The table shows units per million. In other words, it shows that percapita, there are less medical services available.

Why are there more in the U.S.?

It's a valid argument. I would point out though that Canada has a much smaller population than us, a different economy, and generally do things differently than us (eg they're healthier). And just because they have fewer doesn't mean less people have access to these devices; maybe the US just has a surpluses, more than it actually needs to meet the demands of its people (and before you point out that people die sometimes because they can't get access to a certain device I'll point out that this will always happen, regardless, so you'd have to pull up actual statistics as to how often this happens...).

Those devices doesn't seem to help fighting the higher infant mortality rate nor the lower life expectancy compared to Canada (according to the cia fact book) ad you spend more ($2,163 versus $4,887 in 2001 source)

Also, that being taken care of the poor in the US is wrong.
source: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/

source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

US health care is more responsive that is true, but overall performance is not as good, it's more expensive and not as satisfying.

source: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...nt/20/3/10.pdf


Oh, right I forgot all Canadians get the US health care, and because of that they are better off...

Your statistic isn't meaningful, you can have ten times as much of those per citizen, if they don't get used well or at all they're pretty much useless.

How about providing a statistic that proves your point already? All the time your claiming, and claiming, and claiming without showing some real figures or facts. Some pseudo relevant data won't cut it this time.

You need to learn what per capita means there Jr.

I don't know that the slight differences in infant mortality rate and life expectancy do not result directly from socialized health care, and I don't know that they do. Correlation does not indicate causation - you'd think the Harvard guy you cite would have learned that. I'd want to see figures on things like which country exercises and is more active, which country has more people using illicit drugs, smoking, eating junk food, etc.

The test of which health care system works better, in my opinion is not slight differences in life expectancy, but whether you can have a surgical procedure performed when you have a life-threatening disease, get an MRI when you have a brain tumor, or get a hospital bed when you're sick. Most of the things one does to ensure they live longer, healthier lives are done at home not the hospital and have nothing to do with who signs the check paying for their doctor visits.

The Canadians who are sick and need urgent medical care that abandon their own government-funded system and cross the border to use services in the U.S. are satisfied with the performance and don't mind the price.

I don't think all Canadians come down here, in fact - probably not many, just the ones that'll die or be stuck on a waiting list for months if they don't.

They're getting used and used well or they'd shut down. People in the business of performing MRIs don't stay in business if they aren't performing MRIs and performing them to the satisfaction of the customer. (Unless they're in a socialist system and part of a manufactured monopoly - then they can turn people away and do a shitty job on the ones they do serve and stay in business.)

The data I provided just indicates there is rationing going on in Canada's healthcare system. Nothing else really. Remember the thread topic question? "Do Canadians have more access to advanced medical services than Americans?" The answer, according to the data, is they have less.

My over-arching point is that it is the responsibility of the individual to obtain his own health care (just as its his responsibility to buy food, transportation, and other necessities) not someone else's. I'm not sure how I'd prove that with a statistic.

But like I said in another thread, there are those Americans who, if the government made healthcare freely available to everyone, and mandated by law that people had to use it to get periodic checkups, would refuse to comply. In the same way, most of the "uninsured" could afford to pay for insurance, and some even qualifiy for government funded plans, but refuse to sign up.

It's about opportunity not outcome. I don't judge the worthiness and quality of care by how many use it, I judge it by whether everyone who needs it can get it. People aren't sneaking out of the U.S. to get health care like they do from our neighboring countries, but our neighbors are coming here to get it.

It's not indication rationing, nor does it show the access rates. The only thing it shows is that there are more of these things in the United States. Whether or not they're used effectively isn't mentioned, and I doubt they will shut them down if they don't get 100% workload. The shit load of money the US is wasting on health care, while I doubt that electricity is much more expensive in the US compared to Canada clears indicates that the system is highly ineffective.

Life expectancy and infant mortality are good indicators whether or not the health system is sane. People are dying more quickly in the US compared to Canada, and there is nothing to argue about, it's a fact. If the US system would keep up what you promise that wouldn't be the case, as it's that what it is supposed to do, to prevent people from dying.

A lot of money is wasted in healthcare here. But, in our case, more government isn't the solution, less government involvement is. Canada spends less - far less on the same medicines because of stupid stipulations here. I'll have to go look that up again if you're open minded enough to receive the information.

I've had MRIs done myself - the place I went has two machines going 24/7. You seem to be suggesting that a hospital or medical facility would pay the millions for a MRI machine just so they could say they have one. Is this what you think? The fact, if its true, that they have enough to service anyone at any time is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I don't care how good any country's health care system is. They can have mandatory weekly physical examinations. If more people go home, smoke 2 packs of cigarettes, eat McDonalds everyday, and pound potato chips and ice cream while they sit on their ass watching TV all night - that will effect life expectancy. Yes or no?

I haven't disputed the fact we have a lower life expectancy. It's less than a 3% difference, and I never disputed that. What we can talk about is how or if this fact correlates to what kind of health care system we have. We have a higher infant mortality rate than Canada - we also have a 24% higher birth rate. More kids born means more kids die. 16.5% of Canadians smoke, over 20% of Americans smoke. In 2004 23% of Canadians are obese, 31% of Americans are obese. Tell me Mrigns, what do you believe contributes to a 2.9% lower life expectancy rate, that Americans are smoking more and getting fat more, or that Canada's health care system is nationalized? With the way Americans abuse themselves, I want to know why Canadians life expectancy isn't even higher.

Its not the job of the government or the health care industry to tell people what to do with their lives. Yet. But if the government starts paying for everything, they'll start controlling everything. Not only will people be told what kinds of light bulbs they can buy, people will be told what kind of food they can eat. And you guys sweat the Patriot Act.

It's the job of the government to protect it's citizens and in my definition defending them from illness is protecting citizens.
What you want is a liberal approach (BE, don't know the word in AE, but I think you get the idea) you don't care about the money spent, effectiveness, coverage as long as people have the freedom to die. The freedom you want has to be bought, if you don't have money, you don't have freedom.

I know some of the poor and the elderly are already been taken care of for this matter, but it's paid for with your money and isn't that exactly what you don't want, so why did you use that as an argument for your case? I mean, it's exactly the opposite of what you ask for. Can you answer me that?

Higher smoking rates and obesity of course are indicators of failure of the HEALTH system.

More kids born, more kids die doesn't work with this statistic as it deaths/1000 births.

A bit of intellectual honesty wouldn't be asked too much I think.

-------------------

The pretty much really don't care about the patriot act as I'm not affected by it all the time.
It's not the job of the government to waste money on spying on citizens, to fight an external threat. It doesn't even make sense.

They give away free flu shots. Do you think everyone takes advantage of them? Do you think the government should go door to door, and hold people down if necessary to give them the shot?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't (and shouldn't) make him drink.

You have interpreted my position about half correctly. You are right in that protecting freedom trumps all else. You are wrong that freedom has to be bought. I think people should pay for what they need and want, and they can buy as little or as much as they wish. The freedom to do that doesn't cost anything.

I'm also not opposed to providing a safety net to those who are demonstrably incapable of functioning and fending for themselves.


I brought that up to show two things: First, that there are people who QUALIFY for free coverage, but don't take the time to sign up for it. Second, that the vast majority of people uninsured are those who choose not to be uninsured - its not that they can't afford it.


How so? They are individual choices. The news is out - smoking and being fat is bad for us. Some quit smoking and shed excess weight - other don't give a shit and continue to kill themselves.

Suppose my neighbor is 100 pounds overweight and smokes two packs a day, and doesn't care to change his eating or smoking habits. What do you want the "HEALTH system" to do to him that they haven't already?

When I'm wrong I admit it, you are correct - the higher birth rate wouldn't answer for a higher infant mortality rate. My statement was carelessly made, illogical, and incorrect - thank you for pointing that out. That said, how our health care system is funded doesn't answer for it either. You have yet to prove causation.

I don't think so either. How about you demonstrting some for a change?

-------------------

You just said in the same post its the job of the government to protect its citizens. We aren't going to discuss the patriot act, but I will say you are right - it is the job of the government to protect its citizens, but NOT from themselves. It is not the job of the government to tell people whether they can smoke, drink, and some here will argue use drugs. What I do to my body is NONE of the government's business.

Untreated illness causes death. There is no voodoo involved, why do I need to prove that? It shows that your system is ineffective, spending a shit load of money and not being able to cure people is about to be the best definition of failure in that case.

Show me some data that shows better health of the people in the US compared to Canada. You can't because they're not healthier, your system fails in what it's supposed to do. To keep citizens healthy.

I provide some facts, you don't provide anything you just claim. You can't or don't want to provide any information to back up your position, and you know that. Playing kindergarten "waaa, waaa, but you did, he did" isn't proving your point either.

This is true. I have not disputed it - not once, so you don't need to keep trying to convince me.

The "system" doesn't spend a shit load of money, people do. Systems don't have money. You still have something backwards - our system can cure people. In terms of capability, technical advances, etc, we're at or very near the top.

There are no doubt problems with the efficiency of our health care system, I believe I already said that too. Where we disagree, is you think more of what is fucking it up now is the solution, while I say less of what's fucking it up. What's fucking it up is government.



If I were involved in this thread to prove Americans are healthier, I would try to put together the data to support it. The fact is, I'm not trying to prove Americans are healthier, Americans aren't healthier - I showed you facts supporting that. We smoke more, do more drugs, get more fat. Those things make people unhealthy. When group A (Americans) do those things more than group C (Canadians) group A will be more unhealthy.

You sound angry. In another thread, not sure if you've been following it, I brought out a bunch of facts. I'll copy/paste them here later if you like. I guess I assumed you'd been following that thread as well.

I think we should have a calm dialogue about this. I've tried to answer all your challenges. If I have answered something you've asked, please remind me, and I will.

You say our system isn't keeping people healthy. I have asked you what our system should do to someone who refuses to stop smoking, stop drinking, and exercise, or get vacinated. What do you want our system to do to people like this?

Here's the other thread:
Americans who want socialized health care - take note

Well yes I realize that this was per a specific number of people. I assume this is what you're talking about. But total population of a country is still important (though not more important). There are plenty of other factors and it doesn't directly prove that Canadians have problems getting access to these facilities.

Suppose you had two countries.

The first country has 100 people in it. The first country has 5 lemonade stands.

The second country has 75 people in it. The second country has 2 lemonade stands.

Supposing the people from both countries all like lemonade about the same, do you think the lines will be longer at the lemonade stands in the first country or the second country?

In case you're able to answer that honestly without a bunch of needless beating around the bush...

Imagine the people in these countries need lemonade to live. In which country are people more likely to die from lack of lemonade while they're waiting in line for it?

Your analogy lacks the component of "suppose the country with more lemonade stands has a membership scheme, so that not everybody has the right to buy lemonade".

Secondary factors change equations.

Jeezus. The point of the analogy is showing the kid what per capita means. When you aren't accusing me of being a black and whiter, hedging your own positions, you're over analyzing.

Not that a membership scheme would matter. Regardless who signs the check paying for your lemonade, you either have a lot of people ahead of you in line or not.

Well the first, and don't try to be condescending like I cant do basic maths. The issue is that you're ignoring other factors. In your analogy everyone wanted the lemons equally. In the US it's probable that more people are going to want the lemons than in Canada (the lemons being these devices, and the frequency at which they're needed). We also have the whole issue of population distribution. In the US we have a very disperse population. In canada the majority of the population lives close together with most of the country fairly uninhabited.




(http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/englis...01/density2001 , on the canadian map white means less than .1, the lightest yellow means .1-.9, comparable to the two smallest colours in the US map)

And these are just a couple examples. What you'd have to do is provide statistics showing how many people in the US knowingly needed access to one of these devices and couldn't get it compared to Canada. These statistics might even point in your favour if they exist (the US does after all have more money than Canada) but based on an educated guess I bet they wouldn't.

Good grief you're dense. Sorry to be nasty, but you are. Then again, you're a kid, and most kids act the way you do.

Did you look at the map you posted? Before you claimed our population is evenly dispersed?

My best advice for you: Go into learning mode. Abandon all of your beliefs and positions - because they're built on nothing. Figure out what your deepest, most basic principles are that you adhere to - tackle the big things, like whether individual liberty is important to you, whether choice should be proportional to responsibility. Learn what has happened in history when the core principles most important to you were adhered to or abandonned. Then fill in the minutiae.

To sum it up, rather than try to act like you know what you're talking about, learn what you're talking about instead.