Canadian health care like a 'Third World country': UFC champ Brock Lesnar

[Meowjin]

In greece my doctors were having a smoke in the hospital rooms.

[dna82]

Originally Posted by bengy

If you go to ER without insurance you will get care just like any other person.

Obviously the current American system sucks ass for people who can't afford insurance, and a public option would be great.

The topic of this discussion is Canadian healthcare quality versus American. The American system wins in that category, efficient or not.

half right, half wrong.
yes if you enter the ER with a life threatening condition, the hospital is required to stabilize you. in America. but after that, you are shipped out without followup treatment. you are not given the same 'care' as someone with insurance.

i don't see how that relates to your previous statements.
using MRI's inefficiently is not cost-effective, simply because it is covered by insurance, does not mean you do not pay for it.

american healthcare is great, if you can afford it. and i highly doubt you would be able to afford it if you have invasive cancer.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Australia charges a fee. If you're found to be truly sick, the fee is refunded, otherwise they keep it.

This keeps the whiners and complainers out of the ER and into clinics instead.


No its not.

There's a list of doctors accepting new patients, just call one of them.

Just for reference, FeistyBearH22a failed this post of mine. There's nothing incorrect in this post, he's just being a sore loser now.

[mikemhg]

There is choice in Canada, who said there isn't? You can always opt to go to a private clinic or hospital if you need a quicker MRI, or CAT. MSP simply won't pay for it though.

Why would anyone want to adopt a style of the American system? Their system is grossly over priced, and are literally the last 1st World Country, WITHOUT a Universal system.

This article is CLEARLY political. There is a lot more behind what he's saying than what you are seeing. Brock is a Republican Party talking head, don't think for one second he does not receive some type of kickback, or has a political aspiration himself.

His comments are among the conservative wave to go against Obama's policies or Universal Health Care. It's a sneaky and dirty behind the doors plot that appears to be working in the US, as the public seems to be eating it up based on the negative approval polls.

[dna82]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Read one of my previous posts.

I waited behind people with the flu and sprained ankles, while I was curled in a ball on the floor puking.

Its how our "fair" system works. I wasn't in immediate danger of dieing (although they wouldn't know since a doctor didn't see me) so I had to wait my turn.

If your argument our system is "fair", then so be it. Brock's argument is that "fair" system suck for those who can afford better care and I agree with him. I would have paid for faster care.

---

Hint: My sisters gave me great advice after than incident. Always call an ambulance, especially if you have a work health pan that covers it. If you're brought in by an ambulance, you skip the queue in the ER.

"fair" eh?

anecdotal at best.
at the time, yes the hospital failed you. but is that one instance enough to say the system sucks? thousands of people are processed through our healthcare system everybody and most of them are in and out within a reasonable time.

[FeistyBearH22a]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Just for reference, FeistyBearH22a failed this post of mine. There's nothing incorrect in this post, he's just being a sore loser now.

Now why would I feel like a loser? You didn't win anything. All you've proven is that you're too dumb to ask for pain medication.


Ask for a copy of your chart. Again, your claimed 6 hour wait time is still highly suspect.

I was in emerg just last weekend. I didn't wait for more than 15 minutes. I had my vitals taken... told them I was in extreme pain. (my systolic BP was 150). I was seen in the minor treatment room in 10 minutes. I had some oxycontin but that didn't cut it. They gave me a local and I got some hydromorphone. You're not the only one who's had experience with our health care. I've been on both sides of the fence.

Again, it doesn't take a genius to ask for pain medication.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by FeistyBearH22a

Now why would I feel like a loser?

You are a loser.

You're a mod who insults people, then hides behind his mod privileges and hands out infractions.

Don't bother with another lame infraction, I'm putting you on ignore.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by dna82

anecdotal at best.
at the time, yes the hospital failed you. but is that one instance enough to say the system sucks? thousands of people are processed through our healthcare system everybody and most of them are in and out within a reasonable time.

You asked for personal experience, now you're saying personal experiences aren't good enough.

Be clear what you want.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by FeistyBearH22a

Again, it doesn't take a genius to ask for pain medication.

Again, why should I have to do your job? especially since it doesn't take a genius to do your job.

[mc.]

Sucks how a interesting thread like this seems like it is heading toward fight club

[FeistyBearH22a]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Again, why should I have to do your job? especially since it doesn't take a genius to do your job.

Just read what you posted. No one can read your mind.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by FeistyBearH22a

Just read what you posted. No one can read your mind.

Cause it takes a lot of intellect to hear someone complain about pain and ask to see a doctor immediately, then go curl up in a ball on the floor and puke.

Glad that 4 years of education and 8 months of training is working out for you.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by mc.

Sucks how a interesting thread like this seems like it is heading toward fight club

Sucks more than a moderator started chiming in with the insults. So much for setting the example.

[dna82]

Originally Posted by taylor192

You asked for personal experience, now you're saying personal experiences aren't good enough.

Be clear what you want.

i asked what was your personal experience is, and i said that it's clearly anecdotal at best. it can hardly be used to justify the statement 'our system sucks'.

the system is fine, majority of Canadians get the healthcare that keeps them alive and healthy.

everything can be improved, but moving onto an American-style private sector health care is not the answer.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by FeistyBearH22a

Now why would I feel like a loser? You didn't win anything. All you've proven is that you're too dumb to ask for pain medication.


Ask for a copy of your chart. Again, your claimed 6 hour wait time is still highly suspect.

I was in emerg just last weekend. I didn't wait for more than 15 minutes. I had my vitals taken... told them I was in extreme pain. (my systolic BP was 150). I was seen in the minor treatment room in 10 minutes. I had some oxycontin but that didn't cut it. They gave me a local and I got some hydromorphone. You're not the only one who's had experience with our health care. I've been on both sides of the fence.

Again, it doesn't take a genius to ask for pain medication.

What hospital do you go to? It's not like I go all the time but the times I've had to go to emergency either for me or with my wife I've never been helped in under 3 hours most times it's somewhere between 4-5.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by dna82

i asked what was your personal experience is, and i said that it's clearly anecdotal at best. it can hardly be used to justify the statement 'our system sucks'.

the system is fine, majority of Canadians get the healthcare that keeps them alive and healthy.

everything can be improved, but moving onto an American-style private sector health care is not the answer.

You asked for people to post their experience, not their friends or family, since first hand experience trumps all.

I complied and now you change what you want since it doesn't fit the point you were trying to make.

[FeistyBearH22a]

Originally Posted by quasi

What hospital do you go to? It's not like I go all the time but the times I've had to go to emergency either for me or with my wife I've never been helped in under 3 hours most times it's somewhere between 4-5.

Vancouver General.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by quasi

What hospital do you go to? It's not like I go all the time but the times I've had to go to emergency either for me or with my wife I've never been helped in under 3 hours most times it's somewhere between 4-5.

Shhhh.... people here don't want your personal experience. Its anecdotal at best.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by FeistyBearH22a

Vancouver General.

I'm making the drive next time myself or anyone in my family has an emergency because that is super quick.

[StylinRed]

our system is good

if you have a serious/life threatening issue your aid is immediate

if it isnt you have to wait a bit... sure it may be a discomfort but if you want help faster than that... pay for a quicker treatment (you're able to mind you... when ur at the doctors or the hospital and they ask you for your care card tell them your going to deal with it privately)


Lesnar just scored some points with Republicans is all

[FeistyBearH22a]

Originally Posted by quasi

I'm making the drive next time myself or anyone in my family has an emergency because that is super quick.

I had to go in twice the same weekend. Both times I was seen in less than 30 minutes.

[dna82]

Originally Posted by taylor192

You asked for people to post their experience, not their friends or family, since first hand experience trumps all.

I complied and now you change what you want since it doesn't fit the point you were trying to make.

uhhhhhhhh
i didn't ask anybody for anything. your the one cramming words in peoples mouths now.

what point was i trying to make?

that the canadian health care system, as a whole, is functioning properly?

that 'personal experience' is purely anecdotal?

stop me when i'm wrong.

[MR_BIGGS]

The World Health Organization provided a list of rankings of the best healthcare systems in the world. The lastest report is from 2000. Canada was ranked 30th while the US was 37th. This report is often mentioned by Democrats in favour of a health system overhaul. With that being said, the Republicans also provide evidence of how the report was flawed, or misrepresented the United States.

This article is recent. Jan 2010.

Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
Posted by NEJM • January 6th, 2010 • Printer-friendly
Christopher J.L. Murray, M.D., D.Phil., and Julio Frenk, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H.

Evidence that other countries perform better than the United States in ensuring the health of their populations is a sure prod to the reformist impulse. The World Health Report 2000, Health Systems: Improving Performance, ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world1 — a result that has been discussed frequently during the current debate on U.S. health care reform.

The conceptual framework underlying the rankings2 proposed that health systems should be assessed by comparing the extent to which investments in public health and medical care were contributing to critical social objectives: improving health, reducing health disparities, protecting households from impoverishment due to medical expenses, and providing responsive services that respect the dignity of patients. Despite the limitations of the available data, those who compiled the report undertook the task of applying this framework to a quantitative assessment of the performance of 191 national health care systems. These comparisons prompted extensive media coverage and political debate in many countries. In some, such as Mexico, they catalyzed the enactment of far-reaching reforms aimed at achieving universal health coverage. The comparative analysis of performance also triggered intense academic debate, which led to proposals for better performance assessment.

Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?

Comparisons also reveal that the United States is falling farther behind each year (see graph). In 1974, mortality among boys and men 15 to 60 years of age was nearly the same in Australia and the United States and was one third lower in Sweden. Every year since 1974, the rate of death decreased more in Australia than it did in the United States, and in 2006, Australia’s rate dipped lower than Sweden’s and was 40% lower than the U.S. rate. There are no published studies investigating the combination of policies and programs that might account for the marked progress in Australia. But the comparison makes clear that U.S. performance not only is poor at any given moment but also is improving much more slowly than that of other countries over time. These observations and the reflections they should trigger are made possible only by careful comparative quantification of various facets of health care systems.

The current proposals for U.S. health care reform focus mostly on extending insurance coverage, decreasing the growth of costs through improved efficiency, and expanding prevention and wellness programs. The policy debate has been overwhelmingly centered on the first two of these elements. Achieving universal insurance coverage in the United States would protect households against undue financial burdens at the same time that it was saving an estimated 18,000 to 44,000 lives.4,5 However, narrowing the gap in health outcomes between the United States and other high-income countries or even slowing its descent in the rankings would require much more than insurance expansion. Given the vast number of preventable deaths associated with smoking (465,000 per year), hypertension (395,000), obesity (216,000), physical inactivity (191,000), high blood glucose levels (190,000), high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (113,000), and other dietary risk factors, there are huge opportunities to enact policies that could make a substantial difference in health system performance — and in the population’s health.4 More investments that are targeted at promoting proven strategies — including tobacco taxation and smoking-cessation programs, screening and treatment for high cholesterol and blood pressure, banning of trans fat, creating incentives for people to engage in physical activity, and subsidizing the cost of consumption of n–3 fatty acids — could dramatically reduce mortality and enhance the performance of the U.S. health care system.

Of course, international comparisons are not the only rankings that should inform the debate about reforming the health care system. Within the United States, there are dramatic variations among regions and racial or ethnic groups in the rates of death from preventable causes. While aiming to provide solutions to the problems of incomplete insurance coverage and inefficiency of care delivery, health care reformers have given insufficient attention to the design, funding, and evaluation of interventions that are tailored to local realities and address preventable causes of death. The big picture — the poor and declining performance of the United States, which goes far beyond the challenge of universal insurance — will inevitably get lost if we do not routinely track performance and compare the results both among countries and among states and counties within the United States.

Although many challenges remain, the available methods and data are better now than they were when the World Health Organization’s rankings were determined. As part of its reform efforts, the U.S. government should support and participate in international comparisons while commissioning regular performance assessments at the state and local levels.

Experience has shown that whenever a country embarks on large-scale reform of its health care system, periodic evaluations become a key instrument of stewardship to ensure that initial objectives are being met and that midcourse corrections can be made in a timely and effective manner. To be valid and useful, such evaluations cannot be an afterthought that is introduced once reform is under way. Instead, scientifically designed evaluations must be an integral part of the design of reform. For instance, the recent Mexican reform adopted from the outset an explicit evaluation framework that included a randomized trial to compare communities that were introducing insurance in the first phase of reform with matched communities that were scheduled to adopt the plan later. This external evaluation was coupled with internal monitoring meant to enable policymakers to learn from implementation.

In addition to its technical value, the explicit assessment of reform efforts contributes to transparency and accountability. Such assessments can also boost popular support for reform initiatives that inevitably stir up fears of the unknown. In the polarized political climate surrounding the current U.S. health care reform debate, the prospect of periodic evaluations may help reformers to counter many objections by offering a transparent and timely way of dealing with unintended effects. Built-in evaluations may be the missing ingredient that will allow us to finally reform health care in the United States.

Financial and other disclosures provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

Source Information

From the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle (C.J.L.M.); and the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (J.F.).

This article (10.1056/NEJMp0910064) was published on January 6, 2010, at NEJM.org.

References


The world health report 2000 — health systems: improving performance. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000.
Murray CJ, Frenk J. A framework for assessing the performance of health systems. Bull World Health Organ 2000;78:717-731. [Web of Science][Medline]
Doe J. WHO Statistical Information System (WHOSIS). Geneva: World Health Organization, September 2009.
Danaei G, Ding EL, Mozaffarian D, et al. The preventable causes of death in the United States: comparative risk assessment of dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000058-e1000058. [CrossRef][Medline]
Wilper AP, Woolhandler S, Lasser KE, McCormick D, Bor DH, Himmelstein DU. Health insurance and mortality in US adults. Am J Public Health 2009;99:2289-2295. [Free Full Text]

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2610&query=home

France, Italy and Japan I beleive were the highest ranked.

[MG1]

Originally Posted by FeistyBearH22a

Vancouver General.

+1

Burnaby General is busy 24/7 and so is Royal Columbian.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by dna82

uhhhhhhhh
i didn't ask anybody for anything. your the one cramming words in peoples mouths now.

Sorry it was someone else who said it:

Originally Posted by 91civicZC

I am amazed at how many people seem to think the Canadian system sucks, and yet have no personal experience with any other system in the world. No, “My friends says” or “My brother had” doesn’t count. If YOU have experience, the YOU can have an opinion. Otherwise, its second hand and hearsay, and not worth very much.