Unconstitutionalcare

[Baron Scicluna]

Health care is a right in most civilized countries.

And Canada does not have "socialized" medicine, despite what some of the right wing fear mongers in the US may think.

Doctors in Canada are small business owners-just like the US. Funny how that works.

Only difference is that instead of having a bunch of insurance companies to deal with, they have only one---their provincial government. And so they have more time to deal with patients than spending time negotiating with insurance companies.

Now, I know that there are going to be a bunch of people who will yammer on about "long waits for surgeons and procedures" in Canada, some of which is true. No one here--doctors, patients or politicians would every argue with that.

Fact is, our health care system is less costly, more efficient and more importantly, would never bankrupt any Canadian citizen because they couldn't afford a heart by-pass.

This story always tickles me. The one about Premier of Newfoundland coming to USA for open heart surgery :

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/01/nl-williams-heart-201.html

The story says that he was coming to the U.S. for a "Not normally routine procedure".

It doesn't elaborate, but maybe the premier has a rare condition in which Newfoundland doctors don't know about, but U.S. doctors do? Some doctors are experts in a disease or a field, and they're not from the U.S, and vice-versa.

 

[Azrael]

I get a kick out of the fact that Canada's life expectancy is so much longer than ours.

"U-S-A! U-S-A! We're number 36! We're number 36!"

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/socind/health.htm#tech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

 

[Dick Whitman]

I get a kick out of the fact that Canada's life expectancy is so much longer than ours.

"U-S-A! U-S-A! We're number 36! We're number 36!"

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/socind/health.htm#tech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

That is misleading. I actually think if you take gun violence out of that equation, we are right on par. I can dig that up later today.

 

[Azrael]

I look forward to seeing it.

Are we going to control for how many Europeans still smoke, as well?

 

[LanceyHoward]

I get a kick out of the fact that Canada's life expectancy is so much longer than ours.

"U-S-A! U-S-A! We're number 36! We're number 36!"

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/socind/health.htm#tech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

That is misleading. I actually think if you take gun violence out of that equation, we are right on par. I can dig that up later today.

No. I did the math.

Average life expectancy for Canadians:
Woman 83
Men 79

USA
Woman 81
Men 76

If you assume Canadian and American life expectancies are the same except for gun violence and the average age of the victim is 31 then five percent of Americans would have to die from gun violence and zero Canadians to make the numbers work. A lot of Americans die from guns but not five percent.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I found a study that seemed pretty reliable that said gun violence costs us each about 103 days, on average. That bumps us up from 78.3 years to 78.6 years - only about two spots, from 36th to the 33rd-34th range. So not that huge of an impact.

 

[steveu]

If you want to eliminate crappy, processed food, we could look at shutting down every fast food restaurant in the continent and half the crap available in supermarkets. Don't think that's gonna happen

This issue goes way beyond "personal responsibility", a favourite of the corporate crowd who, still keep shoving fast food down the throats of North Americans

If we want people to change their eating habits, well, then maybe state/provincial/ and federal governments should start the initiatives and develop programmes to develop healthy eating. Not a big job.

Michelle Obama is trying to do that, and the Sarah Palin types are skewering her for it. Plus the First Lady doesn't help herself either when she gets caught in photos eating high-calorie meals, as happened recently (and as the right was all-too-eager to point out).

Even though Michelle herself has NOT suggested this, some people are equaling her obesity crusade with the government's desire to regulate what we eat (Michelle wants to shut down every fast-food restaurant in the country!)

Seriously, and I'll state this again. Reform is needed, but it needs to include "tort reform" to bring down the outrageous cost of malpractice insurance. When you include meaningful tort reform in a bill, then we'll see what happens. Most trial lawyers -- who have been Democratic supporters in the past, but not all in a lump -- don't want tort reform because they dream of that big payday.

 

[Dick Whitman]

If you want to eliminate crappy, processed food, we could look at shutting down every fast food restaurant in the continent and half the crap available in supermarkets. Don't think that's gonna happen

This issue goes way beyond "personal responsibility", a favourite of the corporate crowd who, still keep shoving fast food down the throats of North Americans

If we want people to change their eating habits, well, then maybe state/provincial/ and federal governments should start the initiatives and develop programmes to develop healthy eating. Not a big job.

Michelle Obama is trying to do that, and the Sarah Palin types are skewering her for it. Plus the First Lady doesn't help herself either when she gets caught in photos eating high-calorie meals, as happened recently (and as the right was all-too-eager to point out).

Even though Michelle herself has NOT suggested this, some people are equaling her obesity crusade with the government's desire to regulate what we eat (Michelle wants to shut down every fast-food restaurant in the country!)

Seriously, and I'll state this again. Reform is needed, but it needs to include "tort reform" to bring down the outrageous cost of malpractice insurance. When you include meaningful tort reform in a bill, then we'll see what happens. Most trial lawyers -- who have been Democratic supporters in the past, but not all in a lump -- don't want tort reform because they dream of that big payday.

Or doctors can, you know, stop committing so much malpractice.

In all seriousness, have you ever seen the landmark Harvard study from a few years ago about malpractice? It's completely screwed up. Most suits have no merit. But most actual malpractice never draws a lawsuit. People basically sue when things go catastrophically wrong, malpractice or not, and leave the lesser wrongs alone.

Atul Gawande of The New Yorker has done some tremendous journalism on these topics. His "Checklist Manifesto" is must-reading. Basically, most malpractice is institutional, not doctor-specific. Simple institutional checklists can reduce the rate of error to an amazing degree, thus saving the system untold amounts of money if it ever caught on on a large scale.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

On balance, good doctors have been very, very good to me . . . but the profession lost my unwavering, eternal support when I heard one practitioner's ringtone . . . "We're in the money".

Eat me.

 

[Dick Whitman]

On balance, good doctors have been very, very good to me . . . but the profession lost my unwavering, eternal support when I heard one practitioner's ringtone . . . "We're in the money".

Eat me.

I think the ring tone is in poor taste, but I don't begrudge doctors the money they make. They went through four years of college, four years of medical school, and four years of residency.

Again, they aren't overcharging anyone. The market sets the rate. They charge it. We pay it. If they didn't charge market or close to it, they'd be out of business in a heartbeat.

 

[Azrael]

Again, they aren't overcharging anyone. The market sets the rate.

Doesn't a "market" assume competition? Competition which arises out of having more than one choice? Ie, if I want to buy a car, I have lots of choices: Ford, Audi, GM, etc.

What are my choices if I need an appendectomy?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

If you want to eliminate crappy, processed food, we could look at shutting down every fast food restaurant in the continent and half the crap available in supermarkets. Don't think that's gonna happen

This issue goes way beyond "personal responsibility", a favourite of the corporate crowd who, still keep shoving fast food down the throats of North Americans

If we want people to change their eating habits, well, then maybe state/provincial/ and federal governments should start the initiatives and develop programmes to develop healthy eating. Not a big job.

Michelle Obama is trying to do that, and the Sarah Palin types are skewering her for it. Plus the First Lady doesn't help herself either when she gets caught in photos eating high-calorie meals, as happened recently (and as the right was all-too-eager to point out).

Even though Michelle herself has NOT suggested this, some people are equaling her obesity crusade with the government's desire to regulate what we eat (Michelle wants to shut down every fast-food restaurant in the country!)

Seriously, and I'll state this again. Reform is needed, but it needs to include "tort reform" to bring down the outrageous cost of malpractice insurance. When you include meaningful tort reform in a bill, then we'll see what happens. Most trial lawyers -- who have been Democratic supporters in the past, but not all in a lump -- don't want tort reform because they dream of that big payday.

Or doctors can, you know, stop committing so much malpractice.

In all seriousness, have you ever seen the landmark Harvard study from a few years ago about malpractice? It's completely screwed up. Most suits have no merit. But most actual malpractice never draws a lawsuit. People basically sue when things go catastrophically wrong, malpractice or not, and leave the lesser wrongs alone.

Atul Gawande of The New Yorker has done some tremendous journalism on these topics. His "Checklist Manifesto" is must-reading. Basically, most malpractice is institutional, not doctor-specific. Simple institutional checklists can reduce the rate of error to an amazing degree, thus saving the system untold amounts of money if it ever caught on on a large scale.

There was a story a while back (I don't recall where I saw it) which said that hospitals and doctors were getting faster at admitting their mistakes to patients and apologizing for them, and consequently, patients weren't suing as much. The story said that the patients basically wanted the hospital to admit they were wrong, and when they got the apology, were satisfied.