So… boobies are good in a capitalist society? </sarcasm>

Fascinating, isn’t it, that Stronach would leave the healthcare utopia of Canada to seek care in the evil, greedy, heartless, for-profit United States?

Lee,

This is an old story that has been addressed on here before. Frankly, you don’t seem to know much about the situation other than the “CANADIAN POLITICIAN GOES TO U.S. FOR SURGERY” headline…

Dig a little deeper and you’d see that this was only one part of Stronach’s treatment regimen, and she received all her pre- and post-care and consultation at a Toronto-area hospital.

Dig deeper and you’d find out that her Toronto physician, who is recognized internationally for DCIS research, recommended the California hospital, because, yes, they were the best at that specific procedure. Nothing to do with wait times or access.

Dig deeper still and you’d learn that the hospital in Toronto where Stronach received care boasts some of the best breast cancer clinicians and researchers in the world – the ones who developed digital mammography screening and brachytherapy treatments, which in the former’s case is now the global standard, and have helped countless American women.

By all means, point to crowded Emergency waiting rooms and terrible wait times for MRI scans, our system certainly has it shortcomings, but you should remove this particular plank from your case against socialized medicine.

Buzz (I think) – my apologies on not responding on the Cuba thread. Your post was great, and would have taken a bit of thinking to rebut. Just got lazy/somewhat apathetic, to be honest.

And of course, Happy Thanksgiving to all American moorewatchers… I eagerly await the exploding deep fried turkey videos on YouTube.

heartless, for-profit United States?

I wonder how The American Red Cross, The muscular dystrophy association, Ronald McDonald House, and all the other charitable health care providers in the United States would be affected by a move to nationalize (or universalize) health care.  There are far more non profit hospitals in the U.S. then there are for profit hospitals.  Would their assets necessarily be nationalized, or made universal as well?

but you should remove this particular plank from your case against socialized medicine.

Then remove it yourself.  You’re the one that carried that particular plank into the Stronach conversation.  Lee didn’t say anything about why Stronach may or may not have decided that California was the better place to go.  Just that as you must also admit, it was better then staying in Canada.

Canadians are okay with outsourcing work if it saves lives. Its still free for everyone

Its still free for everyone

When are people going to learn where Government gets the money to pay for things?

You’d think they’d figure it out but they always seem to become profoundly stupid when pork comes flying their way.

Canuck, eh
Dig deeper still and you’d learn that the hospital in Toronto where Stronach received care boasts some of the best breast cancer clinicians and researchers in the world – the ones who developed digital mammography screening and brachytherapy treatments

I suggest that you dig deeper, Canuck, as in “Deep Space”:

DIGITAL IMAGING BREAST BIOPSY SYSTEM - The LORAD Stereo Guide Breast Biopsy system incorporates advanced Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) as part of a digital camera system. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently. Known as stereotactic large-core needle biopsy, this nonsurgical system developed with Space Telescope Technology is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies.

Oh yeah, the info is from a webpage that chronicles the spin-offs of NASA research, such as the digital mammography that you’ve attributed 100% development to as Canadian.

Don’t Mess With NASA

And:

Technology developed for monitoring changes in the Earth’s atmosphere is now being used for the early detection of breast cancer. The digital image detectors, similar to those found in video cameras, were developed at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va.

The system captures sharper digital images, while exposing the breast to lower doses of radiation, than with conventional mammography. The images can then be digitally stored or sent via computer.

Don’t Mess With NASA Pt. 2

And just because I enjoy the act of occasionally throwing a big wrench into the works:

ScienceDaily (Jun. 13, 2005) — Digital mammography provides no clear-cut improvements over traditional film X-rays in the ability to detect cases of breast cancer, says a new technology assessment report. The technology does, however, offer other benefits, including slightly lower radiation doses for patients, that may prompt its increasing use despite its much higher costs.

Playing The Role of Devil’s Advocate Because I Can...

And tell me, were Pierre Curie and Alexander Graham Bell Canadians:

In 1901, Pierre Curie suggested to Danlos at St. Louis Hospital in Paris that a small radium tube be inserted into a tumor thus heralding the birth of brachytherapy. In 1903, Alexander Graham Bell made a similar suggestion, completely independently, in a letter to the Editor of Archives Roentgen Ray. It was found in these early experiences that inserting radioactive materials into tumors revealed that radiation caused cancers to shrink.

Curie = French, Bell = American

Canuck, don’t come here without evidence supporting your “facts”, as you will be challenged hard and challenged often.

fangbeer:

but you should remove this particular plank from your case against socialized medicine.

Then remove it yourself.  You’re the one that carried that particular plank into the Stronach conversation.  Lee didn’t say anything about why Stronach may or may not have decided that California was the better place to go.  Just that as you must also admit, it was better then staying in Canada.

I don’t follow you here. I’m suggesting removing the “Stronach went to the US” plank from Lee’s socialized medicine argument… Isn’t that what Lee was getting at?

Further, the “why she went”, is really quite essential to the point being made. Indeed, there was a better service available for this specific procedure in the US. So what?

crichton:

I suggest that you dig deeper, Canuck, as in “Deep Space”:

DIGITAL IMAGING BREAST BIOPSY SYSTEM - The LORAD Stereo Guide Breast Biopsy system incorporates advanced Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) as part of a digital camera system. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently. Known as stereotactic large-core needle biopsy, this nonsurgical system developed with Space Telescope Technology is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies.

I don’t see how the quoted material refutes what I wrote. Is the suggestion that this is a better technology?

Oh yeah, the info is from a webpage that chronicles the spin-offs of NASA research, such as the digital mammography that you’ve attributed 100% development to as Canadian.

Digital mammography is not a 100% Canadian discovery. Very, very few medical discoveries (or any scientific discovery for that matter) occur in a vacuum… But Dr. Martin Yaffe, senior scientist at Sunnybrook Hospital and professor at U of T, is considered the lead in developing the first DM prototype with GE and eventually bringing it to clinical use.

Canadian pioneers DM development

And your Don’t Mess With NASA Pt. 2 link says that technology developed for/by NASA (CCDs) is used in DM technology. Okay. My car has a thousand inventions that make it work, but somebody was kind enough to package them up…

And just because I enjoy the act of occasionally throwing a big wrench into the works:

Unfortunately the wrench you threw was from a study that came out months before the results of a much, much more significant study – alluded to in your quoted article – were released. The study found that, indeed, DM is more effective than regular x-rays. Google “DMIST”. DM was better than regular x-rays for women with dense breast, those under 50 and those who are pre-menopausal. Dr. Yaffe was the lead physicist on it.

DMIST

Heck, your own article says: “At best, the new technology is expected to offer incremental improvements in cancer detection rates, which Maliff says may be enough to spark a large-scale transition to the new technology.”

And tell me, were Pierre Curie and Alexander Graham Bell Canadians:

Brachytherapy as a treatment of other cancers has been around for some time, but Canadian researchers were the first in the world to use palladium seeds (brachytherapy) in the treatment of breast cancer.

Breast Brachytherapy

And I’d like to stake a claim to a third of Alexander Graham Bell on behalf of Canada.

Canuck, don’t come here without evidence supporting your “facts”, as you will be challenged hard and challenged often.

Thanks for the tip Crichton, but I’ve been posting here for about six years, so I’m familiar with how it works. Please review the evidence provided supporting my facts.

there was a better service available for this specific procedure in the US. So what?

So this sort of drives at the problem with regulated health care.  If everyone deserves health care, who gets to decide the appropriate level of quality everyone deserves?  Would an operation of lesser quality in Toronto still be a success of the Canadian system, and a failure of the American system?

And uh, if the quality is so hot in Canada…

Why exactly do they have a higher death rate despite a lower rate of incidence in Canada than in the U.S.?

Maybe she came to America because she didn’t want to...you know...die?

Canadian pioneers DM development

I went back to read this link and it was pretty funny, I have to say. 36 million dollars in a research fund...which was funded primarily by American companies?

That’s what you think is putting the pieces together to solve the breast cancer riddle? That’s what makes you think Canada plays a pivotal role in breast cancer research?

Here in America charities give to people with only 36 million....

Wow, this proves my point about 36 million and pork all in one blow.  Fucking Leahy

I wonder if those asshole Democrats who complain about defense spending vs Medicare spending know about this shit.

Canuck, my point is that you came talking how Canadians were responsible for brachytherapy and DM processes. 

A) Brachytherapy got it’s start in the 19th century.  Without Curie where would it be today?  Canadians were definitly NOT the first people to use brachytherapy to treat cancer.  It was just a matter of time before it got used for breast cancer.

B) NASA developed the digital imaging that you crowed about, or at least implied, was a result of Canadian research.  It isn’t.  If not for NASA’s R&D;it’s highly unlikely that Canadian doctors would be using it today.  It’s highly unlikely that anyone would be using it today.  NASA developed it for deep space usage and saw a medical use for it back in the early 90’s.  Much of the cancer and heart treatments that are used today are a direct result of NASA’s research.  Your car analogy is irrelevant as it gives Johnson Controls and other tier one auto suppliers that same credit for the automobile as goes to Henry Ford.

Nevermind that the digital imagery you presented as the best process in the world gets no better results than X-rays, which have been around for decades.

From a Canadian publication circa 2001:

Modern brachytherapy, using either iodine 125 or palladium 103 seeds, is performed under the guidance of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and is planned and evaluated using 3-dimensional computer software. Promising early results, a minimally invasive technique and rapidity of the outpatient procedure have made brachytherapy an attractive alternative to radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Although widely available and popular in the United States, brachytherapy has only recently become available in Canada.

Modern Brachtherapy

fangbeer

So this sort of drives at the problem with regulated health care.  If everyone deserves health care, who gets to decide the appropriate level of quality everyone deserves?  Would an operation of lesser quality in Toronto still be a success of the Canadian system, and a failure of the American system?

Though certainly there are minimum standards in place, I can assure you there is no ‘maximum’ strategy. There will be some institutions that are just better at doing certain things than others. Even within a given system, even a given city, there will be high and lows.

…and because a Canadian near-billionaire can find a better care provider for a specific treatment in the US, does that indicate the US system is better?? One study I read indicated that cancer survival rates amongst lower income individuals are much higher in Canada (in 13 of 15 cancers.)
You raise a good question: is amazing care for some (higher income) coupled with poor care for others (lower income) better than good care for all?

Whatever your opinion “in 2003, Americans spent an estimated US$5,635 per capita on health care, while Canadians spent US$3,003. [So] Canada’s single-payer system, which relies on not-for-profit delivery, achieves health outcomes that are at least equal to those in the United States at two-thirds the cost.”
Cost of delivering care.

And uh, if the quality is so hot in Canada…
Why exactly do they have a higher death rate despite a lower rate of incidence in Canada than in the U.S.?

So far just about every source I’ve come across that discusses these types of differences – I could just as easily point out that mortality rates for lung cancer and childhood leukemia are much lower here – says it is near impossible to compare the two systems based on these sorts of mortality figures. Principally because socioeconomic factors have so much influence on outcome.

Nonetheless, one of the most significant reasons for the disparity you bring up is the uptake on mammograms and other screening methods was much more effective in the US. Early screening = better survival rate. Screening rates in Canada are rising sharply, technology is improving, and you’ll see the relatively slim difference in deaths per 100K, get even tighter. It’s important to note, the study you quote uses figures that are anywhere from seven to 10 years old.

Interesting to note that part of the American strategy to get more women in for mammograms and advance screening in the 90s was to offer these services for free. Sounds awfully socialist to me…

I went back to read this link and it was pretty funny, I have to say. 36 million dollars in a research fund...which was funded primarily by American companies?

That’s what you think is putting the pieces together to solve the breast cancer riddle? That’s what makes you think Canada plays a pivotal role in breast cancer research?

Hmmm, no:

a) The $36 million mentioned in the article came from the Ontario Challenge Fund, a gov’t fund that is bundled with academic and industry funding. Industry input in this particular project was $4 million, of $36 million. That’s “primary” to you?
b) The $36 million was one source of funding, for three projects that are part of a much larger national and global research initiative.
c) Dr. Jaffe has been working on DM since the mid ‘80s. I can assure you he is one of the pre-imminent researchers in this area.

Here in America charities give to people with only 36 million....

Ha, that’s awesome…good of you not to confirm a stereotype. You’d be pretty amazed at some of things that happen up here above the 49th parallel, y’know when we’re not playing hockey or putting an addition on to the igloo.

Wow, this proves my point about 36 million and pork all in one blow.  Fucking Leahy

Yeah, $737 million over six years… about $120 million annually. $36 million don’t seem so bad now does it?

crichton:

Canuck, my point is that you came talking how Canadians were responsible for brachytherapy and DM processes.

A) Brachytherapy got it’s start in the 19th century.  Without Curie where would it be today?  Canadians were definitly NOT the first people to use brachytherapy to treat cancer.  It was just a matter of time before it got used for breast cancer.

I sort of assumed that it was understood I was referring to brachytherapy for breast cancer because: the thread was about breast cancer (a.k.a. “boobies”), my post was about breast cancer and that in the sentence it appeared in, I specifically referred to breast cancer, mammography and women… I’m not sure how to be more precise.

“Just a matter of time”?? I don’t really know how to debate this point with you. Are you suggesting that unless something is completely fabricated out of nothing, current day discoveries count for nothing? So a clinician scientist figures out how to more effectively treat a disease by making existing tools better deserves no credit?

B) NASA developed the digital imaging that you crowed about, or at least implied, was a result of Canadian research.  It isn’t.

I never said, or crowed, that a Canadian developed the supercharged CCD. Yes, I’m sure NASA technology is everywhere – I enjoyed a delicious glass of Tang this morning – but they did not invent digital mammography because they developed one part of the technology for it… Your own article says “Now, however, with the help of Hubble Space Telescope technology..”

If not for NASA’s R&D;it’s highly unlikely that Canadian doctors would be using it today.  It’s highly unlikely that anyone would be using it today.  NASA developed it for deep space usage and saw a medical use for it back in the early 90’s. Much of the cancer and heart treatments that are used today are a direct result of NASA’s research.

And if it weren’t for the first caveman who shaped that rock into a circle, we wouldn’t have the car…

Your car analogy is irrelevant as it gives Johnson Controls and other tier one auto suppliers that same credit for the automobile as goes to Henry Ford.

My point with that clumsy analogy was that many parts, invented by many different people go into making my car, just like a DM machine… doesn’t mean any one of those inventors gets credit for creating the whole thing. Why should NASA get credit for DM?

Nevermind that the digital imagery you presented as the best process in the world gets no better results than X-rays, which have been around for decades.

Because you write it, doesn’t make it so. DM is better than traditional X-rays. Your article said it, the results of the most comprehensive study done (DMIST) said it, and the fact that hospitals are all switching over to the new technology says it.

And one day, something will be better than DM…

Where to begin?

Canuck, I checked your link and it looks like the article I quoted used your study and two others to come to their conclusion.  I also found that you cherry-picked your quote to bias it toward your initial statement that DM is the end all when detecting breast cancer.  You then moved the goalposts by qualifying it with a portion of the following statement that came from a press release by DMIST.  You left out the first line and a critical three letter word.  Maybe you can find that word in the actual quote you so proudly alluded to.  Directly from the study you linked, I give you:

Preliminary results from a large, clinical trial of digital vs. film mammography show no difference in detecting breast cancer for the general population of women in the trial. However, those women with dense breasts, who are pre- or perimenopausal (women who had a last menstrual period within 12 months of their mammograms), or who are younger than age 50 may benefit from having a digital rather than a film mammogram.

You tried pulling a michael moore and I caught you at it.  By dissecting and “editing” the same press release you gave the impression that you provided a link to, you made two declarative statements that aren’t declarative.  1) That DM is the end all form of breast cancer detection and superior to standard X-rays, and 2) That DM is definitely better for women in certain sub groups (which your very study specifically states that nothing of the sort is concrete).  Sort of slick, but not nearly slick enough.

I sort of assumed that it was understood I was referring to brachytherapy for breast cancer because: the thread was about breast cancer (a.k.a. “boobies”), my post was about breast cancer and that in the sentence it appeared in, I specifically referred to breast cancer, mammography and women… I’m not sure how to be more precise.

You’re not being precise.  The point is that brachytherapy has been used since the 1800’s on all types of cancers.  Since breast cancer is one of the leading killers of women, it stands to reason that someone would “develop” it’s treatment of breast cancer.  And then you tried to make an analogy between the discovery of the wheel and the internal combustion engine.  Been checked into the boards one too many times?  And you ignored the following:

Modern brachytherapy, using either iodine 125 or palladium 103 seeds, is performed under the guidance of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and is planned and evaluated using 3-dimensional computer software. Promising early results, a minimally invasive technique and rapidity of the outpatient procedure have made brachytherapy an attractive alternative to radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Although widely available and popular in the United States, brachytherapy has only recently become available in Canada.

According to you, brachytherapy was developed in the land of Bob and Doug McKenzie, yet it has only recently become available in the land in which it was developed.  If that’s the case, the only possible explanations are that the free market healthcare system in the US does a better job of getting superior healthcare technolgy to its people than the “FREE!!!” system in Canada or it wasn’t exactly developed in Canada.  Which is it?

Industry input in this particular project was $4 million, of $36 million.

Let me help you with the math.  Or the reading.  Not sure which part you had trouble with.  The 36 million was split 3 ways.  Breast cancer imaging, Cardiac imaging, and therapeutic / surgical imaging.

Companies gave:

4 million for boobs.
15 million for hearts.
16 million for surgeries.

4+15+16 = 35

At best Canadian taxpayers paid 1.  I’m guessing, however, that the missing mil is a function of truncation.

Yeah, $737 million over six years… about $120 million annually.

I think you missed the point.  That was 737 million dollars buried in defense spending bills.  You know, spending that most foreigners just assume we use to kill brown people?

If we blow 737 million as an after thought in our military budget...what do you suppose we spend in total?  I sure as hell betcha it has an effect on your next (rather dull) point.

in 2003, Americans spent an estimated US$5,635 per capita on health care

You are incorrect.  The number you cite references the amount the American government spends on health care.  It is not what the average American spends on health care.  There are many factors that contribute to the inflation of this number (million dollar defense bill earmarks notwithstanding) Regardless, the logical conclusion here is not that the American government would spend less if it were covering all Americans. 

Let me ask you this: If 5k is too much.. what is the appropriate amount someone should pay for their health care?  In a year?  In a lifetime?  Should the total sum of a person’s health be worth less then say...their house?  All the cars they’ll ever own?  As a function of priority...what do you think should be the very most important topic people spend their income?

Once you solve the above puzzle, is the number a person spends a direct indicator of the level of care they are provided with?  What if they don’t require much care?  Should they still spend the same amount?

The “American’s pay too much for healthcare” argument is akin to the following exchange that I had with a former co-worker. 

Co-worker:  “I can’t believe that I have to pay $3 an hour for daycare for my daughter.  It’s outrageous to have to spend that much on daycare.”

Me:  “Does that include meals?”

CW: “Yes, but it’s only lunch and two snacks.  She doesn’t spend that much on food.”

Me: “So you’re spending $24 per day to have your kid in daycare.”

CW: “Yes, that’s correct.”

Me:  “How much do you spend each month to board your horse?”

CW:  “What’s that got to do with it?”

Me:  “Humor me.”

CW:  “$1200 per month.  But that’s pretty cheap to board a horse around here.”

Me:  “So you’re spending about $40 per day to take care of your horse while you’re at work.”

CW:  “Yep, that’s about right.”

Me:  “So you’re saying that $40 per day for someone to take care of your horse is a bargain but your daycare is screwing you when they charge $30 a day to take care of your daughter.  In other words, your horse is worth more to you than your daughter...”

The conversation devolved from there into a brief screaming tirade by my co-worker, but I don’t think that my point was lost on her. She feels better about spending forty bucks a day on her horse than she does spending thirty dollars a day on her daughters care.  It’s all about priorities.

Not terribly surprising, crichton. People tend to treat animals better than other people, even people they’re related to.

To quote the novelization of MiB, “In New York, you can rape a woman on the sidewalk and people will step around you without batting an eye. Hit a dog, and a lynch mob will form in minutes.”

Yeah.. I made a lot of money this year. Less than 10 percent of it was spent to make sure I stay alive

Just what in the heck was I thinking?

Seriously?

Is it a good idea to make sure someone else subsidies my ability to say alive? Because I really want an xbox 360. One of my computers just shit the bed and I’m kinda bored.

I lost about ten hours of my life to Mass Effect last night, man. BioWare really knows how to make games that just suck the time right out of you. I recommend it.

crichton:

Where to begin?

I agree.

I’ll forgo my usual quoting of your text, followed by my response.

1) I “cherry-picked” nothing. Read through my posts. All I stated was that DM is better than traditional x-rays. Nothing that you have posted says otherwise. Indeed the DMIST study found that the technologies were equivalent for the general population. It also found that they may be better for women with dense breasts, who are pre- or perimenopausal, or who are younger than age 50. Equal at one thing, and better at another in my books makes DM better.

Scroll to 8) Study Results

How can you disagree? I know which type of screening I’d rather have my girlfriend and sister-in-law undergo, and I know which machines are on the Christmas lists for the cancer clinicians at my hospital. Beyond the study you quoted is there something/evidence that is giving you such a strong opinion that DM isn’t better?

The term “may” is used throughout the research and medical world as a CYA clause. Again, refer to “Study Results” and look for the line that says “Digital mammography was significantly better in screening women who fit any of these three categories…” In the DMIST study, the women in these subsets accounted for 65 per cent of the women tested.

2) I didn’t pull a “Michael Moore”, however you’re defining that. The link is there for all to read and interpret. In fact, it looks like in one of my quoted materials Fangbeer has correctly pointed out I made a mistake…won’t be the first or last time and I’m all for getting called on it. There’s nothing slick about it and no “editing” took place.

3) I did not claim that a Canadian invented brachytherapy. You can take my word for it or not. You misinterpreted what I wrote and continue to do so.

4) I think the discovery of how to use brachytherapy on breast cancer is a significant advance in medical science achieved by some of the best clinical researchers in the world. You think it would have happened eventually and it’s apparently no big deal. Where should we go from here?

5) Brachytherapy was not developed in Canada (see point 3) and the US system of healthcare has been better at getting technologies to market faster. We’re working on it, through research partnerships with private industry and increased funding.

fangbeer:

Let me help you with the math.  Or the reading.  Not sure which part you had trouble with.  The 36 million was split 3 ways.  Breast cancer imaging, Cardiac imaging, and therapeutic / surgical imaging.

You are absolutely correct. I totally f’d that one up.

Companies gave:
4 million for boobs.
15 million for hearts.
16 million for surgeries.
4+15+16 = 35

At best Canadian taxpayers paid 1.  I’m guessing, however, that the missing mil is a function of truncation.

This is where you’re mistaken. For this particular breast study it’s $4 million from private enterprises, $4 million from public institutions and $4 million from the Ontario Challenge Fund (Provincial gov’t) = $16 million. As originally stated, the majority does not come from US companies.

For hearts it’s the same division - $15M from each, and same for surgeries. So about $108M total for these three projects, as evidenced by the title of the original article: “Province, partners invest $108 million for cancer and heart disease detection”

But this was back in 2000 – not really that relevant to today’s spending. I quoted this article, not to highlight funding, but only to show that a Canadian research team is recognized as the developers of DM.

I think you missed the point.  That was 737 million dollars buried in defense spending bills.  You know, spending that most foreigners just assume we use to kill brown people?

If we blow 737 million as an after thought in our military budget...what do you suppose we spend in total?  I sure as hell betcha it has an effect on your next (rather dull) point.

Tough to say for sure. The best stat I could find was from the American Lung Cancer site: “Breast cancer received more than $1.6 billion in funding for research from 1992 to 2004” American Lung Cancer Assoc.So, that’s about $120M +/- annually. No idea how that number was calculated and if it had anything to do with the $120M from the defense budget.

But this I quibbling over numbers that are nearly impossible to figure out their source and where they go and if they’re even spent. Back to the point we originally started talking about, there are some amazing Canadian researchers and clinicians in the field of breast cancer and cancer – some of the best in the world. Because Ms. Stronach opted to go have a very specific procedure done as part of her treatment regiment, does not indicate a failure of our system.

in 2003, Americans spent an estimated US$5,635 per capita on health care

You are incorrect.  The number you cite references the amount the American government spends on health care.  It is not what the average American spends on health care.  There are many factors that contribute to the inflation of this number (million dollar defense bill earmarks notwithstanding) Regardless, the logical conclusion here is not that the American government would spend less if it were covering all Americans.

As you can see, I put quotes around that material, and if you go to the site where the material is quoted from you’ll see that it’s quite clear that by “Americans” and “Canadians” the author - and how I quoted him/her - is referring to the respective countries and not the average individual.

Let me ask you this: If 5k is too much.. what is the appropriate amount someone should pay for their health care?  In a year?  In a lifetime?  Should the total sum of a person’s health be worth less then say...their house?  All the cars they’ll ever own?  As a function of priority...what do you think should be the very most important topic people spend their income?

Once you solve the above puzzle, is the number a person spends a direct indicator of the level of care they are provided with?  What if they don’t require much care?  Should they still spend the same amount?

You’re missing the point. It’s nothing to do with what’s too much to spend for one’s health. Absolutely you can’t put a price on your health. It’s about efficiencies of a system. If the US is paying twice as much per capita as Canada for healthcare, and significantly more than any other industrialized nation, then shouldn’t the care you receive reflect that? But in pretty much every comparison I’ve seen of our two systems, we’ve either been on par or ranked higher than the States. Seems like something that should make those who are concerned about government spending wonder..

crichton:

The “American’s pay too much for healthcare” argument is akin to the following exchange that I had with a former co-worker.

Only if you’re misunderstanding the argument that is being made. See my response to fangbeer…it’s nothing about putting a price on your health, it’s about running a system effectively. Since ideas like compassion for the poor are often laughed out of the room by some on this site, it’s a way of appealing to the bean counter in you. Basically, America’s ROI on healthcare spending is weak compared to other industrialized countries.

canuck
Nothing that you have posted says otherwise

Quite mincing your words.  You originally said that DM was superior to X-rays.  The study you sited specifically said that it is not better than X-rays for the vast majority of patients and it stated that DM MAY be better for some patients.  May does not equal:

Equal at one thing, and better at another in my books makes DM better.

Your own study disproves your declaration that DM has been proven to be better at any type of detection than standard X-rays (regardless of patient sub-groups) that have been around for decades.  You accuse me of misinterpreting what you wrote, but you’re obviously misinterpreting the study you sited that’s supposed to support your claim that DM is superior technology.  No where in the DMIST study is the claim made that DM is definitly superior to X-rays for ANY group of breast cancer patients.  If you think that it’s there, cut and paste your evidence from the article and prove yourself to be correct.

I’m not misinterpreting what you originally said about brachytherapy, you’ve just since changed the goalposts.  You made a very generalized statement:

the hospital in Toronto where Stronach received care boasts some of the best breast cancer clinicians and researchers in the world – the ones who developed digital mammography screening and brachytherapy treatments

You implied that brachytherapy treatments for cancer, not specifically breast cancer, were developed in Canada.  By the way, you haven’t provided any information that brachytherapy for breast cancer was developed in Canada.

And lastly, it was nice of you to admit that your healthcare system is anything but effective, especially considering how long it’s taken Canada to provide brachtherapy for it’s huddled masses--especially since research on it started in the 1800’s.

Brachytherapy was not developed in Canada (see point 3) and the US system of healthcare has been better at getting technologies to market faster

Thanks again for pointing out that the American system is superior to the Canadian system as far as getting advanced treatment technologies to its citizens.  How does it show compassion to the poor when your system can’t even implement a procedure that you claim it developed?  You claim that the US doesn’t spend enough money on healthcare, yet you also say that Canada needs to increase spending to catch up with the US system to get those technologies to its citizens.  Huh?!?  So how does the inferior US system get those technologies to market faster than the socialized systems, specifically Canada?  I have a hunch, but I’ll let you wax on.

It seems that not having enough funds is inherent in most, if not all socialized “FREE!!!” healthcare systems the world over.  Why might that be?  Maybe, such as the case in Norway (which is considered to have some of the finest healthcare in the world), taxpayers are getting tired of their guvments re-distributing the wealth that they’ve earned for themselves and their families.  They’re also tired of the guvment trying to save a buck by “consolidating” i.e. “closing” many of their hospitals in rural, more remote areas.  You might find the following info interesting reading on how the greatest healthcare system in the world, the Norwegian one, is falling apart:

Norway--The Greatest Healthcare System In the World

It’s nothing to do with what’s too much to spend for one’s health. Absolutely you can’t put a price on your health. It’s about efficiencies of a system.

You can’t put a price on health, but efficiency of the health system is measured by price and Americans pay too much?

I must have failed progressive math.

It’s funny to me how progressive math works. The opposite conclusion is drawn in regards to the automotive industry. A car that costs more to produce, more to operate, and is less durable is deemed more efficient than a car that lasts longer, costs less, and runs on a less expensive fuel.

Go figure.

I just fail to understand how a health care system that is slower to bring new technology to market, slower to meet demand, and performs at or below our system’s level of quality can somehow be more efficient.

This discussion really doesn’t appear to be going anywhere… I think this is my final kick at the can.

Quite mincing your words.  You originally said that DM was superior to X-rays.  The study you sited specifically said that it is not better than X-rays for the vast majority of patients and it stated that DM MAY be better for some patients.

DM is superior to X-rays, and the study I cited said it is better for the majority of the people tested (65% is a majority, right?) That’s why hospitals all over the world are replacing the latter with the former. Since I’m faaaar from the expert on this subject, I’m going to take their actions as a pretty clear signal.

May does not equal:
Equal at one thing, and better at another in my books makes DM better.

Please see point below.

Your own study disproves your declaration that DM has been proven to be better at any type of detection than standard X-rays (regardless of patient sub-groups) that have been around for decades. … No where in the DMIST study is the claim made that DM is definitly superior to X-rays for ANY group of breast cancer patients.  If you think that it’s there, cut and paste your evidence from the article and prove yourself to be correct.

Did you not see the link I posted? Did you see how I even told you what number to scroll down to? Now you want me to copy and paste it? Fine. My apologies to JimK for cutting and pasting a large chunk of text.

From DMIST Q & A:

8. What were the main results of DMIST?
DMIST showed that, for the entire population of women studied, digital and film mammography had very similar screening accuracy.

Digital mammography was significantly better in screening women who fit any of these three categories:
• under age 50 (no matter what level of breast tissue density they had)
• of any age with heterogeneously (very dense) or extremely dense breasts
• pre- or perimenopausal women of any age (defined as women who had a last menstrual period within 12 months of their mammograms)

There is no apparent benefit of digital over film mammography for women who fit ALL of the following three categories:
• over age 50
• those who do not have dense or heterogeneously (very dense) breast tissue
• those who are not still menstruating

The three subsets who would benefit represented 65% of the women in the survey and one of these subsets, those women with dense breasts, are more at risk for breast cancer, and thus, are a very, very important subset.
Globe & Mail

Coincidentally, from the same G & M article: “Women with dense breasts were also 18 times more likely to have a cancerous tumour detected within 12 months of a negative mammogram, according to the Canadian research. For this reason, Dr. Perry recommends that women with dense breasts undergo digital mammography rather than traditional X-ray mammography.”

The one study you provided as evidence for your position was only a review of three other studies, one of which, DMIST, hadn’t even been officially released AND when it was released seems to have contradicted the conclusion your study came to.

And while we’re at it, since you seem caught up on the word “may”, please enjoy the following lesson in nuance.

“Digital mammography was significantly better in screening women who fit any of these three categories: [those women with dense breasts, who are pre- or perimenopausal, or who are younger than age 50…]”

vs.

“However, those women with dense breasts, who are pre- or perimenopausal, or who are younger than age 50 may benefit from having a digital rather than a film mammogram.”

See how one sentence states that DM is “significantly” better at doing something and the other says it “may” help women? It’s a case of researchers staying within their boundaries. When talking about patient outcomes, clinicians, researchers, administrators, etc are all very cautious about guaranteeing anything – ‘tis the nature of health.

I’m not misinterpreting what you originally said about brachytherapy, you’ve just since changed the goalposts …You implied that brachytherapy treatments for cancer, not specifically breast cancer, were developed in Canada.  By the way, you haven’t provided any information that brachytherapy for breast cancer was developed in Canada.

You’ve got to be kidding… in my next post to you I clarified what I was referring to, so there really was no need for you to carry on about it for your next four posts. And I actually already did provide a link in reference to the Canadian BREAST brachytherapy claim.
Canadian first...

And lastly, it was nice of you to admit that your healthcare system is anything but effective, especially considering how long it’s taken Canada to provide brachtherapy for it’s huddled masses--especially since research on it started in the 1800’s.

“Anything but effective”? You’re a real character. Anyways, that’s the great thing about being confident in one’s position. I can admit where our public system has shortcomings that need to be addressed. It’s not perfect. If Michael Moore gave you that impression, well, I recommend that you don’t make Michael Moore your only source of information.

Thanks again for pointing out that the American system is superior to the Canadian system as far as getting advanced treatment technologies to its citizens.  How does it show compassion to the poor when your system can’t even implement a procedure that you claim it developed?

But wait a minute, we can access brachytherapy and breast brachytherapy here. And I’ve made it clear I didn’t intend on claiming brachytherapy as our own. And, and, oh, forget it…

You claim that the US doesn’t spend enough money on healthcare, yet you also say that Canada needs to increase spending to catch up with the US system to get those technologies to its citizens.  Huh?!?  So how does the inferior US system get those technologies to market faster than the socialized systems, specifically Canada?  I have a hunch, but I’ll let you wax on.

1. Let me know where I wrote that the US doesn’t spend enough on healthcare…

2. Because private enterprise is great at getting things to market quickly and making a profit. What they aren’t very good at is making sure everyone has equitable access these things once they are there. I’m interested to know how many of your “huddled masses” are able to access the care to which our heiress to the Magna fortune was. From what I understand from newspaper reports, it was cosmetic reconstruction work, following her surgical oncology work that was done up here…but nothing was confirmed.

It seems that not having enough funds is inherent in most, if not all socialized “FREE!!!” healthcare systems the world over.

If you think that our public health system is “FREE”, I invite you to come up here and look at my paystub some time…

Maybe, such as the case in Norway … interesting reading on how the greatest healthcare system in the world, the Norwegian one, is falling apart:

Now we’re talking about Norway?? So I followed your link and it seems to be an opinion piece written by you based on an article that Norwegians are sick of high taxes – looking at some of those per cents who can blame them? That’s your evidence that their system is falling apart? Alas, I know about as much about the Norwegian healthcare/taxation system as you appear to, so let’s leave that to someone else…

Canuck
1. Let me know where I wrote that the US doesn’t spend enough on healthcare…

Just letting you know:

Canuck, eh
Basically, America’s ROI on healthcare spending is weak compared to other industrialized countries.

As far as Norway goes, the piece I wrote has tons of links that explain what’s happening to their healthcare system, where the monies are coming from and how many hospitals/medical centers are closing because their universal system is too expensive for the country that annually is considered to be one of the best places in the world to live (in spite of the taxes and suicide rates).  It’s good to see that you admit that like Norway, you’re being taxed way too highly.  I have relatives that have gotten US citizenship to get out from under the massive taxes they were paying in the Western Provinces.  Now they don’t have to come to the US for surgery, they’re already here.  As an interesting aside since I mentioned suicide, I also show on that thread that the highest rates of suicide in industrialized nations are in the countries with universal healthcare. 

And earlier you stated you have long wait times, long wait times in ER’s, long wait times for MRI’s, etc.  Isn’t that the definition of a system that’s not efficient and as effective as it should be.

And lastly, out of the three major studies on DM, only the one you sited claims that it’s superior to X-rays, the other two studies say that it’s equal at best and MAY be better for certain sub-groups of women patients.  I guess if you like 1-2 odds over 2-1…

You can’t put a price on health, but efficiency of the health system is measured by price and Americans pay too much?

I must have failed progressive math.

It’s not a case of paying too much. For the amount America pays per capita you should have a faaaaar superior health system to other countries. But you don’t. If private healthcare is the system of choice, why do you get equal or less from more compared to countries with universal care (I guess a good follow up question is why the US the only wealthy industrialized nation that doesn’t have universal care..) As for putting a price on health, the basic principal behind the US system does just that.

It’s funny to me how progressive math works. The opposite conclusion is drawn in regards to the automotive industry. A car that costs more to produce, more to operate, and is less durable is deemed more efficient than a car that lasts longer, costs less, and runs on a less expensive fuel.

Well, there’s one thing we agree on: the use of automobile analogies. I don’t know what cars you’re referring to in this scenario, but I don’t think the way you’re interchanging the word ‘efficiency’ works...please elaborate if I’m not following.

I just fail to understand how a health care system that is slower to bring new technology to market, slower to meet demand, and performs at or below our system’s level of quality can somehow be more efficient.

I don’t entirely agree with your premise (i.e. we are making great strides in the first two and how are you defining level of quality?), but my two part answer would be: a) for the incremental differences in specific areas of care (and other areas where the US falls short), you’re paying astronomically more money per capita and b) because your system doesn’t deliver these advances equally to all of its citizens.

As some of you are intelligent enough to point out, Belinda Stronach is obscenely rich and the fact that she is going to the US has nothing to do with the overall health care system of either country.  She can afford to go anywhere in the world to treat her cancer.  Anyone who could afford to would do the same when their life is on the line.  This has no relevance to Sicko or to the criticisms of the US health care system.  Most people here are barking up the wrong tree.

For the amount America pays per capita you should have a faaaaar superior health system to other countries.

Don’t you see that you are suggesting there is a linear relationship between dollar amount and care?  You said that you can’t put a price on the value of someone’s health.  If the value of life is immeasurable, how can the value of health care be measurable in terms of dollar amounts?

Beyond that you are comparing the amount the American government spends on health care as a measure of a health system that is not completely paid for by the American government.  The average consumer isn’t anywhere near as wasteful as the American government when it comes to spending on health care.  Just because Medicare shells out $150 dollars for band aids and cue tips that does not mean that consumer based health care is inefficient.  In fact, if you want to make the system more efficient, take a better look at the stupid crap the American government is spending money on....

The opposite of the smart thing to do would be to give them control of all health care spending.  That would be like making the hole in your sinking boat larger with the hope that a lighter boat might float a little better.

your system doesn’t deliver these advances equally to all of its citizens.

Based on what evidence?

Everyone in this country who needs care has that care available to them. 

Case in point, When my brother was born they gave him a 50 50 shot that he was going to last just a few weeks.  He had an intracranial arteriovenous malformation that was causing a build up of pressure in his head.  The pressure was so great in fact that his brain was getting crushed. It was also putting a pretty big strain on his heart.

Over the course of the 1rst two years of his life he had multiple surgeries to install shunts in his head to drain the excess fluid.  When he was old enough, my brother was one of the first kids to have his av malformation glued shut using endovascular neurosurgery.  This was back in the 80’s and I’m sure that his bills were way in excess of a million dollars.  My dad, the sole source of family income at the time was making about 30k dollars a year.

My brother is fine now, by the way.

Though he is a bit of a dork.

And our family’s not exactly begging on the streets for spare change to cover the tab.

But even if we were .... would it be such a bad thing if it meant that he could live?

Belinda Stronach is obscenely rich and the fact that she is going to the US has nothing to do with the overall health care system of either country.

So do you think it’s a good idea to place the power to decide what sort of health care is good enough for the common folk in the hands of someone wealthy enough to jet over to the U.S. to get the top notch care that a consumer based health care system can provide?

So do you think it’s a good idea to place the power to decide what sort of health care is good enough for the common folk in the hands of someone wealthy enough to jet over to the U.S. to get the top notch care that a consumer based health care system can provide?

Certainly not.  She’s not my MP, and I would have never voted for her before she defected to the liberals from the conservatives or after.  She’s the slimiest of politicians.  She was originally a conservative, and her ‘boyfriend’ was 2nd in command in the conservative party.  She was offered a minister of cabinet position in the liberal party mid-term and so she crossed the floor, leaving her party and her man behind.  Just a brief primer on Belinda Stronach for thos of you who are abreast of Canadian Politics.  I’m sure she would love to privatize medicine.  Did you guys know that Canada was seriously thinking about privatizing its healthcare recently, or at least developing a two tier system?  Nothing ever really came of it, but I thought Americans might find that interesting.  Also, not everything in Canadian healthcare is free.  For instance, my sister needs anti-seizure drugs which used to be fully covered (except for a nominal service fee of $5 per bottle or something).  Now, even though it is heavily subsidized, we pay about $50/month for the pills.

The fact of the matter is that America is the best country in the world for science and technological innovations, and so it is no surprise to find the best treatment there.  There is no way Canada can compete with the high end treatment available there.  The problem is that all the billions of dollars that get invested privately and by the government (NSF etc...) completely miss the lower 3/4 of society.  Sure it provides jobs for a decent amount of graduate students, but is that really so great?  I bet (admittedly, I don’t know) that funding for healthcare in the states eclipses that in Canada, per capita.  Yet the majority of the population is left in the dark.  If Canada actually does have more healthcare funding than the sates… well, thats just sad.

completely miss the lower 3/4 of society.

So you have evidence of this problem?

Certainly a problem isn’t it?  I suppose any attempt on my part to provide evidence of the problem will result in objections that my evidence is one-sided a la sicko, so I won’t even try.  I’m quite happy to have you and anyone else think that it isn’t happening… hell, I don’t live in the states!  I just can’t comprehend why some people are so opposed to socialized medicine as is the norm in the first world (I realize that proof ad populum is silly… but it’s the norm for a reason).
I’m interested to know (really, there is no sarcasm here) how an average american making 35k a year, pays for any sort of catastrophic illness.  Suppose John Doe, in his 30s, working as a (insert average job here), develops a type of cancer which is curable 95% of the time, but the treatment will cost a several tens of thousands of dollars.  What does he do?  Take out a loan?  His credit line isn’t that big and he has no house to borrow off of because he basically only makes ends meet.  Can he get treatment anyways, even if he can’t pay?  If he has dependents, what are they to do?  If he has health insurance, how much will it pay for?  Does usual health insurance cover fatal illness like cancer?  How much are typical deductibles?  Yearly fees (like for car insurance)?

These questions may sound stupid, but remember I’m an ignorant Canadian who has never had to deal with any of this, so I have no idea, and I don’t want to base my opinion solely off of sicko.  Please educate me on this topic (still, no sarcasm).  I would really like to believe that the states is a great place to live.  I know it’s very beautiful (Boulder is unreal) and full of opportunities, now just tell me that people are looked after.

Why exactly do they have a higher death rate despite a lower rate of incidence in Canada than in the U.S.?

Maybe she came to America because she didn’t want to...you know...die?

Yes, and I can also find a list which has the states as having more deaths per 100,000 from cancer than Canada (which didn’t even make the top 16).  Note how our good friends the Brits and the French are on the list, and below the states.  Personally, I wouldn’t believe any of the two datasets… you can find pretty much anything on the web.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer

This is just one story.  I can also tell you that my mother died of breast cancer even after undergoing treatment in Seattle.  People both sides of the border die of cancer.. .I fail to see how one story somehow elucidates the true state of healthcare in either country.

The tone of the above quote really gets to me actually.  Is Canada really perceived by the US as a country of cavemen who just got running water?  I see that the middle part of the thread was spent trying to convince fangbeer and others that Canada does in fact contribute to world class research.  Well, yes it does.  In fact, if you look up the THES world university rankings, you’ll see McGill sitting pretty at #12, ahead of the likes of Stanford, UCLA etc… A bit off topic I admit, but perhaps this will help convince those doubters out there that we do have cutting edge research up here.

Please, fuck off with patronizing attitude… it will do us all some good.

...literally pages and pages of posts and reams of comments on this very subject here, and yet...?

See that section heading labeled “By Category” over there on the side, underneath all the ads?  See the blue links?  See the one that says “Sicko”?  Click. Read. Enjoy.

I suppose any attempt on my part to provide evidence of the problem will result in objections that my evidence is one-sided a la sicko, so I won’t even try.

So your answer to fangbeer’s question is “no”, then.

I’m interested to know (really, there is no sarcasm here) how an average american making 35k a year, pays for any sort of catastrophic illness.  Suppose John Doe, in his 30s, working as a (insert average job here), develops a type of cancer which is curable 95% of the time, but the treatment will cost a several tens of thousands of dollars.  What does he do?  Take out a loan?  His credit line isn’t that big and he has no house to borrow off of because he basically only makes ends meet.  Can he get treatment anyways, even if he can’t pay?  If he has dependents, what are they to do?  If he has health insurance, how much will it pay for?

Again, lots of articles & comments covering issues like this (hint: there’s even a recent one RIGHT THERE ON THE BLOODY FRONT PAGE, dated 11/28.  Several posts above this one. Pancreatitis? Potentially fatal? $12k worth of treatment and no insurance? Total out-of-pocket expenditure $100?  Hello?  Ring any bells? Anyone? Buehler?).

now just tell me that people are looked after

Consider yourself told.  Do some fall through the cracks? Certainly.  But it’s nowhere near, as you put it, “the majority of the population”.  If you’re going to make statements like that, then the burden of proof is upon you to back them up with facts.  If you aren’t up to the challenge, why expect anyone to take your comments seriously?

Certainly a problem isn’t it?

No actually I’d say that your assertion that 3/4 of our society doesn’t get advanced health care is pretty, well, ridiculous.  I think you figured that out once you went looking to try and back up that wild claim.

I see that the middle part of the thread was spent trying to convince fangbeer and others that Canada does in fact contribute to world class research.

Actually he was trying to convince us that a special type of treatment was developed in Canada, which he then needed to backpeddle on.  No one was arguing that Canada doesn’t contribute at least a little something.  Nice try though.

so I have no idea,

Well there’s a start.  Why don’t you, I don’t know, educate yourself before making wild assumptions like:  3/4 of America doesn’t get top of the line health care.

Yes, and I can also find a list which has the states as having more deaths per 100,000 from cancer than Canada (which didn’t even make the top 16)

Yeah, but we also have more total instances of cancer per capita then Canada.  This is a function of lifestyle choice, not the quality of our health care.  To simplify the math, let’s say you have 2 groups of 10 people. 6 of them get cancer in the first group and 3 of them get cancer in the second group.  If 2 people die in the first group, and 2 in the second, which group had the better success rate in terms of the care they received?

I never knew that 40 million was 3/4 of 300 million.

Though I may have 3/4 out of thin air, I am not a complete moron. The same study I quote earlier states that canada has a higher incidence of breast cancer thus contradicting the study you (or someone else) quoted that said that the US had a lower incidence of breast cancer.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_bre_can_inc-health-breast-cancer-incidence

Also, the previous link I posted showed the death rate for ALL cancers, not just breast. Why didn’t you make me eat my words on that account? In any case, I think I’ve shown that you can find contradictory information regarding breast cancer statistics on the web. fangbeer, I do appreciate the discussion we are having, but refrain from lecturing me in math… it’s not worth your time. Basing my research off of wikipedia and its links, I’ve seen that it is more on the order of 10% of Americans who are medically uninsured at any time. Much less that I had thought. Pretty good. What I was getting at with the 3/4’s was that new treatments/technologies are typically very expensive to undergo/use This funding which is earmarked as “medical funding” really doesn’t get to anyone at all (immediately,but takes years or decades), but it does provide jobs and boost the economy. For example, there are millions and millions of dollars being spent on “Lab on a Chip” techniques which have yet to hit the market. These will cut costs for treatment once they’re out there, but for the meantime that funding doesn’t cure anyone. By the same token there is a lot to be said gor investing in a technology… I think it shows great foresight. All I’m saying is that “medical funding” dollars don’t always mean what the title implies. Good for the guy with pancreatitis, very happy for him. Do all cities provide financial aid like this? I’m not trying to coax a ‘no’ out of anyone.

No one was arguing that Canada doesn’t contribute at least a little something.

I still detect a patronizing attitude. No, no one was arguing that, but it seemed manifest in the tone of the comments, including the one above. Looks like we’re both happy with our respective health care systems then. I think we can both agree that there is no way that Cuban healthcare is as good as shown in sicko… that part was laughable at best. I’m sure they did give those people free care though. In their eyes, sticking it to the Americans is well worth it!

so according to buzzion, it’s 13 and 1/3 %, not 10%.

I would still like to know how much a typical deductible or copayment is?

The guy with pancreatitis payed $100 out of pocket.  But say someone else has $12,000 in health bills and had insurance which covered it.  Presumably there is some sort of deductible he/she would need to pay, or a subscription fee?  Would the insured person pay less than the uninsured person?  I should hope so.  It would seem hardly fair otherwise.

The same study I quote earlier states that canada has a higher incidence of breast cancer thus contradicting the study you (or someone else) quoted that said that the US had a lower incidence of breast cancer.

?

How does a study showing that Canada has a higher incidence of breast cancer contradict a study that shows the U.S. with a lower incidence of breast cancer?

And I still don’t think you’re getting the point.  Now you’re comparing death rate for all cancer against incidence of breast cancer?  At least, that’s the only thing those two links you provided show.  And what am I to assume Canada’s numbers are since it’s not even listed in the death rate?

so according to buzzion, it’s 13 and 1/3 %, not 10%.

Buzzion’s 40 million is the number of people assumed to be uninsured.  It is quite easy to show that just because someone is uninsured, that does not mean they do not receive advanced treatment for illness.  Likewise, knowing that 260 million are insured is not evidence that they get top of the line care.  But I’m not the one that said a majority of Americans don’t have access to advanced health care.

I just was surfing nationmaster.

Clearly this would be evidence to both the Canadians and Americans that they need to do more.  They don’t even have a stinking parade.

Oohh another good one.

Check out the Canadian Sars track record.  43 deaths to our zero.  Maybe our 5k per capita is making sure we don’t die of Sars?

Now this is odd.

America isn’t listed for number of lung transplants.

Did we not perform any?

Yeah we kinda did.

I guess you can toss your assumptions about Canada not being on the cancer death list right out the window.

I realized that nation master was quoting 2002 data, and my link was 2005, so I went digging a little more.

There is an abundance of data here.

There were more lung transplants in California alone in 2002 (138) than in all of Canada according to Nation Master (112).

crichton

Ahhh, just when I get out, they pull me back in… looks like there was a lot of posting in my absence.

1. Let me know where I wrote that the US doesn’t spend enough on healthcare…
Just letting you know:
Canuck, eh
Basically, America’s ROI on healthcare spending is weak compared to other industrialized countries.

Just to let you know: ROI = Return on Investment, i.e. for the amount you invest, which is a lot more than us, you don’t seem to be getting the same back in terms of overall better care. Nothing there about not investing enough.

As far as Norway goes, the piece I wrote has tons of links that explain what’s happening to their healthcare system, where the monies are coming from and how many hospitals/medical centers are closing because their universal system is too expensive for the country that annually is considered to be one of the best places in the world to live (in spite of the taxes and suicide rates).

It had links explaining where the money comes from – taxes! A report on how to improve the system with both positive and negative advancements they have made – you limited your assessment of these to the negative. And a newspaper report about a survey conducted by the Taxpayers Association that discovered that people felt they were paying too many taxes – egad!

a) Find me a taxpayers association on the planet that doesn’t come to that conclusion. 
b) Find me citizens of a country that don’t complain about taxes from time to time.
c) Norway’s taxes do seem nutty to me.

It’s good to see that you admit that like Norway, you’re being taxed way too highly.

Once again, I never said that. How about you stick to writing your own opinions and stop trying to provide mine for me?

I have relatives that have gotten US citizenship to get out from under the massive taxes they were paying in the Western Provinces.  Now they don’t have to come to the US for surgery, they’re already here.

Kudos to them… Hope they are enjoying the warmer weather. Though it’s next to impossible to do a country-to-country comparison of taxation, across the board, it’s estimated there’s about a 5% difference between you and us. I’d be interested to know their experience.

As an interesting aside since I mentioned suicide, I also show on that thread that the highest rates of suicide in industrialized nations are in the countries with universal healthcare.

So what? Are you suggesting there’s even the slightest connection between the two??

And earlier you stated you have long wait times, long wait times in ER’s, long wait times for MRI’s, etc.  Isn’t that the definition of a system that’s not efficient and as effective as it should be.

Absolutely, that’s why we have instituted programs such as the Ontario Wait Times Strategy to deal with those problems. We spent a lot of time crowing about having universal access to care and not paying enough attention to keeping it in top shape. I can assure that is changing. Wait times in many areas are falling significantly. Nonetheless, time again, studies have shown we have more evenly distributed access to care, and personal wealth significantly affects in the US, where it has relatively no impact up here.

And lastly, out of the three major studies on DM, only the one you sited claims that it’s superior to X-rays, the other two studies say that it’s equal at best and MAY be better for certain sub-groups of women patients.  I guess if you like 1-2 odds over 2-1…

Now you’re just making stuff up. Show me the two studies you’re referring to and the results. And don’t count the REPORT that you referenced. Not only was it not really major, it wasn’t a study.

I love this line in your story: “But more evidence is needed to confirm these potential benefits.”

How about the results of a multi-national study that looked at 50,000 women and released its results just after this report?

Don’t you see that you are suggesting there is a linear relationship between dollar amount and care?  You said that you can’t put a price on the value of someone’s health.  If the value of life is immeasurable, how can the value of health care be measurable in terms of dollar amounts?

As I stated in the outset, I was using the comparison of dollars spent to appeal to the bean counters in the crowd who feel that a private system of health care is a more efficient way of delivering care. I’m not putting a price on health, but all things being equal, and one system is cheaper, which route do you take?

“Canadian health care has many well-publicized limitations. Nevertheless, it produces health benefits similar, or perhaps superior, to those of the US health system, but at a much lower cost. Canada’s single-payer system for physician and hospital care yields large administrative efficiencies in comparison with the American multi-payer model.

…Policy debates and decisions regarding the direction of health care in both Canada and the United States should consider the results of our systematic review: Canada’s single-payer system, which relies on not-for-profit delivery, achieves health outcomes that are at least equal to those in the United States at two-thirds the cost.”
Article

Beyond that you are comparing the amount the American government spends on health care as a measure of a health system that is not completely paid for by the American government.  The average consumer isn’t anywhere near as wasteful as the American government when it comes to spending on health care.  Just because Medicare shells out $150 dollars for band aids and cue tips that does not mean that consumer based health care is inefficient.  In fact, if you want to make the system more efficient, take a better look at the stupid crap the American government is spending money on....

The opposite of the smart thing to do would be to give them control of all health care spending.  That would be like making the hole in your sinking boat larger with the hope that a lighter boat might float a little better.

From what it sounds like to me, the fault lies with poor government then, not socialized medicine. Why not fix that system? And I’m getting the sense that you would prefer even less government influence in health care, yes? What is you solution for caring for those average consumers who don’t have the money to make wise healthcare spending decisions?

your system doesn’t deliver these advances equally to all of its citizens.

Based on what evidence?

Everyone in this country who needs care has that care available to them.

United Nations Human Development Report 2005: “Unequal access to healthcare has a powerful effect on health inequalities linked to race, which are only partly explained by insurance and income inequalities. One study finds that eliminating the gap in healthcare between African Americans and white Americans would save nearly 85,000 lives a year. To put this figure in context, technological improvements in medicine save about 20,000 lives a year.

The comparison highlights a paradox at the heart of the US health system. High levels of personal healthcare spending reflect the country’s cutting-edge medical technology and treatment. Yet social inequalities, interacting with inequalities in health financing, limit the reach of medical advance.”
Report

“Health disparities on the basis of race, income, and immigrant status are present in both countries, but appear to be more pronounced in the United States.”
Study

“Consistent with extensive research and findings in previous NHDRs, the 2005 report finds that disparities related to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status still pervade the American health care system. While varying in magnitude by condition and population, disparities are observed in almost all aspects of health care, including:

- Across all dimensions of quality of health care including effectiveness, patient safety, timeliness, and patient centeredness…”
Full Report

Case in point, When my brother was born they gave him a 50 50 shot that he was going to last just a few weeks.  ….  This was back in the 80’s and I’m sure that his bills were way in excess of a million dollars.  My dad, the sole source of family income at the time was making about 30k dollars a year.
My brother is fine now, by the way.
Though he is a bit of a dork.
And our family’s not exactly begging on the streets for spare change to cover the tab.
But even if we were .... would it be such a bad thing if it meant that he could live?

See, this is my opportunity to not only argue with you guys, but learn something about your system. In the States, when a family can’t cover their medical expenses, who steps in? We hear a lot about personal bankruptcy stories up here, but that doesn’t seem to have happened in your family’s case. How did those million dollar medical bills get paid? Were they covered through private insurance?

Glad to hear your brother is fine – a dork – but alive.

Actually he was trying to convince us that a special type of treatment was developed in Canada, which he then needed to backpeddle on.  No one was arguing that Canada doesn’t contribute at least a little something.  Nice try though.

Nice jab. Shame that’s all you managed to get from my posts…

“Trying to convince…” as in writing something in passing and then clarifying it my next post? See above post to better understand when I’m trying to convince you of something.