Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 388,022 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
| No. 30 | 
May 07, 2009, 03:21 PM
 Re: Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee.
With or without insurance would you like to be taken to this ER?
These brave patient advocates have had as many as 80 patients to one RN in the ER "Green Room" http://www.fwweekly.com/index.php?vi...ent&Itemid=375  | | Advertisement Sponsored Links | | | | No. 31 |
May 07, 2009, 03:57 PM
Re: Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee. Originally Posted by GCTMT 
Sigh.
I see your six year old non-scientific poll, wikified article, and the inconclusive meta-analysis, and show you actual research that is four years newer which says, "US respondents... were more satisfied with health care services received than were the Canadians.
And their system is NOT "better than ours." The reason we hear so much about these "legendary wait times" is because their systems is publicly accountable, ours is not.
No, the reason we hear so much about these legendary wait times is because their citizens wait legendary amounts of time to obtain necessary care, and it's a big problem in Canada. Countries don't willingly advertise their problems just so people will think they are "publically accountable.
I didn't mention rationing, and I'm not following what point you were making except that maybe you want to trade one rationing system for another? No one is forcing you to repeat yourself. I am fairly new to this forum and quite frankly, don't have the time or energy to dig through hundreds of posts to look for links.
Understood, sorry, and I didn't realize you were 'new.' If you want to get some referenced info on the subject, check some of my past posts; I've been a member for less time than you.
Have a nice weekend.
| | No. 32 |
May 07, 2009, 04:50 PM
Re: Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee. One reason to why single payer is "off the table:: Health Sector Has Donated Millions to Lawmakers Health insurers and drug makers have showered members of the 111th Congress with millions in campaign contributions over the last four years, with a special focus on leaders who will play major roles in shaping health-care legislation, according to a study to be released tomorrow. Health insurers and their employees contributed $2.2 million to the top 10 recipients in the House and Senate since 2005, while drug makers and their employees gave more than $3.3 million to top lawmakers during that period, according to an analysis of federal elections data by Consumer Watchdog, a California-based advocacy group. The biggest beneficiaries in the Senate included John McCain (R-Ariz.), with $546,000; Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), with $425,000; and Max Baucus (D-Mont.), with $413,000, who as head of the Finance Committee will play a leading role in the debate over health-care reform…. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/AR2009030701748.html | | No. 33 |
May 08, 2009, 02:12 PM
Re: Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee. Originally Posted by Honnête et Sérieux
Let's examine the research. Briefly, their findings are "no significant differences" in regards to the four health status indicators. (Pg. 2)
"The results in Table 5 show either no difference in self-perceived health status or a slight indication of a higher percentage reporting excellent health in the U.S" But as the authors admit, "the purely subjective nature of the measure ... may not be useful to answer the question whether one population is healthier than the other." (Pg. 6&7)
They use the Health Status Measurment Index, it "provides a description of a individual's overall functional health based on eight attributes - vision, hearing, speech, mobility, dexterity of hands and fingers, memory and thinking, emotion and pain and discomfort. The second measure refers to the probability of major depression of questions from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. The last measure is a response to a question whether the respondent has pain that prevents some or most activities." (Pg. 7) "For the 18-64 year old age group, the results show no difference of the three indicators." (Pg. 8) Table 6 also shows that Americans have a slightly higher rate of depression. (Pg. 26)
They ask, "what can be concluded from this type of data?" They answer, "the results still can not tell us whether the health systems are equally efficient." (Pg. 8)
Their next analysis point measures chronic health conditions for the younger population. According to the authors, "these indicators are more specific and less subjective" but, "are still influence by socio-economic status, life styles and genetic factors ... Table 7A shows that for the first five conditions, Canada has a lower incidence in all categories, but the difference is rather small except for high blood pressure. For the last three conditions that relate to the functioning of the heart, the two countries are nearly the same." (Pg. 8&9)
A look at Table 7A will reveal that Canada treats more in regards to Asthma, data is not available for Arthritis, the U.S does slightly better than Canada for treatment of High Blood pressure, the U.S does better for treatment of Emphysema and Diabetes. Canada does slightly better at treatment for heart disease, slightly worse for Coronary heart disease and slightly worse for those with Angina. For people in the age range of 18-64. (Pg. 28)
Canada screens less for, colonoscopy, mammography, PAP smears and sigmoidoscopy. (Pg. 29) It's unknown however, why screening is less in Canada compared to U.S.
Table 9 illustrates that those who suffer an episode of depression are more likely to seek treatment from a mental health professional. (Pg. 30)
On to wait times. The evidence is inconclusive. Statistics Canada, "bases its numbers on the responses of individuals to questions on their wait time experience." The OECD "utilizes administrative data collected by various provincial governmental agencies. The Fraser Insitute, which gave the highest wait times, is a right-wing organization that supports free market solutions, generated, "it's own survey, of specialist physicians and asked them to estimate patient waiting time from the date the surgery was scheduled to the date the surgery actually took place." (Pg. 32)
Table 12 illustrates the percentage of those with self-reported unmet health needs and the reasons. The total number (ages 18-64) of those with unmet health needs in Canada was 11.3%, whereas in the U.S it was 14.4 %. 56.3% of those in Canada responded that it was because they had to wait too long or the service was not available, compared to 13.2% in the U.S. In terms of cost, 8.6% in Canada remarked that cost was a factor compared to 54.7% in the U.S. "Other reasons" are very close. Age group 65+, 7.4% of Canadians have unmet needs oposed to 6.4% in the United States. 51.9% of Canada claim wait times, compared to 24.6% in the States. 2.2% in Canada remark on cost, compared to 35.9% in the States. Again, "other reasons" are pretty close.(Pg.33)
Both Canada and the U.S have problems in regards to the delivery of health care. However, one problem Canada does not have that the U.S does have is cost. The evidence shows that 54.7% of U.S participants age 18-64 had unmet health needs because they couldn't afford it. Both countries have to wait, but Canada doesn't discriminate on whether or not one can afford it.
Table 14 illustrates the incidence rate and mortality rate of selected types of Cancer. The U.S does a bit better in this regard. (Pg. 35)
I appreciate the paper. Obviously their are many factors that need to be considered in regards to which system is better. I am certainly not convinced that that the U.S has a better system than Canada, in fact, in regards to some of the data that was presented in the source you provided, I still lean towards the idea that Canada can do it better than us because they have a system that is more equitable. That is their framework. They made a decision to create a fair health delivery system and though it has problems which they acknowledge, they continue with a single-payer back bone and have refused to exclude anyone, while working on ways to fix the problems, while retaining the inclusive nature of their system.
| | No. 35 |
May 08, 2009, 03:48 PM
Re: Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee. Who Will Be at the Table? Baucus evicts single-payer advocates from his hearing This week, Sen. Max Baucus, whose Finance Committee holds the keys to health care reform, called the Capitol police to eject single-payer advocates from his roundtable discussion. The advocates were protesting their exclusion from the committee’s witness list. The event was one of several discussions the Senator has been holding to let stakeholders talk about which route reform should take. The fifteen witnesses read like a Who’s Who of health reform bigwigs—representatives from the Business Roundtable, the Heritage Foundation, the National Federation of Independent Business, Families USA, AARP, America’s Health Insurance Plans, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the New America Foundation, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, the SEIU, the National Governors Association, and a law professor from George Washington University. The Kaiser Family Foundation got two spots on the witness list. It’s fair to say that this cast of characters has been seen many times before—at committee hearings and in the backrooms of the Capitol, where the deal-making has begun. Single-payer reps have been marginalized since the beginning of this round of reform, and they’re mad about it. At first, the President did not invite them to his summit. Only when they threatened a protest in front of the White House did they get a last-minute invite. Tuesday they got their chance to protest, and eight single-payer supporters stood up, one by one, to say their piece. “We need to have single payer at the table,” one said. As they stood, police removed them from the room…. … Journalists don’t take kindly to censorship, or attempts at censorship. That’s not what we’re about. For more than a year, Campaign Desk has observed that the health reform debate has been too narrow; that the same sources are quoted again and again. We have urged the press to be more inclusive of other voices, even if politicians aren’t. Health reform may or may not pass this year, but all Americans must have their say. Democracy is messy. Stifling dissent is just not cool. http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/who_will_be_at_the_table_7.php | | No. 36 |
May 08, 2009, 05:17 PM
Re: Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee. Originally Posted by GCTMT Let's examine the research. Briefly, their findings are "no significant differences" in regards to the four health status indicators. (Pg. 2)
I don't know what you are doing.
You claimed a higher rate of satisfaction among Canadians based on a non-scientific poll. I showed a higher rate of satisfaction among Americans based on a far more recent academic paper. For that reason, I'm not sure what the purpose was of dissecting the paper since I seriously doubt it contradicted itself about the satisfaction levels.
I don't have time to review the expose, but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with your previous assertion about the satisfaction of Canadians and Americans.
| | No. 37 |
May 08, 2009, 06:01 PM
Re: Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee. Originally Posted by Honnête et Sérieux I don't know what you are doing.
You claimed a higher rate of satisfaction among Canadians based on a non-scientific poll. I showed a higher rate of satisfaction among Americans based on a far more recent academic paper. For that reason, I'm not sure what the purpose was of dissecting the paper since I seriously doubt it contradicted itself about the satisfaction levels.
I don't have time to review the expose, but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with your previous assertion about the satisfaction of Canadians and Americans.
Well let's go over the whole thing, shall we? You claimed single-payer doesn't work. I said it does and is working in Canada. I offered a link that illustrates at least three Canadians like their system. You said that doesn't prove anything. I offered more sources. You said they were “wikified” outdated and non-scientific. You offered a source that was three years old, riddled with typos that cites (on it's Bibliography) over twenty sources yet only uses six footnotes. Furthermore, it relied mainly on data from JCUSH, which was gathered in 2002 and 2003. I read the document in it's entirety and responded. And yes, regardless of what your document says, I am inclined to think that Canada has got a better deal in regards to health care.
I think single-payer is the way to go. I have offered you and others who believe that the free market solutions are the way to go to voice your solutions in a thread that I posted about six hours ago, feel free to comment if/when you choose to do so.
| | No. 38 |
May 08, 2009, 06:37 PM
Re: Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee. Originally Posted by GCTMT Well let's go over the whole thing, shall we? You claimed single-payer doesn't work. I said it does and is working in Canada. I offered a link that illustrates at least three Canadians like their system.
Your link was three anecdotal expressions about the system which don't serve to prove one way or another that a single-payer system works. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in sharing this; I would never waste your time with that kind of an example, so don't be surprised if I give such examples a dim view. You said that doesn't prove anything.
I stand by it...are you of the opinion that those three posts prove anything about single-payer systems? I offered more sources. You said they were “wikified” outdated and non-scientific. You offered a source that was three years old, riddled with typos that cites (on it's Bibliography) over twenty sources yet only uses six footnotes.
I don't know what you are reading, but your characterization is grossly mistaken. It is not "riddled" with typos, and please understand if I find it amusing that someone who uses anecdotes as a supporting argument is critical of the footnote/bibliography structure of an academic paper. I happen to be in grad school and took 7 credits of medical writing; modern APA prefers that the use of footnotes be limited, and these authors appropriately used parenthetical citations. I personally think that it could've been written in a more aesthetic way, but scientists are rarely good writers and even fewer of them have the gift of artistic expression.
And most of what you presented was by any definition...non-scientific. The medhunter article is definitely wikified, and that poses a real problem when it comes to credibility. Here's what I will never do; I will never use blogs or wikified sources to try and support a position because such sources lack credibility. And since I won't use them, I'll also point out the errancy when others try to prop up a position with one. Furthermore, it relied mainly on data from JCUSH, which was gathered in 2002 and 2003. I read the document in it's entirety and responded. And yes, regardless of what your document says, I am inclined to think that Canada has got a better deal in regards to health care.
Well there you go...not sure how we can have a discussion because you simply won't accept information that disagrees with your inclination. And even if the JCUSH data was collected in 2003, it was still just as recent, and more recent than the sources you used! I think single-payer is the way to go. I have offered you and others who believe that the free market solutions are the way to go to voice your solutions in a thread that I posted about six hours ago, feel free to comment if/when you choose to do so.
If I get a chance, I'll visit it, but so far I have the funny feeling that it will not follow reasonable traditions of dialogue.
| | No. 39 |
May 08, 2009, 09:00 PM
Re: Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee. Originally Posted by Honnête et Sérieux Your link was three anecdotal expressions about the system which don't serve to prove one way or another that a single-payer system works. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in sharing this; I would never waste your time with that kind of an example, so don't be surprised if I give such examples a dim view.
I stand by it...are you of the opinion that those three posts prove anything about single-payer systems?
I don't know what you are reading, but your characterization is grossly mistaken. It is not "riddled" with typos, and please understand if I find it amusing that someone who uses anecdotes as a supporting argument is critical of the footnote/bibliography structure of an academic paper. I happen to be in grad school and took 7 credits of medical writing; modern APA prefers that the use of footnotes be limited, and these authors appropriately used parenthetical citations. I personally think that it could've been written in a more aesthetic way, but scientists are rarely good writers and even fewer of them have the gift of artistic expression.
Mmm-hmm.. It certainly is riddled with typos. Read it. I was trained in Chicago Style, which is elemental in all the humanities. I am not certain about which reference style is preferred in regards to economics, but I know that economics is not an exact science. Yet you claim your document is "scientific". Please, offer up some more studies from you Grad. Studies that are academic and peer-reviewed. Perhaps, you have some documents from MUSE or JSTOR?
And most of what you presented was by any definition...non-scientific. The medhunter article is definitely wikified, and that poses a real problem when it comes to credibility. Here's what I will never do; I will never use blogs or wikified sources to try and support a position because such sources lack credibility. And since I won't use them, I'll also point out the errancy when others try to prop up a position with one.
Fair enough, I will never try to present something as what it isn't. I offered the sources as general knowledge. Most of us, do not have access to resources that state one way or another that "this position is not so good" and "this position is" because they are not readily available for a wider audience.
Well there you go...not sure how we can have a discussion because you simply won't accept information that disagrees with your inclination. And even if the JCUSH data was collected in 2003, it was still just as recent, and more recent than the sources you used!
No, it wasn't. It was just as recent or older. The gallup poll was 2003.
If I get a chance, I'll visit it, but so far I have the funny feeling that it will not follow reasonable traditions of dialogue. I feel the same way about your, one sided, poorly sourced documents. Nice try Amigo, Adios. |
| 220 members
2,111 guests 2,331
| 1 | | | 11 | | | 2 | | | 9 | | | 17 | | | 11 | | | 14 | | | 16 | | | 37 | | | 14 | | | 20 | | | 23 | | | 19 | | | 24 | | | 10 | |
|
Nursing News