Cheney would "probably be dead by now" if not for his federally funded health care - page 3

December 7, 2007, 2:58 pm Nurses' Health-Care Ad Takes Aim at Cheney Susan Davis reports on health care. Vice President Dick Cheney would "probably be dead by now" if not for his federally... Read More

  1. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from tntrn
    My husband was diagnosed with an aggressive prostate cancer on November 27, 2007. On December 6, 2007, he had a radical retropubic prostatectomy. Based on the article I've linked below, in Canada he'd be long dead before a surgery would be possible.

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinio...ry/224748.html

    This article was a timely one for me to read, and I find it very interesting in that the physician who wrote it works in the US and in Canada, leading me to believe he knows what he's talking about.

    We have friends in Britain, who fortunately, can afford PRIVATE insurance along with what the government provides. Meaning, of course, that they can get care far more quickly when they need it.
    I think that a referenced study says otherwise. Both countries have access problems. BUT Canada has better outcomes on a population basis for its citizens.

    See:

    [FONT=Cremona-Regular][FONT=Univers-Oblique]
    Objectives.
    [FONT=Univers]We compared health status, access to care, and utilization of medical
    services in the United States and Canada, and compared disparities according
    to race, income, and immigrant status.

    [FONT=Univers-Oblique]
    Methods.
    [FONT=Univers]We analyzed population-based data on 3505 Canadian and 5183 US
    adults from the Joint Canada/US Survey of Health. Controlling for gender, age,
    income, race, and immigrant status, we used logistic regression to analyze country
    as a predictor of access to care, quality of care, and satisfaction with care,
    and as a predictor of disparities in these measures.

    [FONT=Univers-Oblique]
    Results.
    [FONT=Univers]In multivariate analyses, US respondents (compared with Canadians)
    were less likely to have a regular doctor, more likely to have unmet health needs,
    and more likely to forgo needed medicines. Disparities on the basis of race, income,
    and immigrant status were present in both countries, but were more extreme
    in the United States.

    [FONT=Univers-Oblique]
    Conclusions.
    [FONT=Univers]United States residents are less able to access care than are Canadians.
    Universal coverage appears to reduce most disparities in access to care.

    (
    [FONT=Univers-Oblique]Am J Public Health. [FONT=Univers]2006;96:XXX-XXX. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.059402)
    [FONT=Univers]Source: http://pnhp.org/canadastudy/CanadaUSStudy.pdf
  2. by   tntrn
    [QUOTE=HM2Viking;2540757]I think that a referenced study says otherwise. Both countries have access problems. BUT Canada has better outcomes on a population basis for its citizens. QUOTE]

    And IMHO, research doesn't always tell you what's really going on. First of all, research papers are difficult to read; getting to the meat of the topic is a giant PIA. Then it depends on HOW questions are asked. In a statistics class I took long ago, the professor said, "You can prove anything you want to prove statistically. It depend solely on how you do the study."

    So I, personally, would listen to this physician who works on both sides of the border than to a study.
  3. by   CRNA2007
    I always laugh when people on the left decry capitalism but never want to give up an of their own money or take a paycut.



    Quote from mercyteapot
    Many of us work for non-profit entities. It doesn't mean we don't get paid, or that we shouldn't and it never did.
  4. by   mercyteapot
    Quote from CRNA2007
    I always laugh when people on the left decry capitalism but never want to give up an of their own money or take a paycut.
    I would challenge you to find one post in which I decry capitalism. You are, of course, free to laugh at whatever you wish, but if you choose to quote me, please make sure it is appropriate to do so.
  5. by   ukstudent
    I find it strange that people thinks he gets better treatment, not because he is the vice president and get treated different than the average Joe on medicaid, but because you think he is on medicaid. If there was no private insurance or ability to legally buy health care other than that provided by the government then Chaney would be dead. Can someone that supports government control of health care provide numbers of how many people get defribilators for the same reason as Chaney in England, France or Canada as these countries are always quoted as being so great.
  6. by   Spidey's mom
    [quote=tntrn;2541349]
    Quote from HM2Viking
    I think that a referenced study says otherwise. Both countries have access problems. BUT Canada has better outcomes on a population basis for its citizens. QUOTE]

    And IMHO, research doesn't always tell you what's really going on. First of all, research papers are difficult to read; getting to the meat of the topic is a giant PIA. Then it depends on HOW questions are asked. In a statistics class I took long ago, the professor said, "You can prove anything you want to prove statistically. It depend solely on how you do the study."

    So I, personally, would listen to this physician who works on both sides of the border than to a study.
    I'm at the tail end of my stats class and this is exactly right!!


    steph
  7. by   HM2VikingRN
    My problem with the physicians statement was not that he referenced waiting times rather that his experience with one family member is being used to say the whole system is bad. There is no doubt that that the Canadian system has some problems with waiting times. But the US system is almost equally bad on this dimension. As I have consistently said we should not try to copy the Canadian system but we should learn from what they do right and use those lessons to improve our own system. If you look at the mirror mirror graph the US can learn something from every other country as we move along in reforming our own system.



    Looking at the data I think our first two teachers should be Germany and the UK. (France also has a very good system that should be used as part of our knowledge base for improving our system.)

    The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Insanity is spending twice as much for worse overall population outcomes.
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Dec 11, '07
  8. by   ElvishDNP
    So.....why is it a good thing for my tax dollars to subsidize Dick Cheney's healthcare and not someone else's? Why is he more deserving of a pacer - or anything else, for that matter - than anyone else?

    No one is decrying capitalism. Some of us just think healthcare should be accessible AND affordable for everyone.
  9. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Arwen_U
    Some of us just think healthcare should be accessible AND affordable for everyone.
    On this point, we agree. The BEST way to accomplish this, for the most people, is through - CAPITALISM.

    Free markets bring the best combination of quality and price. The thing about free markets is that both the buyer AND seller are free to choose. That influences the outcome. THAT makes all transactions literally win-win: they wouldn't occur unless BOTH parties agree that the deal is a selfish win for their side.

    You say you want two things: access and affordability. The free market is the only thing that can bring those things to the masses.

    I understand what you hope to accomplish by using the stormtrooper powers of gov't. Freedom doesn't work that way. Neither do efficient markets.

    It's not that I disagree with what you hope to accomplish. It's that I disagree with the methodology you would employ. I do so because it will not work. It cannot work. History is literally littered with examples of it not working. Oh, you can bring such systems along for a time, for a ride. The Soviets managed 70 yrs. We might actually get a century out of Social Security before it collapses. But. Collapse it must. Looting from the producers to give to those that will not or cannot produce is not a recipe for success.

    Or, as is said, you cannot tax yourself into prosperity. Or, tax yourself better healthcare coverage, for that matter.

    You have mis-imagined human motivation. People do NOT work just as hard when you punish their efforts. The tragedy of the commons causes overuse of a resource whether people understand they are doing so, or not. Gov't produces overbudget mediocrity as a common staple. THERE IS neither access or universality to gov't restricted healthcare.

    I applaud your aims. I approve exactly of your quote above. Your means? Your means are a recipe to fail those very aims. THAT is why I don't approve of gov't interference in the freedom to choose.

    That freedom is also the freedom to excel. I believe in the free market BECAUSE it is the most logical, most reasonable, most incentive based means imagined to provide for your stated aims above, to the most people, at the most reasonable cost.

    Everything else is hyperbole, half-lies, or outright deceit. Check your premises. The gov't is not your friend. It never was. When our framers said, "We the people", what they meant is that we are each empowered by a social contract to govern our own lives and our government would be disempowered to interfere. That is as should be. Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, defended the new Constitution by proclaiming that the framers had enumerated the powers of gov't in such a way as to CONSTRAIN the gov't from any domestic interference: the Constitution would protect you BECAUSE it barred the gov't from any say in your day to day life. Imagine that! Out of this modest idea, the greatest nation was born! Thank you, guys.

    To each according to his own effort. From each only what they willfully exchange. To imagine that you, the gov't or anybody is entitled to appropriate so much as a dime from my earnings and give it to another person that didn't earn it: that is a moral evil. If I do so, that is charity and a moral good. To have done to me without my consent, the common word for that is thievery. THAT is a moral evil, by any name.

    It is never compassionate to commit a moral evil. Not one time. Even if you want it to be.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Dec 11, '07
  10. by   ElvishDNP
    Nobody is advocating 'stormtroopers.' I'm not asking to go back to the USSR.

    I doubt that people in the UK, New Zealand, and numerous other countries would appreciate the comparison. And, maybe your goals are different from mine, but my goal for my country is not prosperity, at least not the main one. Do I love my country and want the best for her? Of course.

    But, when you have a system where rich people tend have both access and affordability and poor people usually have neither, there is a problem.

    And again, I will ask, why is ok for my tax dollars to subsidize Dick Cheney's existence and not average Joe's?

    We are going to have to agree to disagree, Tim.
  11. by   CRNA2007
    Nothing is topping you from writing out a check this very minute to subsidise someone else's healthcare. But I suspect you won't.


    Quote from Arwen_U
    So.....why is it a good thing for my tax dollars to subsidize Dick Cheney's healthcare and not someone else's? Why is he more deserving of a pacer - or anything else, for that matter - than anyone else?

    No one is decrying capitalism. Some of us just think healthcare should be accessible AND affordable for everyone.
  12. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from crna2007
    nothing is topping you from writing out a check this very minute to subsidise someone else's healthcare. but i suspect you won't.
    we already pay the highest health care taxes in the world see:

    taxes already pay for more than 60 percent of us health spending

    americans pay the highest health care taxes in the world. we pay for national health insurance, but don't get it
    .
    (woolhandler, et al. "paying for national health insurance-and not getting it," health affairs 21(4); july / aug. 2002)
  13. by   HM2VikingRN
    To each according to his own effort. From each only what they willfully exchange. To imagine that you, the gov't or anybody is entitled to appropriate so much as a dime from my earnings and give it to another person that didn't earn it: that is a moral evil. If I do so, that is charity and a moral good. To have done to me without my consent, the common word for that is thievery. THAT is a moral evil, by any name.
    There is such a thing as a political process. I agree with Paul Krugman. Sometimes ideology is the worst reason to do anything. The free market has a lot to contribute undoubtedly. But capitalism is not democracy. A social democracy provides the framework within which capitalism can function. To equate politically derived decisions as thievery is troubling in its implications from a social justice standpoint. There is little difference on a practical standpoint for a free people to decide that it is the fairest and most efficient way to devise a system to assure access to a public resource. Health care at its core is a publicly shared and financed resource.

    At its core health insurance represents just that. A process by which we collectively share the risk of death and disability that does not extend beyond the ability of any single family or individual to bear.

    25% profit is at its worst thievery. The large health insurance companies are neither transparent or responsive. While no system is perfect at least with a single payer or universal public private partnership scheme the health care system will be transparent and influence can be exerted using the political process.

Must Read Topics


close