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE!!!!
Honestly, I do think that in a couple of years time people will wonder what the debate was all about. People will be using government provided health insurance and enjoying doing so (if thats the right word to use!) Indeed people will become very protective of it. Many small business will be relieved of the cost of providing health insurance for their workers, and all of America will finally be fully covered by health insurance.
Incidentally Mule Rider is of course correct, what the debate is about is not universal healthcare, but universal health insurance. (Though I think MR would be being a little disengenuous if he genuinely thought ER health care was at the same level as your average through health care insurance coverage!) But Joe Taylor makes an easy mistake for Brits to make, given how easy it is to use the NHS. Just turn up at the doctors or casusalty department and there you go. In fact I am not sure I even had to fill in any forms at all last time I went to the doctors in the UK? Certainly wasn't a long form if there was one! Probably the hardest bit was shelling out the whatever it was to pay for the prescription!!
The really striking thing is not the individual details of various non-US country's health plans, but rather that no one can name a single other industrialized country with none at all.
Check out Nate's favorite pollster -- healthcare reform is hemorrhaging support. Rasmussen also reports continued decline in the President’s popularity. Must be because his Liberal slip is showing. Or could it be that cover story in the Globe?
Imagine that, screaming headlines at supermarket check stands everywhere outing the President! And nary a peep from the MSM.
Just like with John Edwards! And look how well that turned out for y'all.
petekent01 (on twitter)
I am an American living in Canada. I have been very happy with the care in Canada.
I've had to wait noticeable times for two things: minor surgery and a knee MRI. This seems entirely reasonable -- neither were life-threatening. People who are sicker should go first!
(I actually got in to the MRI much sooner than I was scheduled, as I went on a "call-me-if-there-is-a-sudden-opening" list.)
By contrast, I once had to wait a very long time to see a podiatrist in the US -- even with silver-plated insurance coverage, even though I was in active pain. (There just weren't very many podiatrists in my area.)
I loved the article, but I must disagree with your use of the word "coverage" to mean actual provision of services.
One of the problems with our health care system now is that many people who have private insurance have insurance but not coverage (i.e., you pay the premium, but the insurance company will not cover a claim). The doctors, hospitals, pharmacies do not provide coverage, they provide health care services.
For example, you have health insurance and your doctor says you need back surgery. Your insurance policy's fine print says that it doesn't cover back surgery (maybe they've determined it is not very effective and causes more problems than it's worth). Or maybe your policy doesn't say anything. You have your back surgery, but the health insurer won't pay the claim. You have insurance, but no coverage for this particular claim. It may be (and increasingly is) the case that you are entitled to coverage based on your policy terms, but the insurer will say you don't have coverage. (This is known as fraud.)
Same thing if you have auto insurance that excludes coverage for an under 25 year old driver. In a weak moment you loan your car to your 18 year old brother. Your brother has an accident; when you report this to the auto insurance company, they deny the claim. You have insurance (and will continue to have insurance with the company) but you don't have coverage for this situation. If you had been driving when the accident occurred, you would have had coverage.
Neither doctors, hospitals nor pharmacies provide coverage - that's a financial matter between you and your insurance company. (And good luck with that!) Nor does your body shop provide coverage. Everyone other than the insurance company provides relevant services (or "care"), not coverage.
The real problem today is that health insurers don't provide coverage either. You only find that out when you actually need it.
1. Antecdoctal evidence is useless. Who cares whether you, him, or her has individually had a good experience with the British or Canadian systems. Most Americans like their health care too. Irrelevant.
2. Life expectancy stats are a pointless, crude comparative measure. Expand Britain's population by 5x, or Canada's by 10x, and their life expectancy would fall. Likewise if their illegal immigration rose preciptiously, if they had a more stratified income hierarchy (like the US), or higher violence rates. None of this has anything to do with the health care system.
3. Wait times in Canada are NOT a myth. I live there, and they are a constant concern. Just because Rush Limbaugh exaggerates the problem won't make it go away. The average wait time to START chemo is 7 or 8 weeks. The most expensive drugs form some cancers are not covered, and are thus only available to rich people who pay from them privately (often in the US).
There are plenty of blow hards on the right, and folks interested in blowing smoke to obscure our problems. But the obsessive focus around this site on such "wing nuts" is rather telling in its own right. Its symptomatic of an Obama like refusal to face up to real choices. In Obama land, vast savings in health care will be realized without rationing. Protectionist measures don't violate free trade principles. Cap and trade isn't a tax on the middle class. Budgetary explosion and fiscal responsibility go hand in glove. Abominations like wire tapping and signing statements can be condemned and deployed at the same time. The health care debate is merely the most obvious arena for this kind of double speak. Focusing on the Limbaugh brigade is a White House distration technique, happily deployed here as well.
And what of Mrs. Clinton's meltdown yesterday? She sure is senitive about something! Nice how she jumped all over that poor student. BEEE-OTCH!!!
petekent01 (on twitter)ougma
I've come to expect better from 538 when it comes to not perpetuating easy stereotypes or myths. Having lived in both Canada and the U.S. I have experience in both systems. Wait times vary according to where you live and the nature of your problem. I found seeing a surgeon/specialist in the U.S. more difficult than in Canada and, seeing my GP, much easier in Canada.
So...please...enough with the "wait time" generalizations. It's pretty lazy.
@Jeff: "Life expectancy stats are a pointless, crude comparative measure. Expand Britain's population by 5x, or Canada's by 10x, and their life expectancy would fall."
That makes no sense what-so-ever. Life expectancy is not affected by overall population size. While it's true that many of the most populous countries have lower life expectancies than the U.S. -- or the U.K., for that matter -- that's mainly because the overall standard of living or level of development is lower (e.g., China, India, Russia). But some populous countries do alright for themselves and life expectancy is increasing, such as Brazil.
Japan, on the other hand, has signifiantly better life expectancies than the almost all countries in the world. Some of the smaller and middle sized countries have very low life expectancies (in African countries, HIV-AIDS has deeply impacted life expectancies there). And some with modest or smaller populations do much better (Canada, Scandinavian countries, New Zealand).
Lots of factors affect life expectancy, including "behavior"(diet, alcohol consumption, smoking) and the quality of the environment. Russia has long been a disaster for both behavioral (alcohol, smoking) and environmemtal reasons (chemical pollutants). But it has also been excoriated for the poor quality of its health care.
A few years back, the CBC ran a nationwide contest to name the "Greatest Canadian". Some modern people like Terry Fox, Wayne Gretzky and Pierre Trudeau along with older ones like John A. MacDonald and Alexander Graham Bell were included so it really ran the gamut of all canadians past and present.
The winner was a Tommy Douglas. A Premier of Saskatchewan and leader of the federal NDP who created Medicare.
That's how much we value good health care up here...that a relatively minor politician is considered our "Greatest Canadian".
On a more personal note, the canadian health care system only pays for the minimum, but private health insurance is available, mostly through employers. Once, when I was unemployed for a while, we bought private insurance to help cover drug costs.
a) This shows that private insurance can coexist with public.
b) Private insurance is dirt cheap compared to the states because they don't have to pay for major stuff (the public plan does that). So much so that I could afford to buy it while *unemployed*.
c)I'm not sure how typical this is, but I've never heard the term "preexisting condition" up here.
Mule Rider - I have leukemia. I cannot get treatment in an ER. If I did not have Medicare, I would be dead.
Jeff - It's funny that all the other Canadians who posted here disagree with you. Maybe they don't like you, eh?
You can go to http://canadaonline.about.com/od/healthcarewaittimes/Wait_Times_for_Health_Care_in_Canada.htm to get the actual data. Note that all pages say "emergency cases are treated without delay."
Juris - Lecture on survival rates: In order to be a survivor, the disease must first be detected, then you must survive for 5 years or whatever. If your disease is not detected, even though you live a long time, you are not counted. Many other countries have found that for some diseases you are better off not knowing, because once the disease is detected, there is a strong bias towards treatment which may not be the best thing.
Take prostate cancer. We routinely give PSA tests; other countries do not. We detect a lot more and treat a lot more. Our survival rates are better, but our mortality rates are not, and many men suffer as a result of the treatment. I have forbidden my physician from ordering a PSA test for me.
Also note that an emphasis on survival rates causes a lot more money to be spent which is good for physicians, but not so hot for the country.
Nate, this is the UK!
[insert snarky picture of the UK]
This is the British Isles!
[insert snarky picture of Great Britain and Ireland]
This is Ireland, an independent state!
[insert snarky picture of the Republic of Ireland]
This is a guy who can't write a snarky article, ostensibly about how people who don't politically agree with him are soooo stupid, without making basic factual mistakes!
[insert mirror]
Your argument is founded on a faulty premise. Poutine is actually delicious.
Atswim, if we're going to entertain this level of pedantry, that was the UK in that picture, (minus some Caribbean territorial holdings and the like.) It was also Ireland.
The Canada picture had portions of the US visible. Does this somehow mean it wasn't a picture of Canada? Ireland was probably there because Nate didn't feel like Photoshopping out the majority of the second largest island in that picture.
@Emily: I think BigMacs are delicious. But if I made a regular habit of eating them (esp. at my age), I'd turn into a blimp. There are a lot of truly delicious foods that aren't good for you if you consume them in quantity.
@markymark: I realize this is your field of interest, but for that reason let me ask you where the 47 million uninsured number is coming from? I believe it's the Census Bureau that came up with the number.
Is that a false number? Who are those people? They can't all be illegals.
"Emily Rutherford said...
Your argument is founded on a faulty premise. Poutine is actually delicious."
Bangers and mash is good too. Nate doesn't know what he's talking about.
Plus, pls take The Republic of Ireland out of the British Isles photo. Take the lead to get rid of this term.
Groan. You people who admire the Canadian health care system unreservedly are in denial about wait times. It is a widely acknowledged problem, by all major Canadian political parties and by the major medial groups. Here:
http://www.waittimealliance.ca/June2009/Report-card-June2009_e.pdf
One nugget: if you are diagnosed with cancer in Canada, you wait 7 weeks for curative treatment to begin, on average.
As for life expectancy stats, Juris, your post rather made my point about the large number of other factors that go into these stats. One of them is population size, as this tends to be related to the number of immigrants and poor. Are you really suggesting that Canada would have the same life expectancy if it increased its population ten fold? Pointing to Japan is pointless. The Asian counties all tend to do well, for reasons other than their health care systems. In any case, the UK's life expectancy is about 26 weeks longer than the US's. Denmark and Ireland - despite socialized medicine - are somehow lower. The stat is pretty much worthless as a way of measuring health care delivery.
Here's the most important way in which they are similar (and why socialism works in these two countries): They don't have large numbers of black people.
By the way, who is it that is engaging in stagecraft when it comes to health care? The protestors, or the President? His town halls are absurdly contrived. He was just asked by a little girl about "mean signs" on health care reform. Pure agitprop.
The reason why Obamacare isn't selling is widely misconceived.
The number of people unhappy with their health care is a fraction of the ones whose care costs more than ~22000/year, those with preexisting conditions and those whow are likely to be laid off.
The number of people who are happy with their insurance is much larger, even though they are only happy because it hasn't happened that they got severely ill.
It is simply a matter of math and I am surprised that sites like this have not discussed this further.
Juris,
The National Coalition on Health Care has some good stats
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
(remember those government stats its quoting were collected under the Bush administration.)
Some highlights
Who are Who are the uninsured?
* Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.1
* The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.2
* The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.1 Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006.
* The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 62 percent in 2007. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.4, 5
Why is the number of uninsured people increasing?
* Millions of workers don’t have the opportunity to get health coverage. A third of firms in the U.S. did not offer coverage in 2007.4
* Nearly two-fifths (38 percent) of all workers are employed in smaller businesses, where less than two-thirds of firms now offer health benefits to their employees.7 It is estimated that 266,000 companies dropped their health coverage between 2000-2005 and 90 percent of those firms have less than 25 employees.
* Losing a job, or quitting voluntarily, can mean losing affordable coverage – not only for the worker but also for their entire family. Only seven (7) percent of the unemployed can afford to pay for COBRA health insurance – the continuation of group coverage offered by their former employers. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage, a very high price given the average $1,100 monthly unemployment check.9
Now obviously the NCHC is not entirely without a point of view, but I did a quick google of the stat, and just about the only people challenging the stat seem to be on the right edge of American politics. (And remember the census bureau was working for George W Bush in 2006/7.) (Amongst those questioning the figures all of a sudden are college Republicans and 'Stopthe ACLU'. I think its the kind of number thats easy to question, but actually probably a lot more accurate than any other number anyone has come up with.
liberal defender of freedom,bangers and mash is indeed very tasty but that there is a picture of bangers and mash ICE CREAM.
From a Brit living in the US, a quick summary of my experiences with the NHS.
- The NHS will generally provide you with topnotch MEDICAL care. However, all the peripheral stuff is done on shoestring - bad hospital food, shabby buildings, crowded wards, long waiting times to be seen etc. Before coming to the US I was hospitalised twice in the last five years, once to give birth to my daughter and once for an emergency appendectomy. Both times my actual stay in hospital was highly unpleasant, but I also didn't pay a penny for my hugely expensive emergency caesarean and emergency appendectomy and anyone could have walked in off the street and got the same.
- If things like private wards, better food, quicker waiting times etc. are important to you then private health insurance is available if you want to pay for it. Some employers (who are often those who also employ people from abroad, especially Americans) will offer private health as a benefit. I worked for two American banks in London, both offered private health insurance as part of a flexible benefits package and both times I opted out of it in favour of some other perk, as I was pretty happy with the level of coverage given by the NHS.
In general though the level of medical coverage will not be better - many private hospitals piggy back off the NHS's more specialised facilities anyway, and many private doctors also work within the NHS (see below). You will probably get much higher standard of nursing though as nurses in private hospitals are paid a lot more.
- Access to the best quality doctors tends to be a matter of geography rather than anything else. The big London teaching hospitals have unrivalled medical facitilies and most of the best doctors in the UK practise for free through the teaching hospitals but also have a private practice to augment their not particularly spectacular NHS salaries. The seems entirely reasonable to me.
I lived in London and was lucky enough to have free access within 10 minutes of my home to possibly the best Recurrent Miscarriage clinic in the world run by the sort of doctors who routinely publish papers on the subject (though when it came to actually giving birth the level of midwife care I received was nothing short of APPALLING). But I lived.
I also had an arthroscopy on my knee which I later discovered had been performed by one of the top two or three knee surgeons in the UK, again for free.
There were plenty of other people at these clinic from all over the UK as well, so it is possible to be referred to these super-specialists, but I don't know how much you have to fight to get access to these people if it's not your local hospital.
@Jeff: "Life expectancy stats are a pointless, crude comparative measure. Expand Britain's population by 5x, or Canada's by 10x, and their life expectancy would fall."
Parroting O'Reilly doesn't make it true. In fact, if it came from Fox odds are it is an exaggeration at best, but likely an outright lie.
I am sick and tired of people trying to make me pay for treating people who are sick and have no health insurance coverage. I work hard and pay for my health insurance. I am sick and tired of people trying to make my medical decisions for me. Medical decisions should be between the individual and their doctors.
Hospitals raise their rates because so many without insurance show up to emergency rooms. My insurance company passes those increases to me, and more. Insurance companies routinely deny coverage to maximize profits. Their "Death Squads" are to be feared. So many go without needed treatment because they can't get insurance. DENIED. DENIED. DENIED.
Idiots showing up at town halls and disrupting civil discourse need to get a clue.
I am appalled by your sexist graphics. Objectify much?
Wegerje -
Oh come on. Now we not only have the right wing health nazi's, we have the left wing sexism nazi's.
I too would have really enjoyed this article if it didn't use a sex doll and Geri Halliwell as "things". Yeah, I get that a doll is technically a "thing", but guess what? It still implies that women are things for sex. Seriously, how hard would it be to use a different object?
The CIA's World Factbook Life Expectancy At Birth (2009)
http://tinyurl.com/nluzdk
Some surprises here: For instance, Danes and Irish live longer than Americans on average; Brits live almost a year longer; In fact, citizens in every single Western European country live longer on average than Americans do. Even Bosnians, Jordanians, Greeks and Israelis live longer. Check it out for yourself.
I don't get what life expectancy has to do with the size of a country's population. China has a life expectancy of around 73 apparently, India's is at 62-63. Germany is at 75 for males, 81 for women, in the UK its around 77 or 82, the CIA's world factbook (and are Fox about to start arguing with the CIA) puts the US below the UK, Monaco, Canada and Australia, amongst quite a few others
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy)
The UN even has the US below Cuba.
Maybe the US should copy China's system, they are doing pretty well given there population is 4 times the size of the USAs?
I would agree that life expectancy isn't just a reflection of a countries healthcare system. There are many factors that affect such a number, but so what. I scanned down the list, and the only really industrialised western countries below the US on life expectancy are Ireland (which has a kind of hybrid public/private health sysytem, and hasn't really been an 'industrialised' nation for that long comparitively), Denmark and Portugal. Virtually every country ahead of the US is a modern western industrialised nation. And yet Fox will happily shrug that kind of figure off like it doesn't matter.
But you know to me it comes down to the moral argument. Its just plain wrong in the US for there not to be a guarantee of health insurance FOR EVERYONE. How can that possibly not be an area of agreement? Seriously what do some of you right wing types have against the idea that every American should get health insurance as a matter of right?
Mule Rider said: "That is patently false. We do have "universal health care." Go to any emergency room in the country and you will not be denied health care. Our problem is with the delivery of care, insurance, and the costs associated with providing it."
Ever tried it? If you present with a serious problem, they will stabilize you and send you home. Broken wrist? Yup - it's broken, we can give you a temporary cast and let you deal with trying to get someone to do indigent care surgery. (impossible) And they will send you a bill over and over for about a year before giving up and writing it off. Serious illness? They will make sure you aren't in immediate danger of death and suggest you find someone to follow up with on that. They will get pissed off when you present with the same issue next month and label you a drug seeker. Broken collar bone? They will laugh in your face, note that you have nothing wrong with you that will cause you any real harm, suggest you "sit straight for a while," and send you home. This ignores all of the people who never go in for treatment at all because they can live with it and can't afford to fix it.
Suggesting that the emergency room is universal health care is disturbing, and shows that you have never been without in your life.
Why would changing pop size have any effect on life expectancy? Does it get too crowded and suck the air out of the room? Well, a lack of oxygen might explain Glenn Beck...
We are all one job and one illness from bankruptcy - 40% of bankruptcies tied to healthcare.
I will take gov healthcare over Wall Street healthcare any day.
You sort of dropped the biting indictment of ignorance when you included the Republic of Ireland in the United Kingdom. People in that part of the world like to make educated distinctions too.
Nate:
Polling of adults on amorphous generic issues like the poll you cite is meaningless when compared to the polling of likely voters on their views of Obamacare itself. Rasmussen Reports is finding that support for Obamacare among voters is rapidly collapsing from 50-45% at the end of June to 42-53% now. More interestingly:
44% of voters strongly oppose the health care reform effort versus 26% who strongly favor it. Intensity has been stronger among opponents of the plan since the debate began.
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those under 30 favor the plan while 56% of those over 65 are opposed. Among senior citizens, 46% are strongly opposed.
Predictably, 69% of Democrats favor the plan, while 79% of Republicans oppose it. Yet while 44% of Democratic voters strongly favor the reform effort, 70% of GOP voters are strongly opposed to it.
Most notable, however, is the opposition among voters not affiliated with either party. Sixty-two percent (62%) of unaffiliated voters oppose the health care plan, and 51% are strongly opposed. This marks an uptick in strong opposition among both Republicans and unaffiliateds, while the number of strongly supportive Democrats is unchanged...
As for the protesters at congressional town hall meetings, 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors, while 37% think they’ve been put up to it by special interest groups and lobbyists.
In sum, only Dems can muster a majority in support of Obamacare. The GOP and Indis are solidly opposed to the Dems' plan.
The intensity is 2-1 with the opposition with an even higher percentage of Indis strongly opposed than the GOP. Keep this last figure in mind.
Correspondingly, only the Dems believe Dem slanders that the Tea Party protests are Nazi mobs controlled by the GOP and the insurers.
These findings correspond to my observations at local Tea Party protests. Tea Partiers are predominantly middle aged, middle income, married, church going conservatives who span the GOP, Indis and even some Dems. I interviewed some of these folks for my blog posts and they are largely disorganized individuals or families who heard about these parties on the web or sometimes on local talk radio.
The Dems appear to have no idea how counter productive their slanders of the Tea Party protestors have been to their cause. The Tea Party movement is furious about being called Nazis, mobsters and tools of big business because it simply is not true. Conservative talk radio has taken these slurs, run with them and ridiculed the Dems by featuring a parade of callers who are part of this movement.
Remember the so called "angry white men" (yet another slur) that were credited with kicking the Dems out of Congress in 1994? The Tea Party movement are those guys and their spouses who have borrowed Howard Dean's internet organization techniques and they make up the plurality of likely voters who strongly oppose Obama in the approval polls and strongly oppose Obamacare in this poll.
You Dem supporters of Obamacare can remain willfully ignorant of tis backlash at your own political peril. The Blue Dogs are not following your lead. Last week, NPR did a piece on the town hall meetings and one blue dog after another were trying to placate angry constituents by pledging to vote against Obamacare's public option. There are over 40 of these Dems running for re-election in 2010 in districts McCain managed to win in a heavy Dem year. Unless the polling reverses significantly back to the President, these Blue Dogs are caught between the rock of party loyalty and the rock of the voters waiting for them at home.
Jeff - If you need treatment in Canada, you will get it. This is not true in the US in spite of people pointing to emergency rooms. Try getting cancer treatment in an ER. So we have many people in the US whose wait times are infinte. How do you average in infinity?
Secondly, Canada spends about half per person as we do on health care. Can you conceive of what our health care system would look like if we cut our expenditures by half?
Look, it's not only life expectency, it's life expectency after 60, infant and maternal mortality, birth weight, etc. The US is at or near the bottom in all 16 bottom line public health statistics. BTW, in the early 50's we were at or near the top, but then we went to private for profit insurence and the rest of the industrialized world, well you know.
Finally, you say the larger the country, the lower the life expectency (which I just do not understand), but everytime we bring up another large country with a long life expectency, you say that's a special case. Us guys just can't win.
The American way... you just cut you leg to the knee and you blame everyone else that they have 2 legs...
You still can go private for your health care in Canada if your not satisfied or go thru public.
If American want to denied themselve universal healthcare and continu to get screwed by insurance companies, well it's your problem, not ours. ;-)
Jeff: One of them is population size, as this tends to be related to the number of immigrants and poor.
If that's the case, then it should show up in per capita GDP. But my sense is that our peer nations are no wealthier on average than we are, and they still do about as well on health outcomes while we spend far, far more.
In fact, the US is near the top in per capita GDP, so it doesn't seem our large population is dragging the numbers down much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita Now, it's possible that there's a distribution, say lots of poor people balanced out by a small number of phenomenally wealthy people, that is causing our health numbers to be worse than they would be if we had more of a bell curve. But there's only so much research I'm willing to do. The point is that larger populations don't necessarily make one poorer on average.
Let's face it: we're richer than most nations, we spend more than our peer nations, and our results are no better. Then we can start talking about solutions.
All this idiotic bickering is outrageous and needs to stop. Both sides are wasting away their lives and the lives of all those around them exaggerating the evils of the other side in a feeble attempt to be right while absolutely nothing productive is done.
I am a conservative and I believe that our country is in need of healthcare reform. I do not think that this is evil. But do I think that Obama's bill should be passed? Not in a million years. The main problem with this whole catastrophe of the democratic process is that Obama is trying to get this 1017 page bill which will completely transform the american healthcare system rushed through the house without any of the lawmakers much less the American people knowing what is in it or what exactly the ramifications will be. What kind of idiocy is that? Is that how the American system of government works? Thats not how our founding fathers intended it to be. The people should be well informed and well in favor of such a bill before it passes. All you left wing loudmouths that keep demonizing fox news and the conservatives for trying to get people to slow down and think about things need to stop. Granted they are saying many things that are out of line. But all you people that are SO FOR the bill- Do you REALLY know how good it will be? Do you know EVERYTHING thats in it? Is it the BEST bill that could be contrived? Why don't you slow down and think for a minute before you gamble your futures on it.
Healthcare reform MUST be done. That is obvious. We have a great opportunity right now to do as Americans have always done. To be the best. If we were to sit down and take some time to examine the healthcare systems of the UK of Canada of Germany and Australia as well as our own and find out their strengths and weaknesses we could probably come out with the system that is truly the best in the world. I believe that a hybrid system would work. A system in which the government does not run healthcare but in which it pays for a portion of it to lighten the burden and in which private insurance or individuals cover the rest. That would help all those people who can't afford coverage but it also would not be such an enormous burden on the american taxpayer and would not give such frightening power to the government. But is now the time to rush a $1.5 trillion bill through the house and the senate without anyone knowing whether this system will work or what it ultimately will do? Are we ready to risk our already extraordinarily fragile economy and out deficit weary people's futures on this? That is madness.
If the nut jobs on the right and the left would calm down, stop fighting and start listening to the real people then maybe something could get done.
General Sherman said: "Hospitals raise their rates because so many without insurance show up to emergency rooms."
In truth the people clogging emergency rooms are folks with Government Insurance -- MEDICAID.
The government refuses to adequately fund treatment under Medicaid and as a consequence few providers will treat this population so they are forced to go to the ER. Medicare is Medicaid's second cousin on this. It too is hugely underfunded and its reimbursement rates are too low.
Doctors and facilities raise their rates to the non-federal patients in order to subsidize Medicaid and Medicare. If the government were honest about reimbursement this would not happen and private insurance costs would not rise as fast.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Bradford, I believe the term you're looking for is "feminazi." It doesn't start to worry you at all when you're taking a page out of the Limbaugh playbook, because it should. You did nothing to argue why it should be acceptable to categorize a woman as an object in a country where 1 in 6 women are victims of sexual assault; you just engaged in cheap name-calling.
I should have been clearly on the population thing. It's a contextual question. Europe is made up of smallish countries, with limited immigration, etc. The US is a continent, bordering a very poor part of the world and flooded with poor, illegal workers. THAT sort of population size would damage Europe's life expectance rates, no? So would our levels of violent crime and wealth disparity. Life expectancy as a stat is a crude measure of health care delivery (specifically).
Six2alpha: you are wrong about Canada. You cannot purchase private insurance for care "covered" by the national system. It's prohibited by law. Private insurance can only cover extras (like private rooms, etc).
Lensch: your argument is not on point. That everyone has equal access to health care in Canada is just. But that does not mean that they haven't sacrificed some quality. These are two different points.
@markymark: thanks. So we don't disagree that there's a really large number of uninsured and that the vast majority of them are citizens or permanent residents of the U.S.
@all those interested in e(0) (life expectancy at birth), it's a meaningful statistic for assessing the physical quality of life or human development. But it's not all determined by the quality of health care -- as I pointed out in my previous note on this.
@all those worred about Ireland in the map, the map had two labels: UK and British Isles. Just blot Ireland out in your minds. Really, it's no big deal, and Nate's discussion of the British NHS is still apt.
@those worried about the doll, you, too, should have other things to worry about; Nate wasn't recommending anybody purchase one, just indicating that that's one of the odd things you can buy with your Visa card.
@those concerned about blow up dolls or Ireland, there is no value here in playing "gotcha." Nate put together a little lesson with a couple of provocative images, big deal.
@all those who have offered constructive advice and information about how the healthcare systems work in UK, Canada, and other countries, thank you.
Juris, before you explain to other people what they are and should be worried about, you might want to consider that the categorizing of Geri Hallowell as a thing was a bit more problematic than a sex doll.
I really think that's missing the point. If Nate is going to snark on the internet ("Some people are having trouble keeping these countries straight!"), we're going to help him when he has trouble keeping countries straight.
BDP, you aren't going to get much respect in these parts for quoting as nauseum Rasmussen. It is though an interesting post in that it does show that the angry mob is winning the argument for the moment. I think once temperatures have cooled and a sensible discussion of the issues happens, it will gain in popularity again. Personally I think Obama needs to stop attacking Republicans on this, and start talking about why this issue is sooo important. Becuase it is. Its JUST WRONG that so many Americans have no health insurance, and that the insurance industry has too much power. What is wrong with either of those statements.
What's with all this douchery about Ireland being in the U.K.? The graphic is clearly labeled "The British Isles". From Wikipedia: The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands. So the graphic's accurate. It's just Nate's statement before it that must be bothering y'all. Why aren't you getting pissy about the presence of the U.S.A. and Greenland on the Canada graphic?
I mean, seriously people. All this quibbling about Ireland completely overlooks the point of the post: That people fighting healthcare reform are often ignorant of the facts. And that's some supposed intellectuals and talking heads in the media, never mind the general public!
It seems like some here can't see the forest for the proverbial trees. If someone is confusing Canada and the UK, just focus on setting them straight. Injecting a third nation into the discussion will likely make their heads explode.
BTW, I think if I were Irish I would be less offended by Nate's post as it is than I would be were he to have found some map that didn't include the Republic of Ireland at all.
Jeff, if you really believe Europe has very little immigration, can you please explain why so many nationalist and pseudo nationalist parties have been able to get success in recent elections? There is plenty of immigration going on over here.
The Gaffe to End all Gaffes:
Obama, from today's "Town Hall" Meeting:
"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems".
That statement, ladies and gentleman, will go down in history as the official lynchpin that finally collapses the 2009 push for comprehensive federal health care reform.
With all the massive confusion this who clusterfark has been, for the POTUS to admit, in strained metaphor, that the federal postal service has "problems" while the private providers do not, is devastating.
Spin all you want but this effort is low 20's on intrade within 2 days...
Jeff: The US is a continent, bordering a very poor part of the world and flooded with poor, illegal workers. THAT sort of population size would damage Europe's life expectance rates, no?
So it's not population size, it's immigration. That's a different argument. But are you aware that Europe has been experiencing to some extent exactly the immigration you describe?
And, once again, if the US were being "flooded" with poor immigrants, wouldn't that show up in per capita GDP?
Third, are illegal workers counted in the statistics? I honestly don't know. Do you?
Moreover, the number of illegal aliens seems to be estimated at 12 to 15 million, though it could be as high as 20 million. With a total US population of over 300 million, the 15 million estimate would make that group 5% of the total. Unless they all die pretty darn young, I don't think they'll have much of an effect on national life expectancy. So maybe we'd do a smidgeon better than our peer nations, but we'd still be spending on the order of 75% more than they do.
Life expectancy as a stat is a crude measure of health care delivery (specifically).
Perhaps, but you keep trying to use demographics to explain why we die younger. I don't think demographics explains it.
Walker, Obama was making the point that Private insurers have no threat from a government run plan. I don't get why that is a gaffe? Unless you take it entirely out of context of course. So expect it to end up out of context on Fox for days to come *sigh*
This post comes off as extremely condescending. I'm a supporter of the public option and of liberal health care reform in general; but you have to watch your attitude. You're treating people like idiots.
@markymark: Thanks re Jeff. He doesn't know Europe, that's for sure.
I happen to be writing a paper now on the RXN in Europe to minorities (or ethnic differences -- some numerical minorities don't refer to themselves as minorities) and immigrants, and it's a very significant issue in many countries, e.g., Belgium, UK (including No. Ireland), Spain, Netherlands, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Germany, Bulgaria, France, and others.
It also happens that ethnic/religious/linguistic minorities are generally more supportive of EU governance (at the expense of the national governments of the different countries) than are "majorities." And as you indicate, extreme right/nationalist parties that are very xenophobic and anti-immigrant are also anti-EU. (And for anyone who doesn't know what an extreme right xenophobe looks like, just watch the militant ignoramuses in the town hall crowds.)
Throughout Europe, the greatest xenophobia is expressed toward Muslims -- whether they come from N. Africa, M. East, or South/Southeast Asia.
MarkyMark, are you back on tour with the Funky Bunch? That would be so tight.
Here's why Obama's statment is epically gafeetastic:
Obama, in essence, is asking Americans to truth in a plan that very well could cost over a trillion dollars, that very well, by his own words, "eventually drive our private insurers", and that could very well lead to rationing and medicare cuts, and now he's stating that the federal Post Office, something that routinely blows its budget and that's had over a hundred of years to 'iron out it's wrinkles' operationally, is "always the one with all the problems".
Not the best rallying cry, methinks.
Walker: Not the best rallying cry, methinks.
Don't tell anyone, but 89% of the public has a favorable view of the Post Office.
http://www.openleft.com/diary/14504/its-not-1994-anymore-or-1984-for-that-matter
Markymark,
Did I say Europe didn't have immigration? No. But they are clearly less exposed to illegal immigration. The rise of the European xenophobia has to do with their higher levels of Muslim immigration, which tends to generate the most cultural anxiety among Westerners. Are you people really suggesting that the flood of illegals doesn't contribute to our life expectancy stats? Or to our problem of uninsured? (Illegal immigrants are very much counted as part of the "uninsured" by the way. If there are 20 million illegals, they would constitute about 1/2 of the uninsured, no?)
Brief Comment on Europe and American Extreme RW nationalists. I think it's interesting that in several European countries that have a proportional representation system, RW nationalist xenophobes have an incentive to run for national office.
In the U.S., because of our majority winner take-all electoral system, it harder for candidates with extreme views to even think about running for national office.
But of course we get quite a few who are "out there" in Congress, esp. the House. e.g., Bachmann. But we'd get more if we had a PR representation system at the national level because it would be more supportive of a multi- rather than two-party system.
So our "xenophobic rightwing political elites" are mainly media elites -- the Glenn Becks, Michelle Malkins, Rush Limbaughs, and people behind the scenes who fund them. In effect, they are a "third party" that has little likelihood of winning office -- and probably no financial incentive to try, as long as they have sponsors and contracts on radio and TV.
====
@Jeff: take a look at life expectancy and infant mortality for whites in the U.S. They are, as you suggest, different than for African Americans and Latinos -- but not only for "immigrants," and most African Americans and Latinos are Americans, so you can't excuse the poor health provision for those populations by saying well, they're immigrants. Further, life expectancy for whites in U.S. is still lower than that for the majority populations in many countries.
Check out the French system. It is superior to either the Canadian or U.K. "system". Probably the fact that it's French will make it unpalletable to U.S. tastes, who reject what is French on the basis of ideology, but it is really a good machine as far as public health is concerned--and not so bad as a cost containment mechanism either.
Canadian health care differs from one province to another as they interpret federal guidelines on a provincial basis. Yet, everyone is covered and health care costs are much lower than what we see in the U.S. My prescriptions were not covered in Saskatchewan or Alberta but my father's chemotherapy was covered completely and I never had to pay for significant meds when I needed them. Having experienced both systems, I really do not understand why everyone is so emotional about things. I wish we could have an honest discussion about things and that those with concerns could have them addressed.
@Walker: The "trillion dollar" plan (if that'w what it ends up costing) is ca. $100 billion per year over 10 years. Still a lot of money but a lot less than, say, the bailout money that went to those crazy banks and financial houses that f*cked up our economy. And part of this will be paid for by taking back the $175 billion giveway by the GOP/Bush in the Medicare Advantage program.
Jeff, we have already covered the point that 80% of the uninsured in the US are US citizens. (see my earlier post with stats from the NCHC).
And I don't know
1 why you think illegal immigration is going to lead to a large change in the US life expectancy, given that these people are by definition outside of official statistics.
2 whether those who are opposed to immigration are REALLY bothered if its legal or illegal?
and 3 Why illegals are more likely to be a problem for life expectancy than legal immigrants across Europe?
I'll probably get taken out on this by both sides, but I believe one argument for universal care with a strong public option is our nation's increasing obesity epidemic.
I recently was in 2 public places with a lot of visitors and was shocked at the level (poundage overweight) and the prevalence (percentage of folks greatly overweight) of the obesity.
We now have a non-functioning private health care system. People are afraid to go to the doctor, lest they be found to have a "pre-existing condition" that will prevent them getting further health insurance coverage down the road. If people won't see the doctor for necessary treatment, they are not going to go to the doctor for advice about obesity and ways to remedy it.
As a woman who has been slightly overweight (up to 20 pounds over my ideal), I was shocked to find that I am "skinny" when compared to most of the other women I saw. This is bad for individuals, bad for our country and bad for our ultimate health care costs - at some point, these people are going to be on Medicare and the costs will skyrocket.
People need realistic input about what to eat, how much/how little, and the negative effects of obesity, lack of exercise, and the foods comprised of fat and high fructose corn syrup. Adults need to be educated about how to feed their children. They don't need another South Beach Diet book.
If people had reasonable access to health care, there would be a professional who would tell them (as my OB/GYN told me during one pregnancy), "You would do yourself a favor to watch how much you eat."
It sounds like a no-brainer until you start listening to the screamers at the town hall meetings.
Juris wrote: "Still a lot of money but a lot less than, say, the bailout money that went to those crazy banks and financial houses that f*cked up our economy."
Need I remind you, sir, that Obama did not vote present on this one and was in fact an active supporter of the legislation and has doled out billions of this money since he took office.
How odd, dont you think for Obama to give all that money to such bad and incompetent people.
Go drink some tea!
petekent01 (on twitter)
No opposition from here, Remarque. Americans need to eat less (quantity), walk more, and exercise with more than just their fingers on a keyboard or a remote.
I don't know how much universal health care would matter, but I suspect that getting more people to see a doctor on a regular basis would make more of them think regularly about their diet and other daily activities.
Remargue -- talk to any phsycian that serves the indigent and he or she will tell you that despite being on a "public option" these are the most non-compliant people in the country. Having insurance is not the answer to obesity.
It starts with putting the fork down and backing away from the table . . . .
@David, @gzero2k3, etc.
America was founded and populated by people who LEFT Europe (most of whom left AFTER industrialization, and the monarchies/aristocracy were long gone). Also, Canadians specifically resisted TWICE becoming part of America in preference for the more moderate Euro-centric Candian model.
So it should NOT be a surprise the sum total of all those who fled Europe (among other places) and/or later offended Canada would end up wanting a system very different than either of those countries want. American exceptional-ism is real for a reason - we're the sum of all the people who explicitly rejected "all the other industrialized Western Democracies" and/or had them reject us.
This difference can be summed up as Americans prefer more freedom than "peace of mind" (equality, social justice, civic order, etc.)
Free speech is more free in the US than either Canada or Brittan, or anywhere else in Europe where "civil society" is often used as a curb. This is just that same dynamic playing out in the economic sphere.
I have a friend whose a bicyclist, and while bicycling in France, he forgot to negotiate a turn while coming down a rather steep hill, and
He was taken to the hospital.
He said there is a big difference between French and American hospitals. In a French hospital, when someone comes into the emergency room, they say "Man that person is in bad shape. We better take care of him.". In the United States, they say "Man that person is in bad shape. I wonder how he's going to pay for this?".
@mirrormirror:
I also had an arthroscopy on my knee which I later discovered had been performed by one of the top two or three knee surgeons in the UK, again for free.
I love how Europeans think things given to them by the government are free. You really think that arthroscopy was free? What's your tax rate?
Most Americans don't want "free stuff" from our government. (Many in this 538 group do, but they comprise of the far fringe left of the American political spectrum.)
Our country was not built on getting "free stuff" from the government. We don't want to be like Europe. This is why only 42% of Americans now approve of Obamacare according to Rasmussen(the most accurate polster in the presidential election.)
"Authoritarian" must be Pharma buzzed word for postings today. I've seen several posts using that word across blogs. Propably hear it on Fox News as well. I guess they figured Nazi was a little too much.
Jeff - Please read again what I wrote. I specifically addressed quality. I also talked about your remarks on wait times.
Try again.
In France, doctors will make house and hotel calls. Some years ago when we were traveling with the kids, one of them became violently ill (wretching all over the place -- probably food poisoning). The hotel called a doctor, who came over and for a small fee (can't remember amount, maybe 15-20 Euros) did a quick checkup, wrote out an Rx that cost only a few Euros to fill at the corner phamacy. (I paid a larger tip to the hotel staff for the trouble they had to go through to clean up the mess than I did in the fee to the doctor.)
No ambulance, no trip to hospital (though I imagine that would have been called for), and dirt cheap.
"You see, Medicare is a great deal like the single-payer system. It's kind of funny, but it's becoming clear that the loudest screamers at the town halls are mostly on Medicare. This means they are either ignoraant of their own insurance or are hypocrites. Probably both."
i think medicare is great. if someone offered it to me right now i would accept it (i have a long way to go qualify for it, if i live that long). in fact, if i had the money, i would gladly pay $10,000 right now to purchase lifelong access to medicare, starting right now.
yet, i find it pretty obvious that, if medicare were extended to all, including young people like me (meaning all people, not just me), it would get much worse. so yes, hypocritically, i am against extending it. in fact, even if it does not get extended, it will get worse, for the simple reason that it is, in a sense, too good. it covers too much, it provides the quality of coverage that is too good for the money actually paid in taxes.
so, using medicare as a proof that single-payer system provides superior care is invalid.
having grown up in a single-payer system, i am ambivalent about it. i can definitively see some advantages to what we have right now. but i am strongly against the bill that is being discussed. adopting it would mean having the worst of both worlds.
@Fred:
If someone happens to have the nerve to express a point of view that is not in the tank for Obama, it does not mean they got it from Fox News. I know the whole "they got it from Fox News" is a talking from the left, but it's getting quite tiresome.
Fox news rocks -- they abosolutely blow away the comeptition. Ratings have climbed dramatically since the election. Fox is now gaining its share among independents and moderates, including many Democrats who cannot abhor the bizzarro world on MSNBC or even the distinct slant of CNN (save Dobbs who will at least seriously acknowledge that there are UNANSWERED questions concerning the locus of Obama's birth and whether he was born in a hospital or at home without witnesses).
petekent01 (on twitter)
Grog, the European model that the US split from did not have public healthcare, in fact it had a system that left many many poor people with literally no access to healthcare, unless they checked themselves into the poorhouse. The idea of Universal health insurance is barely a century old in the UK.
And who pays for American roads or American bridges or American cops? Noone in Europe thinks these things are free, everyone understands that these are paid for by general taxation, and that that happens because it is in all of our interests to have good roads, bridges, cops and yes healthcare. Healthcare is important because for instance it's useful for everyone to have access to swine flu vaccination, as an example.
Olease can we leave this canard about the National Health Service to rest? I have pointed out before that doctors in the UK are private contractors *not* government employees. My primary care physician, my dentist and my optometrist receive a fee for providing my care. Out of this they have to buy their own equipment and employ support staff. The primary care physician also contracts, as part of a group, for whatever hospital care I might need. The doctors there are also independent contractors who receive a fee for services they provide to the hospital. If they were employees they would not need to pay their own medical negligence insurance for a start.
PeteKent said...
Fox news rocks -- they abosolutely blow away the comeptition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Congrats PK, that's a lot to hang your hat on ...
59 million voted for McCain/palin many of which are sour grape, sour loser, yahoo bigots who really, really don't like the reality of an African/American family in the White House.
Watching fixed noise 24/7 McCarthyism, demagoguery, out right lies and misinformation of everything re: Obama gives these 2/3/4/5 ?!? million out of the 59 million who voted more anti Obama than pro McCain, a little comfort and the opportunity to see a whole cable news channel is on their side and sympathetic to their plight!
Whereas even before the election, progressives, liberals like to be entertained more than being bogged down in 24/7 cable news minutia, hence, ergo, therefore "we" watch AI, TAR, NCIS, CSI, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, Sports/ESPN, Discovery, National Geographic, USA, TNT, TBS, LIF, HBO etc. etc.
so many channels, so little time.
Did I mention liberals like to enjoy life and be entertained and will freely admit I watch occasionally for the "bat shit crazy" ad nauseam, scripted propaganda discombobulation that is faux news. And yes Virginia, they are preaching to the choir ie a small percentage of the 59 million who voted for McCain and "bat shit crazy!" palin.
take care, blessings
p.s. watch NCIS religiously and did I mention fixed noise is preaching to the astro turf choir!
btw PK, spell check is your friend ;)
And since the election this progressive has been doing a lot of smilin' :))) go figure!
I was interested in what PK said about Fox news so I checked, I believe the article I read gave Fox News viewing figures of just over a million. In a nation of 300 million that doesn't sound so much? I think perhaps Fix News does better than MSNBC because, well liberals don't care to sit in front of that type of thing all day. They can get their news off the Internet or from the evening news or from newspapers. I think liberals don't feel the need to be force fed opinions and are able to make up their own minds!
@markymark:
I just thought it was interesting that the European refered to his operation as "free". It wasn't free at all. That's a mindset of socialism.
@shiloh:
You're fascination with Fox News is great theatre. It's the one news network that's not completely biased for the left and for Obama and it drives you absolutely "batshit crazy".
GROG said...
@markymark:
I just thought it was interesting that the European refered to his operation as "free". It wasn't free at all. That's a mindset of socialism.
@shiloh:
You're fascination with Fox News is great theatre. It's the one news network that's not completely biased for the left and for Obama and it drives you absolutely "batshit crazy".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grog if that's the best comeback 'ya got, then you're excused.
take care, blessings
Just a detail - Pharmaceuticals are not covered under Canadian Medicare - at least not in my province - but there is a scheme by which you can get reimbursed for some of it - based on the amount you purchase and your income.
And there are differences between provinces in what gets covered and what doesn't.
Oh my goodness....why can't health insurance work like car insurance. It only be purchased by individuals/families. It vary in price by age and where you live. There is a state minimum in coverage that everyone must maintain to even go to the doctors. Insurance companies can offer better plans though with it up to individuals which they receive, but everyone would be required the basic coverage limits.
Companies can offer to save us thousands and doctors can compete to have the best prices.
Group rates and doctor discounts should go away....gone. Everyone should be offered the best prices at the best price...and woot we have a plan.
Health care in the UK is based on where you live. Which in turn will dictate the quality of care you receive. Before you write me off as some right-wing nutjob who shouldn't be able to voice his concerns over out of control spending and over reaching power grabs (which I think will happen if we don't keep Washington in check) please hear me out. My field partner during my thesis research is from the UK and told me this little tidbit. Your mailing code (that funky thing with numbers and letters they use) is thebase of your government run healthcare. Money and personnel are not really distributed evenly and more skilled doctors and healthcare personnel tend to gravitate towards large population centers because funding is greater. That does make some sense because the tax base is larger. So if you live in a rural area you religated to smaller, understaffed, underfunded hospitals and health systems. Now emergent care is taken everywhere (if you get in an accident in London and live in the Lakes District, you are covered). However, as soon as you are stabilized you are sent back to your local health system (which costs more for medical transport). If you have preventative care you must use your local system (unless there is no service available, then you are moved to the nearest available system). This system gives you no choice for the best available care within the system and either forces the citizen to wait until an emergent situation occurs or pay through the nose for private care. This system does not facilitate the right for the citizenry to have the freedom to choose. To quickly change the subject, a single-payer system is not the best system either. What it relies upon is the alltruistic notion that healthcare personnel should work for little pay for the 'greater good'. When the government sets the prices it will pay for healthcare for it's citizens it will obviously (like most would) seek the best deal. That being the case, health system will not be able to afford the number of skilled personnel and equipment to properly take care of the citizens at a high level of quality and efficiency. Also, a country like Canada which has a concentrated population in terms of tax base, a single-payer system may work to some degree. But imagine a single-payer system for 300 million+ citizens when a smaller portion of them contribute to the tax base than our neighbors to the north. The system could potentially collapse under the weight of rising demand in healthcare and falling income to support such a system. The only way to alleviate it would be to significantly raise taxes, which would curtail economic growth and destroy the wealth of this country which resides in the citizens of this great country. Now I am not saying the current system is right or even just (insurance companis must be held to a higher standard, but we must also use our constitutionally protected right of choice to also hold them accountable). But being the powerful nation we are (as long as that power resides in the people and not a small disconnected group) we should be able discuss and compromise on this issue to ensure the best possible system for all involved. Let's put the remote and People Magazine down and discuss this important issue with our neighbors and friends so we can retain the power to guide a policy that ultimately affect us.
Nate, this is your most condescendingly hilarious (albeit entertaining) post yet. :D
Can someone--maybe Nate???--please take Nate's argument through to the next step and explain in similarly simple and clear terms how single-payer is different from nationalized health care in practice.
That is to say, when I make this point (the one Nate makes in this post) about the difference between these two types of systems, and then the person I'm talking to says, "Yeah ok, but either way, directly or indirectly, the government is controlling what health care I get" -- how do I clearly and simply explain how they're actually different in practice (and not just in theory)?
Bart DePalma said...
The fact that the Dems have switched to the spin term "insurance reform" from "health care reform" because it polls better says far more about the dishonesty of this discussion. . . .
So, our very learned Mr. dePalma, when the GOOPers wanted to eliminate the estate tax (which ONLY applies when a person has a VERY large [dollar amount] estate) by switching the talking point to "DEATH TAX", that didn't say "far more about the dishonesty of th[e] discussion"?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
It seems to me that those of us who want a single-payer system need a slogan, something pithy and easy to remember, that encapsulates the basic idea.
How about, "Medicare for everyone!"
mrG said...
Many respectable and effective treatments are not covered
And sometimes a procedure is covered, but the Canadian population is (I can only decide it's selfishness) not able to partake of the procedure because of that Canadian selfishness.
What am I talking about?
Human organ and tissue donation.
Many Canadians travel to the US and elsewhere for tissue and organ transplants, not because the Canadians don't know how to do them, or because the Canadian system won't pay for them, but because the Canadians are selfish about their bodies, even after death. In other words, too many Canadians need to travel for transplants because their fellow citizens are just too selfish with sharing, even after death.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
Wait time, insured vs. uninsured:
Several years ago, I was in an auto accident. I didn't think I was injured, but several friends urged me to go to the hospital (conveniently three blocks from the scene of the accident) to get checked out. I had insurance, both through my auto insurance and a health insurance plan through the federal government (the GWU Health Plan was the one I had selected).
When I entered the waiting room, there was already a young, pre-teen, boy who was waiting to be seen by the medical staff. He was in serious pain because somehow a stick had been poked into his eye. It was pretty obvious that his family was not very well off, and was almost assuredly without any health insurance.
My name was called to see a doctor, but the kid in severe pain was still in the waiting room. I told the receptionist that I wanted the kid to go first, as it was obvious that he had a much more severe injury than I did, if I was even injured. She told me that the kid had been given some pain meds, and that a very experienced ophthalmologist was on his way to treat the kid.
After I was checked out (no injuries, but suspicions that I had suffered a concussion, confirmed a couple of weeks later), I left the hospital. A friend told me the ophthalmologist apparently had arrived at almost the same time I went into the examining room, as within a minute or two after I left the waiting room to be examined, the kid's name was called and he was taken to an examining room.
If I hadn't asked for, and received, a few minor details, I might have had the impression that I was called first since I had insurance, and the kid was left waiting because he didn't. As a result, ever since then, anecdotal 'evidence' given by the wingnuts, TROLLs, and GOOPers has always made me think "How much is made up, and how much is because they don't know the actual facts of the matter."
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
Okay, folks. Let's not inflate Fox News and their influence on this debate. Throughout much of last week, FNC averaged about 1.3 million viewers. CBS Evening News, the lowest-rated major network newscast, pulled about four times that (5.1 million). This is about the same number of people who watched the season premiere of Monk (5.14 million) and much less than the number of people who watched iCarly on Nickelodeon (7.59 million). On other mediums, Rush Limbaugh pulls about 15 million listeners, while NPR has been drawing over 20 million for Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
Grog, it's shorthand for 'free at the point of delivery'. In otherwords you don't pay a penny to the hospital for the operation. You don't have to pay extra taxes because you've used the system.
PeteKent?
Regarding your "Death Panel" and "Obama’s Death Panel" regurgitations of Sarah Baracuda, how about you doing some reading of material by people who actually know what is in the bills, and what is being discussed?
Maybe a good starting point would be:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_END_OF_LIFE_QA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Please note the reference to 1992, when George H W Bush was President.
You might also want to read this:
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/08/debunking-the-d.html
Even Johnny Isakson, one of the more conservative members of the Senate, says, "How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as [a death panel] is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up."
Details at:
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/08/11/gop-senator-end-of-life-counseling-is-not-a-death-panel (and if you don't readily recognize the URL, it is the Wall Street Journal, not known to be a bastion of liberal thought).
Of course, you are free to continue to show your stupidity and TROLLish nature by continuing the 'Death Panel" mantra. As Chris Kofinis stated on MSNBC tonight, the more the GOOPers slip into wingnuttery, the easier it will be for Democratic Party candidates to win elections well into the future.
So on second thought, just keep up your latest "Death Panel" meme, and thus you will help destroy the GOOPers that much quicker.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
My father has CML. The treatment costs 3.000€ per month. It's impossible for us to pay that much, and no insurance company wanna pay it by the way. They have demonstrated us, that they have one thousand ways to, simply, not pay. Their rich and big companies with hundreds of lawyers at their disposal.
But we're lucky, we live in Spain a country with a NHS (http://www.seg-social.es). The NHS pay the treatment and all the related expenses. Also, as my father is unable to work anymore they pay it's salary. And they'll do it until he dies.
The money comes from the earnings of those who work. The bigger the incoming the bigger you have to pay. And no, that's not "socialism", that's a thing that has another name: generosity.
First of all, Nate, thank you for a most entertaining morning. I've literally spent well over an hour reading your post and all the related comments, which have led me to guffaw in a most unladylike manner on occasion. I also made notes...I'm sad like that. Here's what I want to say.
I am British. I am English, but live in Wales (yes, they are two different countries. Wales is not in England). I have also lived in America where I attended university for a while. I've also lived in France and Belgium. I have first-hand experience of the medical facilities in each country and I have to say that, without exception, ALL of my British friends are utterly stupefied by the American resistance to providing a decent level of healthcare to all its citizens. To those who have likened public and private healthcare insurance to facilitating roads, parcels or cars, it is laughable (yet terribly sad) that I have to point out that we are not talking about roads, parcels or cars (heaven forbid I should be categorised as either a Mercedes or a Honda Civic...or, worse still, a bicycle rider...before I can get my broken leg treated). We are talking about HUMAN BEINGS and providing ALL of them with the means to be alleviated from pain, disablement and possibly death. Even the illegal immigrants (eeeeeuw...can you imagine, an illegal immigrant might need treatment, damn them). This is a basic human right and one that is not being addressed at the moment in the United States of America. There is absolutely no argument about that. It just isn't.
@MarkyMark...the National Health Service is nowhere near "barely a century old". My mum is 87 and she can remember a time when you had to pay to see a doctor in this country, and if you could not pay, you suffered. The NHS was introduced by the NHS Act in 1946 (in England and Wales) and the NHS (Scotland) Act in 1947 in Scotland. Aneurin Bevan was the tour de force behind this reform in the UK, God rest his soul.
My experience of the American system is that the level of healthcare is in no way superior (I, like someone else who commented earlier, know of no one who has hot-footed over to the States to get treated for anything!), and that many many many of the people I knew/know over there are not able to acquire health insurance because of issues of poverty (oh, and they're not lazy good-for-nothing n'er do wells...just students or people from low to average income families) or pre-existing conditions (eg. my friend who had Hodgkins Lymphoma here in her early 20s, married an American, and is now terrified (in her 50s) of any relapse as they would be financially crippled because they can't get insurance for her).
I also noted something during my residency in the States, which no one has yet to mention: the preponderance of people who are channeled into having unnecessary medical procedures inflicted upon them by doctors who see dollar signs rather than patients. I'm not putting down ALL doctors (I have good friends who are doctors there, and they're all great guys)but I witnessed time and again people who were talked into having over-the-top medical care because it made money! The private system of healthcare does lead to a level of hypochondria which I simply don't see in this country or other European countries.
British doctors who work in the private sector here have ALL been trained through the NHS, and the quality of care they can provide is exactly the same as in a private consultation. I had, for example, one of the best obstetricians in the country perform my C-section when I gave birth to my daughter, and she also provides private consultations, the only difference being you would possibly see her more quickly.
Prescriptions and medicines are dispensed at no cost to the patient in Wales, and is £7.20 per item in England http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Medicinespharmacyandindustry/Prescriptions/NHScosts/DH_087013. I hear tales of some simple antibiotics or even paracetamol costing $60 to $100...this would be financially out of reach for some families. British doctors also make house-calls on occasion, when a patient is very unwell and physically not able to make it to the doctor's surgery (office), again at no charge to the patient...my family has benefitted from this service on several occasions throughout my life.
As for those of you who have said that the UK does not have a large and growing illegal immigration "problem", as my mum just said to me..."ha ha...you have GOT to be joking!?" Walk down Cardiff city centre to hear Polish (for example) being spoken. But, back to my earlier point, immigration or not, these people are human beings who also have a right to be treated.
I have to make special mention to Eeeek's post. "Left wing loud mouths"? Are you thus describing my whole country then, and possibly the whole continent of Europe? And as for "...to do as Americans have always done. To be the best." Our National Health Service also covers mental health. Just sayin'...
Oh. And I've never in my life had bangers and mash icecream. I've had brown bread icecream though...yummy. And bangers and mash...common meal in my house :o)
Chrissie said
'
@MarkyMark...the National Health Service is nowhere near "barely a century old". My mum is 87 and she can remember a time when you had to pay to see a doctor in this country, and if you could not pay, you suffered. The NHS was introduced by the NHS Act in 1946 (in England and Wales) and the NHS (Scotland) Act in 1947 in Scotland. Aneurin Bevan was the tour de force behind this reform in the UK, God rest his soul.'
---------------------------------
In my defense what I said was that the system of national health insurance was over a century old. I guess actually you are more correct than I am, but the great Reforming Liberal government of the 1900s launched the national insurance acts, and guaranteed old people a pension, young people health treatment, and so on (though not always without a fight from entrenched interests!) Its true that the NHS was set up in the 40s under Attlee's post war government.
|
@MarkyMark...the National Health Service is nowhere near "barely a century old". My mum is 87 and she can remember a time when you had to pay to see a doctor in this country, and if you could not pay, you suffered. The NHS was introduced by the NHS Act in 1946 (in England and Wales) and the NHS (Scotland) Act in 1947 in Scotland. Aneurin Bevan was the tour de force behind this reform in the UK, God rest his soul.
But that just goes to prove to Grog that the model America split with took even longer to get to a national health service system than I was suggesting. Socialism as a concept really didn't exist in the 1770s or 80s, certainly not in the complete version that Marx came up with in the 1840s. The Britain of the 1770s and 80s would look a lot more like the US of today than the Europe of today.
Sorry about the blip in my last post by the way, not sure what's up with that.
Anyhoo just to come back to one other thing that Chrissie said. I think Jeff would claim that the Polish immigrants in Caridff Bay (and across the UK, indeed probably across Europe) are not illegal immigrants. I don't see, personally how that makes a difference, but sometimes there is no reasoning with these right wingnuts!
LOL...well I assure you that many of them (not just Polish...other nations) are. Just last week there was a story in the papers of a guy who clung to the underside of a vehicle to cross over from France to England...and the vehicle was carrying Immigration Officials...ha ha ha ha!! Read this for the full story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203691/Migrant-hid-Border-Agency-bus-reach-UK-20-immigration-staff-failed-spot-hes-run-Britain.html
pretty good analogy, just wanted to point a couple things out.
1) the guy who came up with this whole medicare thing in Canada was in fact a socialist. well, if you want to get really technical, the party he lead was the Communist party. I am not ashamed of this, nor do I think it makes the idea a terrible one. . . Even socialists and commies can have good ideas sometimes.
2) "Jonny Cannuck" actually doesn't pick up the bill for Viagra. . . or any other prescription. Unless you are poor enough to qualify for the government drug plan which would also cover some basic optical and dental care. . . But even then you'd have to pay for your own Viagra. . . You may also get the idea from looking at our Prime Minister that
Chrissie, I am not going to believe anything the Daily Mail tells me about immigration. But the problem, if indeed it is a problem, is that Polish certainly are not illegals, becuase as a EU member country there citizens have free travel and employment rights throughout the European Union. (Now i am not saying there aren't others here on the back of that illegally.) But I don;t think that should necesarily lead to different health care outcomes re life expectancy for UK citizens.
Nate:
As much as I love your work, I wish you had done a little research on Canada's system before publishing.
Our system ONLY covers physician care where your health is jeopardized. It does not cover dental, medical, cosmetic, prescription drugs and certainly not stuff like Viagra.
And we do personally pay for our care - with insurance premiums outside of our income tax bill. In Alberta, it's about $50.00 a month for an individual and if you want Blue Cross, for example, to cover that other stuff, that's optional and would cost you more, of course.
Mike
Michael said...
Our system ONLY covers physician care where your health is jeopardized.
Please define 'health is jeopardized'.
Cataracts? Bunions? Warts that are not malignant?
All of the above can be described as a 'medical problem' and cause problems for the patient, but are not life threatening.
As to why Viagra is paid for in the US health system, it is the result of lobbying by big pharma. They figured out if Viagra were required to be paid for by the insurance companies, the profits for big pharma would increase.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
Nate, I'm not sure how to say this, so I'm just going to come out and say it: I love you.
Ah my fellow Canadian commenters, please don't try to edumicate others on Canada's healthcare system if you are going to make sweeping generalizations yourselves.
For example, not all provinces charge a monthly premium for health insurance services, some collect it all through general taxes. And the Premier of Saskatchewan who introduced the first government funded medical insurance scheme in Canada was a leader of a social democratic party, not the communist party. Ya know, sometimes labels are important.
Side comment #1 - a key advisor to the Saskatchewan government n implementing the government insurance plan came from Britain.
Side comment #2 - the Premier of Saskatchewan was Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather. Not sure why someone isn't hanging around Kiefer asking about how he feels about the US President trying to implement something evil that his "commie grandpa" brought in. But I suppose it's only a matter of time.
I am sympathetic to the idea of the US government expanding health care, but there are a few questions and issues that we need to contemplate:
1. Given our massive and rapidly expanding national debt, can we afford it?
2. I would be ok with the two trillion dollar cost in the context of cutting a minimum of two trillion from our bloated federal warfare and welfare state. But, to add debt to debt is insane.
3. This is especially true in the context of a social security and medicaid administration in which the unpaid liabilities vastly outstrip the assets.
4. In determining what policies will be successful in the US, we need to view the success of prior US efforts, not those of other nations.
In other words, for whatever reason, there is nothing to indicate that the US Federal government would be able to control costs while simultaneously maintaining quality.
5. Also, socialist policies seem to work much better in smaller and more homogenous nations, like Norway and Finland, but in larger, more diverse nations people are more reserved about having their resources redistributed.
Best article on it ever.
LOL out loud!
This was actually pretty informative. Thanks!
Canada is similar to Britian as would the Us would be simialr. Both were British colonies at one time and both devise a lot of their legal and political institutions from Britain. Caaada actually has more in common with the US than UK. And its a very ethnically diverse country and although hockey is the national pasttime its not exclusively Canadian. Many Canadians dont follow it liek others do. But the ones that do are die hard. Its like what baseball is to the Us. baseball may be the national pasttime but Football might be more popular. Canada is liek the Us where it has many diverse regions , people and provinces. And most people cannot speak French. Most french speakers are in Quebec. There is a lot to learn about Johnny Canuck.
JMS sais: So, I'd rate Single Payer highest; the US system is better than the UK for quality and economic incentives but worse for cost and universality.
You are conflating what is available in the US for people who can and will pay for it from their own pockets, and what is available to the average US resident who DOES have health insurance. Our health insurance companies have the right to decide what protocols they will and will not cover (both proven and unproven--for example, only a tiny handful of people are covered for infertility). They also have the right to decide what prescription drugs they will cover (again, both proven and unproven--I pay out of pocket for natural thyroid hormone, because the ONLY thyroid supplement my insurer, one of the Blues, will cover is a generic form of synthetic T4.)
While it is true that many people from other countries come here for care, that does not nullify the fact that most US citizens who DO have coverage pay larger amounts for their coverage AND are required to pay large amounts out of pocket for any care they do receive. Again using myself as an example, in January, I fell and broke a small bone in my foot and sprained my ankle. In addition to the insurance premiums that we pay monthly, my bill for that simple injury, over and above what was paid by our insurer was over $400.
The US has amazing healthcare. If you can afford it. Most Americans can't afford the care that wealthy foreigners come here to receive.
@Micki Exactly!
Having a form of healthcare that the government help equalise for everyone is NOT a communist plot you know...it's just bloody good sense!!!
Amen.
To work anywhere in the EU all you need is to be a citizen of any EU country. My niece holds dual Canadian/Dutch citizenship and she has worked both in Italy and France.
We went to Ireland is 2000 and again in 2007 - the biggest difference we would was that the Irish lilt was gone in the pubs. They now all have Eastern European accents.
Thanks Nate for the very informative info you have provided.
We Canadians hope that all Americans learn the difference between "socialist" and democratic socialism. I think sometimes the meaning gets blurred.
Uhm, women aren't things. No, it's not edgy or funny to joke about it either. It is idiotic and played-out and sexist, though. Is that really what you were going for?
And while we're setting the record straight, here, poutine is fucking delicious. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. (You might want to eat it with a fork, though. Poutine-as-finger-food is best left to the pros.)
Thanks!
Those who are oh so offended by reference to a particular woman as a "thing" -- first of all, it was obviously absurdist, and not to be taken seriously. Second, some people, of whatever sex, actively promote public perception of themselves as objects of some kind of obsession, and in many cases make a fair amount of money doing so, which they regard as success.
You have the right to be offended, and I have an equal right to think that you are silly to be offended.
Hmmmm..."women as things". Typical Saul Alinski teachings(look it up).
I would think if most of you lefties were not so innocently naive, I would be worried you just might succeed in dismantling our great Republic. However, I'll bet most of you have not lived in the real world for long, or you have been brainwashed by liberal professors on liberal college campuses for which you consider that the highlight of your lives. Oy vey. Which gets me to the point that Obama could no more run a candy store than he can run our government. He is surrounded mostly by idealists--whew! He is pathetically naive and lackluster on the world stage. He shows that he doesn't know what the hell he is doing with "reforming" our healthcare, as he cannot articulate it very well. Perhaps he needs better telepromters and writers.
Just who in the hell do you think is going to pay for these cocka mamie ideas from the left? Not me. I'll downsize my company, not offer private insurance (why should I when I could cross that off my bottom line--so much for competition), or I will cling to my guns (better not tamper with the 2nd ammendment)and join the revolt that I see simmering. The pendulum swings don't forget. You liberal idealogue loons better not stick MY kids with all your spending like drunken sailors. What happens when there are not enough haves to pay for the have nots? You are such wimpy blind sheep. You like Canadian and European life better? Then get the hell out of my country and move your sorry asses over there!
"lacklustre [please note spelling - ha ha!] on the world stage" and "cannot articulate it very well"... I'm sorry...are you talking about your Beloved George Dubya? Because Obama has all the lustre and we all (I have yet to find ONE person here who disagrees) REALLY LIKE HIM over here...in THE WORLD. He's doing a damn sight better at that than your last president, that's for bloody sure. And as for not being able to articulate a speech...ha ha ha ha ha ha...well perhaps you "misunderestimated" him.
And as for the whole liking European life better...yes I do actually...MUCH better. And yes, I've lived in the States. I'm so PROUD to be British and one of many things that makes be so is the NHS.
right on said...
Hmmmm..."women as things". Typical Saul Alinski teachings(look it up).
I would think if most of you lefties were not so innocently naive, I would be worried you just might succeed in dismantling our great Republic. However, I'll bet most of you have not lived in the real world for long, or you have been brainwashed by liberal professors on liberal college campuses for which you consider that the highlight of your lives. Oy vey. Which gets me to the point that Obama could no more run a candy store than he can run our government. He is surrounded mostly by idealists--whew! He is pathetically naive and lackluster on the world stage. He shows that he doesn't know what the hell he is doing with "reforming" our healthcare, as he cannot articulate it very well. Perhaps he needs better telepromters and writers.
Just who in the hell do you think is going to pay for these cocka mamie ideas from the left? Not me. I'll downsize my company, not offer private insurance (why should I when I could cross that off my bottom line--so much for competition), or I will cling to my guns (better not tamper with the 2nd ammendment)and join the revolt that I see simmering. The pendulum swings don't forget. You liberal idealogue loons better not stick MY kids with all your spending like drunken sailors. What happens when there are not enough haves to pay for the have nots? You are such wimpy blind sheep. You like Canadian and European life better? Then get the hell out of my country and move your sorry asses over there!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
yea, the progressive blogs on the net are a great way for Rep wingnuts to release all their pent up, sore loser, sour grape frustrations!
right on's post almost qualifies for Markos' Saturday hate mail-apalooza, but not quite ;)
Actually my dad was not political and my mom voted for Nixon in '68, I forgave her. Maybe it was the Jesuit high school which made me a liberal independent, although I was always independent, just ask the Nuns at St. Patrick's, I digress.
Re: Obama, he did a "fairly" good job running his campaign, staying on message, no leaks. Had a firm grasp of all the issues as he easily won all (3) debates by staying calm, whereas McCain was snarky and angry as he rambled incoherently.
And as I have said, American liberals never go away, although for years, Canada and Europe may have been a better fit.
And name calling can be fun, especially at political blogs.
take care
btw, were you one of the totally staged, astro turf, protesters at the Dem town halls crying ...
I want my country back!
Ooooh Aaaah Shiloh..can't you do better than the Daily Kos? That sick one side piece of garbage site gets used as fish wrap by the right.
Maybe your mom did not need to be forgiven. I'm her age and didn't vote for Nixon. However, I did vote for McGovern. It wasn't until I was in the real working world, you know, the one where you own a small business, make it grow, create jobs and help people to NOT become dependent on entitlements, that I wised up. You will too if you get you head out of the far left cesspool and come up for a breath of real oxygen. I give you 5 years at best.
right on said...
Ooooh Aaaah Shiloh..can't you do better than the Daily Kos? That sick one side piece of garbage site gets used as fish wrap by the right.
Maybe your mom did not need to be forgiven. I'm her age and didn't vote for Nixon. However, I did vote for McGovern. It wasn't until I was in the real working world, you know, the one where you own a small business, make it grow, create jobs and help people to NOT become dependent on entitlements, that I wised up. You will too if you get you head out of the far left cesspool and come up for a breath of real oxygen. I give you 5 years at best.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
right on lol
to be honest, didn't expect a reply, but thanx for not using as many ad hominems ;) as your 1st post.
I too voted for McGovern and convinced my mom as well, sort of like last year when Caroline Kennedy's son and daughters convinced her to endorse Obama, I digress.
Your argument is all well and good, fair enough, everyone has their own prospective when voting for president and may change over time. I voted for Voinovich one time.
But Obama also had some business giants in his corner, Warren Buffett, Martha Stewart etc. Actually, the list is quite impressive! including Perez Hilton, I kid. :)
Susan Eisenhower and Julie Nixon-Eisenhower endorsed Obama.
btw, Wal-Mart Endorses Obama's Health Care Mandate
but, but, but 59 million voted for McCain and assume you are/were one of them.
and presume one doesn't frequent the Daily Kos an a daily basis. ;)
p.s. how do you know my mom's age and if you really are the same age typing at your keyboard, god love 'ya!
take care
right on right on and get on w/your bad self, can you dig it! I knew that you could ...
Eaglman10 -- I am English, and so I have been looked after by the *UK* system, ie NHS, since before I was actually born. I have very little money. I still saw 3 consultants for different problems with very little wait since this time last year, had a couple of minor procedures in hospital this year, saw my GP quite a few times, etc - this year alone! I have also been booked in for free audiotherapy to help with my low level tinnitus, for free... My care has been *excellent*. I have paid £0. Noone in any of the hospitals or GP surgeries has a clue if I am rich or poor because it doesn't matter. My greatgrandparents (both 100) have used the NHS to the exclusion of any other services since it began, and they've had a lot of procedures in their lifetimes and been really happy. My greatgrandad had his hips replaced in his 70s and has lived so long hewoe them out and got given new ones in his LATE 90s for... £0. He still goes out for a walk everyday.
To answer your question more specifically... Almost every single person I know has not bothered with private insurance unless they get a deal through their work, and even then most don't bother. NHS care is at least as good as the private options in most cases. As others hae pointed out, in some cases the NHS wait are SHORTER than for private. A friend of mine had to have a jaw operation and he was nervous. He looked at going private because of nerves and thinking maybe it'd be done sooner and better. His consultant, who he saw on the private system, worked for both the private and NHS systems. He advised my friend the money spent on the private consultation was wasted ad that he should have the op on the NHS because his NHS team was better equipped and better skilled than his private team. Think about tht for a sec, because that consultant was even missing an opportunity to get paid more in order to advocate the best care.
Of course, the way it actually works here, is that even those with private insurance often DON'T use it, because they get treated for free (and don't push up premiums) on the NHS. It's like an extra backup if they can afford to keep paying premiums, in the sense that if there came a situation where they needed an operation, they might be able to choose between private and NHS -- and even then will often choose the NHS, it's just that they're paying to have more options 'just in case'. We can also pay to go private on the spot if we like, for a specific thing. Most don't. Most of us are impressed enough with our generally excellent care in a system that may not be perfect (but no system is - *even/especially* private for-profit ones!) but is at least based on the premise that everyone deserves treatement and care no matter what state their bank account is in...
Hear hear!
I was talking with an Australian friend the other day who was also rolling his eyes at this whole debacle going on in the States. They have Medicare there too. Health care for all human beings should NOT be based on your ability to pay and right-wing political advocates can rant and whinge all they like, that basic truth will never change.
The NHS is not bad but could be better.
I heard that the US spends more tax dollars per head of population on healthcare than the UK. Is this true?
And, can anyone explain to me why it is that the president of America doesn't seem to be in charge?
President O is not in charge because he has so little experience to offer. His naivety is showing. The far left liberals agenda is sadly out of touch with reality. Theory makes for good reading and conversation, but so many of you on this blog appear very immature when it comes to America and Americans. Too many brainwashed college profs at those Ivy Leagues???? You wouldn't last a week at a community college.
No, he is not in charge because of the way that the the US government is set up, so that one man does not have all the power (good policy in any democratic society).
As for being out of teach with reality, I have never in my life known people more out of touch with reality than right wing advocates, who have said things to me like "I don't know ANY poor people in America" (ha ha ha ha!!! This was a friend of mine...not just someone on the internet) or "People are poor because they're lazy" (oh dear oh dear...).
And I attended a community college in America and then one of the most right wing universities in America (NOT an ivy league college) and then a very humble teacher training college in Britain. Wouldn't last a week in a community college my arse love... I can hold my own in any environment because I've actually lived life in all sorts of countries and environments and taught people (children and adults) from every strata of society.
Right on, Chrissie!
Post a Comment