lom: This has less to do with whose funding it, and more to do with the fact that our prenatal and maternity care is way over medicalized.
Actually, it has everything to do with greater access to prenatal care -- which Canada has.
lom: As for Canada. Canada's health care is currently ranked 30th by the WHO.
Uh huh. And we're ranked....?
Don't bother, I already looked. (Did you really think I wouldn't?)
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
37th. Just under Costa Rica.
lom: However, that same study ranked the U.S. better in overall speed and responsiveness of care than Canada.
And yet we're still listed as below them overall. Way below them. Possibly because, according to that same report:
"In North America, Canada rates as the country with the fairest mechanism for health system finance – ranked at 17-19, while the United States is at 54-55."
Lom: Also, one should note, over all health care in Canada is actually funded 70%/30% private-public, so most services are still actually provided by the private sector.
And yet you were earlier implying that the existence of a public option would eliminate these options. How very odd
lom: So, compare apples to apples, setting aside the private sector from the equation (since both systems use it): our government already spends MORE than Canada's government spends on health care. So what you are saying is that our government already spends far more but has far worse quality of care.
No. I'm saying that we have far worse access to care. Quality care means nothing to people who can't get it.
LOM: Our insurance companies are already highly government regulated-- and what has happened as a result? It has created virtual monopolies of companies in certain states and regions. You cannot purchases policies across state lines because all of the state regulations creating red tape.
All the kind of deregulation your promoting will result in would be health insurance companies moving their bases to states where they'll be allowed to continue gouging people.
lom: Obamacare is going to take the same existing broken system and amp it up to 11. PFT: How? LOM: Because it is not a real reform. It changes nothing about the fundamental way the system operates. All it does is expand government. It's a band-aide on the problem.
Specifics please.
How will Obama's healthcare reform make things worse?
Paft: Which is worse than meaningless when that treatment is unavailable to so many Americans. lom: Treatment *IS* available to all Americans.
Really? Do explain this to those desperate transplant patients in Arizona currently left high and dry by Jan Brewer. They seem to believe that they aren't going to get their transplants because they can't afford them
Silly bunnies! Good thing you're around to tell them otherwise. Explain to me how they actually have access to their badly needed heat transplants and I'll pass it on to them.
no subject
Actually, it has everything to do with greater access to prenatal care -- which Canada has.
lom: As for Canada. Canada's health care is currently ranked 30th by the WHO.
Uh huh. And we're ranked....?
Don't bother, I already looked. (Did you really think I wouldn't?)
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
37th. Just under Costa Rica.
lom: However, that same study ranked the U.S. better in overall speed and responsiveness of care than Canada.
And yet we're still listed as below them overall. Way below them. Possibly because, according to that same report:
"In North America, Canada rates as the country with the fairest mechanism for health system finance – ranked at 17-19, while the United States is at 54-55."
Lom: Also, one should note, over all health care in Canada is actually funded 70%/30% private-public, so most services are still actually provided by the private sector.
And yet you were earlier implying that the existence of a public option would eliminate these options. How very odd
lom: So, compare apples to apples, setting aside the private sector from the equation (since both systems use it): our government already spends MORE than Canada's government spends on health care. So what you are saying is that our government already spends far more but has far worse quality of care.
No. I'm saying that we have far worse access to care. Quality care means nothing to people who can't get it.
LOM: Our insurance companies are already highly government regulated-- and what has happened as a result? It has created virtual monopolies of companies in certain states and regions. You cannot purchases policies across state lines because all of the state regulations creating red tape.
All the kind of deregulation your promoting will result in would be health insurance companies moving their bases to states where they'll be allowed to continue gouging people.
lom: Obamacare is going to take the same existing broken system and amp it up to 11.
PFT: How?
LOM: Because it is not a real reform. It changes nothing about the fundamental way the system operates. All it does is expand government. It's a band-aide on the problem.
Specifics please.
How will Obama's healthcare reform make things worse?
Paft: Which is worse than meaningless when that treatment is unavailable to so many Americans.
lom: Treatment *IS* available to all Americans.
Really? Do explain this to those desperate transplant patients in Arizona currently left high and dry by Jan Brewer. They seem to believe that they aren't going to get their transplants because they can't afford them
Silly bunnies! Good thing you're around to tell them otherwise. Explain to me how they actually have access to their badly needed heat transplants and I'll pass it on to them.