8 replies to this topic

[biknut]

[Iam Empathy]

Zo is wrong.

Universal health care is the way to go.

Health affects all of us. If anything could be called "universal", then it is health. Access to affordable or free health care should be a right in this country and not a privilege.

If poor people are sick. Then it affects everyone -- Our economy, our workplaces, and our streets.

I've even read studies in the past that were independent which stated that for the money that the U.S currently uses to socialize health care, that if this money were used wisely (instead of wasted on insurance companies) then we could provide world class health care to every single citizen in this country. This should really be the America that we demand. But yet we've been brain-washed particularly since the 1970s by HMOs and scared into thinking that universal health care is something terribly scary. When in fact, the U.S is the only first world nation in the world not to have health care. You simply don't see the same desolate, sick and homeless folks to such a high frequently in other first world nations.

I've spent a lot of time in Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. So I can compare the differences first-hand. Which is less than I can say for a majority of my fellow citizens. No offense, but it's true. It's not bragging or elitism. I simply have seen the light and as it turns out the compassionate side of human nature and government always wins.

Edited by Iam Empathy, 25 October 2008 - 07:52 PM.

[biknut]

This is a good one too.

[biknut]

The O Team

[luv2increase]

Universal health care is the way to go.

I've told you before empathy that Obama's plan is not universal health care. It is only universal for children. The state of Hawaii actually attempted to do universal health care for children in their state, but guess what empathy, the system failed due to being overburdened. Do you know how long it took the system to fail? It took [b]only 7 months[/i].

Concluding from this, how is it the way to go?

[biknut]

The Vote Reaper

[biknut]

Zo on Abortion

[biknut]

Election 2K H8

[Futurist1000]

Universal health care is the way to go.

I think its an oversimplification to say universal healthcare is always better. Comparing US vs. Canada.

The final health status measure examined is the incidence of chronic conditions like high blood pressure, heart disease, and asthma. These measures are less subjective, but also are known to be influenced by behavior and other factors outside of the health care system. The authors find that the incidence of these conditions is somewhat higher in the U.S. However, respondents with these conditions are some-what more likely to be treated in the U.S.-in the case of emphysema, the treatment rate is twenty percentage points higher in the U.S.

Turning their attention to the availability of health care resources, the authors examine the use of cancer screenings including mammograms and PAP smears (for women), PSA screenings (for men), and colonoscopies. They find that the use of these tests is more frequent in the U.S. - for example, 86 percent of U.S. women ages 40 to 69 have had a mammogram, compared to 73 percent of Canadian women. The U.S. also is endowed with many more MRI machines and CT scanners per capita. The authors find evidence of the possible effectiveness of higher levels of screening and equipment by examining mortality rates in both countries for five types of cancer that could be affected by early detection and treatment. Because the incidence of cancer may differ for reasons other than the health care system, they compare the ratio of the mortality rate to the incidence rate - a lower ratio corresponds to a lower death rate for those with the disease. They find that the ratio is lower in the U.S. for all types of cancer except cervical cancer, suggesting that the U.S. health care system is generally more successful in the detection and treatment of cancer.

Finally, the authors examine whether Canada has a more equitable distribution of health outcomes, as might be expected in a single-payer system with universal coverage. To do so, they estimate the correlation across individuals in their personal income and personal health status and compare this for the two countries. Surprisingly, they find that the health-income gradient is actually more prominent in Canada than in the U.S.

Canada vs. US. wikipedia

A study in the journal Circulation found that Canadian patients whose histories were followed from 1990 to 1993 had a 17% higher risk of dying from heart attacks than did U.S. patients. The five-year mortality rate was 21.4% among the Canadian study participants and 19.6% among U.S. participants. The authors attributed this to the greater use of invasive procedures in the U.S., and in the organization of the Canadian health care system, in which specialized procedures are only available in central hospitals.

A study based on data from 1993 through 1997 found lower cancer survival rates among Canadians than among Americans.[96] However, an earlier study based on data from 1978 through 1986 found very similar survival rates in both countries.[97]

Edited by hrc579, 25 October 2008 - 10:53 PM.