Idiotic writers...

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The average American already gets better care than the average Canadian it Brit. If you think that means our system has severe problems, then what does that say about GB and Canada?

I suppose that this depends on what precisely you are measuring.
We've just seen that infant mortality rates are better in Cuba that the USA.

It appears that life expectancy is higher for Britons and Canadians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy

(The figures come from the CIA factbook, which I guess is a reliable source. Certainly, you've approved of it enough to upload copies, Nate.)

The thing is that we consult our healthcare professionals when we are sick and vulnerable. We have to trust them. And it's natural that we each hope that we are getting the best.

[Laz116]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The average American already gets better care than the average Canadian it Brit. If you think that means our system has severe problems, then what does that say about GB and Canada?

If it's true, things just doesn't add up:

Life expectancy:

Canada: 80.7

GB: 79.4

USA: 78.06

[Patricia]

Let's all be thankful that we're better-off than the poor citizens of Swaziland (life-expectancy 39.6 years).

[Laz116]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Let's all be thankful that we're better-off than the poor citizens of Swaziland (life-expectancy 39.4 years).

Ouch!

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Laz116

In Denmark it's 4.3 per 1000, in the US it's 6.3.

USA are great at some things and worse at other things. It's as simple as that. No biggie.

Originally Posted by Patricia

This is based on deaths of infants under one year old.

From the Wikipedia article:

Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn. Therefore, the quality of a country's documentation of perinatal mortality can matter greatly to the accuracy of its infant mortality statistics. This point is reinforced by the demographer Ansley Coale, who finds dubiously high ratios of reported stillbirths to infant deaths in Hong Kong and Japan in the first 24 hours after birth, a pattern that is consistent with the high recorded sex ratios at birth in those countries and suggests not only that many female infants who die in the first 24 hours are misreported as stillbirths rather than infant deaths but also that those countries do not follow WHO recommendations for the reporting of live births and infant deaths.[11]

I challenge you to go find the complete statistics for your respective countries. Let's look at them together and see who really has the higher infant mortality rate.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Laz116

If it's true, things just doesn't add up:

Life expectancy:

Canada: 80.7

GB: 79.4

USA: 78.06

Many things influence life expectancy besides healthcare, including genetics and lifestyle.

Healthcare is relevant to a discussion on life expectancy, but the reverse is not necessarily true.

[Laz116]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

From the Wikipedia article:


I challenge you to go find the complete statistics for your respective countries. Let's look at them together and see who really has the higher infant mortality rate.

OMG. Do you really think that Denmark, Canada or GB would differ so much in statistics?

What's next? That you have fewer murders than Denmark?

Does USA has to be the best in everything? It seems like just a hint of critique gets the best of you.


But if you really want to be the best I think you should better yourselves in soccer (not that Denmark is any better).

[Patricia]

UK:
4.8 deaths of infants under one year old, per thousand live births.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mortality_rate
[Figures from the CIA World Factbook, April 2009 update.]
In the UK it counts as a birth if the infant draws a single breath.

The USA figure appears to be 6.3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

[Laz116]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Many things influence life expectancy besides healthcare, including genetics and lifestyle.

Healthcare is relevant to a discussion on life expectancy, but the reverse is not necessarily true.

You have a point. For instance We smoke and drink quite heavily in Denmark, thus our life expectancy is lower as a result than our neighbouring countries. Likewise you could argue that the reason americans die earlier is because of their diet or whatever. But still I have found or seen no evidence that american health care is truly better than for an example canadian.

Ask yourself this question, Where do you want to be a single mother making ends meet and suddenly getting ill: In the USA or in Canada.

[corroonb]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The average American already gets better care than the average Canadian it Brit. If you think that means our system has severe problems, then what does that say about GB and Canada?

The article you quote was first published in the the National Centre for Policy Analysis, a conservative think-tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...olicy_Analysis

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is an American non-profit conservative think tank partially financed by the insurance industry.[1] NCPA states that its goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, education and environmental regulation.

A fair and balanced source, no doubt. Partially funded by the insurance industry?

If there's one thing people should always do in contentious issues like this is to check the sources of articles for bias and if there are actual sources for statistics. That article you posted had no sources at all.

This is another version of the article with no sources except the author's own book. Very suspect scholarship and journalism. I can't find the March 29 version mentioned in the Hoover article.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18270

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Laz116

Ask yourself this question, Where do you want to be a single mother making ends meet and suddenly getting ill: In the USA or in Canada.

My aunt (a divorced mother in her late fifties) lives and works in Canada (Toronto). She comes back to the US every year for a mammogram. She can't get yearly mammograms up in Canada.

[Madam Broshkina]

Originally Posted by corroonb

The article you quote was first published in the the National Centre for Policy Analysis, a conservative think-tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...olicy_Analysis



A fair and balanced source, no doubt. Partially funded by the insurance industry?

If there's one thing people should always do in contentious issues like this is to check the sources of articles for bias and if there are actual sources for statistics. That article you posted had no sources at all.

This is another version of the article with no sources except the author's own book. Very suspect scholarship and journalism. I can't find the March 29 version mentioned in the Hoover article.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18270

Here is the 29 March version of the article. This one has sources.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/BA649

[Laz116]

Oh yes. Let the discussion finally succumb to personal experience. I think Michael Moore has a few cases that could contradict your story, if you really wanna go down that lane.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Laz116

Oh yes. Let the discussion finally succumb to personal experience. I think Michael Moore has a few cases that could contradict your story, if you really wanna go down that lane.

One, if that's the case then why did you invite it by saying "Ask yourself this question..."?

Two, that's not a personal story so much as it's a comparison of the two systems. Yearly mammograms reduce the risk of breast cancer by catching it early. They are not available in Canada, but they are available in the US. In this example, socialized medicine is not the better system.

[corroonb]

Originally Posted by Madam Broshkina

Here is the 29 March version of the article. This one has sources.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/BA649

Global variation in cancer survival was very wide. 5-year relative survival for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer was generally higher in North America, Australia, Japan, and northern, western, and southern Europe, and lower in Algeria, Brazil, and eastern Europe. CONCORD has provided the first opportunity to estimate cancer survival in 11 states in USA covered by the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the study covers 42% of the US population, four-fold more than previously available. Cancer survival in black men and women was systematically and substantially lower than in white men and women in all 16 states and six metropolitan areas included. Relative survival for all ethnicities combined was 2—4% lower in states covered by NPCR than in areas covered by the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. Age-standardised relative survival by use of the appropriate race-specific and state-specific life tables was up to 2% lower for breast cancer and up to 5% lower for prostate cancer than with the census-derived national life tables used by the SEER Program. These differences in population coverage and analytical method have both contributed to the survival deficit noted between Europe and the USA, from which only SEER data have been available until now.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...179-7/fulltext

This is the first source and contains a clear explanation for the survival deficit noted between Europe and the USA.