asking people to set aside their criticisms of biden and the democratic candidates until after those elections are over, until he is sworn in and actually takes office seems like a perfectly reasonable ask.
Yep Medicare for all is the term used because “socialized medicine” and “single-payer” scare people in the US but in general they love their Medicare. It all means the same thing but two of those things are scary boogey man phrases and the other is something people are used to hearing.
Yeah it's amazing the miss-information Americans have about this so called "socialized" medicine the rest of the free world has.
Watch Senator Burr gets owned by Canadian doctor trying to slam our healthcare system, the takedown is in the 3rd minute.
Man, “take downs” like the above are why we will never reform our terrible healthcare system. Yes, it is better than the car wreck that is American healthcare, but Canadians receive poorer care than virtually anyone else in the G20. As long as we have something we can feel smug about viz-a-viz the Americans, we aren’t going to do anything.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Do tell! Do tell!!! I'm looking forward to the support for this claim, especially where you provide proof that Americans understand the nuance between the two. Frankly, both concepts are foreign to Americans and they don't understand either let alone being able to contrast the two or identify strengths and weaknesses of both.
Canadians do not understand the concept either.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lubicon For This Useful Post:
Man, “take downs” like the above are why we will never reform our terrible healthcare system. Yes, it is better than the car wreck that is American healthcare, but Canadians receive poorer care than virtually anyone else in the G20. As long as we have something we can feel smug about viz-a-viz the Americans, we aren’t going to do anything.
Guy... that’s a survey. This proves my point. Canadian healthcare is a PR triumph. Haha, seriously did you just google “Canadian healthcare is the best?”
We are middling to poor in the OECD for wait times.
As long as the lobbying for healthcare changes keep coming straight from US lobbying talking points, opposition to any changes is the only safe option, even when better ones exist.
But most of these systems result in healthcare premiums and payroll taxes, which are a hard sell, so it’s not like they’re paths free from resistance.
As long as the lobbying for healthcare changes keep coming straight from US lobbying talking points, opposition to any changes is the only safe option, even when better ones exist.
But most of these systems result in healthcare premiums and payroll taxes, which are a hard sell, so it’s not like they’re paths free from resistance.
Do you have any evidence of this? I've never seen it. You are totally right to say that the amount of effort to move any Canadian political discourse away from the American example is almost impossible.
I would love to see a healthcare reform debate draw examples from the French or Australians.
You are right that better healthcare would mean more premiums and higher payroll taxes - which is fine by me!
Guy... that’s a survey. This proves my point. Canadian healthcare is a PR triumph. Haha, seriously did you just google “Canadian healthcare is the best?”
We are middling to poor in the OECD for wait times.
Do you have any evidence of this? I've never seen it. You are totally right to say that the amount of effort to move any Canadian political discourse away from the American example is almost impossible.
I would love to see a healthcare reform debate draw examples from the French or Australians.
You are right that better healthcare would mean more premiums and higher payroll taxes - which is fine by me!
"The AMA increased its lobbying budget by 40% this year."
"There’s a reason lobbyists are confined to the front hall of the building. It’s because the sanctity of the legislative body must not be breached. Strange, isn’t it, that we call them legislative bodies? I’d like to keep the AMA and insurance lobbies out of my health care options (and my own body) thank you very much, until we resolve this issue of health care for all of we the people."
"Even as American political culture helps to explain the health care debate in America, culture is far from the only reason America lacks universal coverage. Another factor that has limited debate about national health insurance is the role of interest groups in influencing the political process. The legislative battle over the content of the ACA, for example, generated $1.2 billion in lobbying in 2009 alone.
The insurance industry was a key player in this process, spending over $100 million to help shape the ACA and keep private insurers, as opposed to the government, as the key cog in American health care."
None of those measures are used to determine the quality of healthcare or of healthcare outcomes. Try again.
The second link I posted is the OECD snapshot of health system performance... what more do you want?
Look I know you are an American progressive, and thus, fetishize Canadian healthcare for your own partisan outcomes. Canadians feel the same - our weird federalist hybrid model is probably the most central aspect of our national identity.
2017 Commonwealth Fund Report ranked Canada's healthcare 9th out of 11th high income countries.
You're right that the WHO ranks us pretty high and that our outcomes are pretty good - we have decent life expectancy and low infant mortality. There are interesting debates to be had over how data is collected and how it is compared.
However, CIHI maintains that when compared to "17 other high-income countries, Canada maintained a middle-of-the- pack performance overall and performed behind the international median for deaths from ischemic heart disease, cancer and external causes"
As well, stating:
"Canada’s performance is in the middle of the pack on 5 dimensions of care — Health Status, Non-Medical Determinants of Health, Quality of Care, Patient Safety and Access to Care ..."
"The AMA increased its lobbying budget by 40% this year."
"There’s a reason lobbyists are confined to the front hall of the building. It’s because the sanctity of the legislative body must not be breached. Strange, isn’t it, that we call them legislative bodies? I’d like to keep the AMA and insurance lobbies out of my health care options (and my own body) thank you very much, until we resolve this issue of health care for all of we the people."
"Even as American political culture helps to explain the health care debate in America, culture is far from the only reason America lacks universal coverage. Another factor that has limited debate about national health insurance is the role of interest groups in influencing the political process. The legislative battle over the content of the ACA, for example, generated $1.2 billion in lobbying in 2009 alone.
The insurance industry was a key player in this process, spending over $100 million to help shape the ACA and keep private insurers, as opposed to the government, as the key cog in American health care."
I can go on and on and on and on...
Sure, I get that's the case in America, but I was pretty clearly talking about Canada. Where are the American healthcare lobbyists up here?
30th is really quite low and actually reinforces my point that Canada is low or middle of the pack in the G20! Again, trying to move the debate away from the Americans.
Interesting read. A definitely different way of looking at the data. I think Canada gets killed on their "wait time" issue. The United States appears to get a huge pass because of what they spend on healthcare as a nation. The methodology is different and tries to look at things differently, which is explained here.
"Several things are notable: first, there is greater uncertainty related with the estimates of overall efficiency compared to efficiency on health, which reflects the fact that there are uncertainty intervals around each of the components of the composite index. Secondly, efficiency on health appears to increase with health expenditure per capita and then perhaps to decline slightly. This is also the case for overall efficiency, but there the decline is less obvious. One interpretation of this could be that there are diminishing
returns to increasing the inputs of resources devoted to producing health (say due to biological limits on life expectancy), but that the composite index would not be subject to strong diminishing returns because greater expenditure can be used to further the goals of responsiveness, fair financing, and reductions in health inequality"
I think there is more to this than just the measures they are focusing in on. I've always like the language of the Canadian Healthcare Act and system because they are focused on actual outcomes and not bogus measures. If Canada wanted to really improve in these types of studies the country needs to train more doctors and make it so they can take up practice in the very disparate regions of this huge landmass. More doctors in more locations is the only way to score well in studies like this.
You are totally right to say that the amount of effort to move any Canadian political discourse away from the American example is almost impossible.
I really wish we had closer ties with Europe or the former commonwealth. We brag to our parents that we are better behaved in school than the class bully. I wish the bar was set higher for ourselves.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
I really wish we had closer ties with Europe or the former commonwealth. We brag to our parents that we are better behaved in school than the class bully. I wish the bar was set higher for ourselves.
It's tough because in a very narrow technical sense, Canada is the most anti-American country in the world being created specifically for the sake of not being America.
So, it's natural that we cherrypick certain outcomes while ignoring others.
Canadians really lost a key part of our identity with the decline of the Empire and the Commonwealth.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
30th is really quite low and actually reinforces my point that Canada is low or middle of the pack in the G20!
Your original point was “Canadians receive poorer care than virtually anyone else in the G20”. With 46 countries in the G20, I took your point as being Canada must rank in the bottom ~10%, somewhere in that 41-46 spot.
Or are you revising your original point to say Canada is somewhere in the mid to low range?
Your original point was “Canadians receive poorer care than virtually anyone else in the G20”. With 46 countries in the G20, I took your point as being Canada must rank in the bottom ~10%, somewhere in that 41-46 spot.
Or are you revising your original point to say Canada is somewhere in the mid to low range?
Counterpoint: who cares
So in American political news congressional Democrats are going to up the payment on the bill from 600 to 2000 and force senate republicans to vote against it. Not that it will actually matter but I find it interesting, if they strike it down it may look bad on them and reflect in the Georgia senate race and hopefully cost them dearly.
