Thousands flee Canada to US for health care.

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_krose
_Emeritus
Posts: 2555
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:18 pm

Re: Thousands flee Canada to US for health care.

Post by _krose »

Droopy wrote:... bureaucrats, not doctors, making health decisions, including who gets treatment and who does not...

You really think it's doctors who make all the decisions? Maybe you haven't experienced insurance company bureaucrats telling doctors who gets treatment and who doesn't, as well as what kind. That's how the system currently works.

The "death panels" that conservatives warned of and which leftists dismissed as hysteria are now known to indeed by [sic] a part of Obamacare, as is the case with other similar systems.

CFR. Please point out the part in the ACA bill where 'death panels' were created.

I'll help. You can find it here:
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ppaca-consolidated.pdf
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Thousands flee Canada to US for health care.

Post by _EAllusion »

The Fraser Institute is nonpartisan. Do you know what nonpartisan means? It's as nonpartisan as, say, the Brookings Institution. Ideological leanings does not = partisanship. Sometimes, that calls for the opposite.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Thousands flee Canada to US for health care.

Post by _EAllusion »

Droopy wrote:
That price


Kinda. Socialized systems tend to not do well with very expensive, very serious ailments compared to the US if you can afford it. If you get life-threatening cancer and are insured or rich, the US is the place to be and that is no coincidence. Our system encourages rapid innovation and the existence of high end service options. We dominate the cutting edge in medicine. More routine stuff tends to be more efficiently delivered in the main socialized systems both in terms of cost and availability than in the US, though. Like, way better, in many cases. Our per capita costs and health outcomes absolutely pale compared to those systems on the whole, in fact.
and the really creepy aspect of the system - bureaucrats, not doctors, making health decisions, including who gets treatment and who does not in a system that is always critically short of resources


Do you have health insurance? Are you at all familiar with it? You seem to oblivious that this is going on right now in the US in a more cutthroat, but ironically less efficient way than socialized counterparts. I blame this on the public-private monstrosity we've created through policy incentives, but you're off in la-la land if you think we're spared it.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Thousands flee Canada to US for health care.

Post by _Kevin Graham »

EAllusion wrote:The Fraser Institute is nonpartisan. Do you know what nonpartisan means? It's as nonpartisan as, say, the Brookings Institution. Ideological leanings does not = partisanship. Sometimes, that calls for the opposite.


The definition of partisan:

1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

2. military partisan

3. is of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.: partisan politics.

Synonyms
1. See follower. 3. biased, prejudiced.


Fraser was founded in part by Friedrich Hayek, which explains why Droopy loves it so much. Further, it is bankrolled by the usual Right Wing donors, such as the Koch brothers. When people use the term nonpartisan they love to imply some sense of objectivity and unbiased analysis based strictly on empirical analysis, which is ridiculous in this case. Fraser is a joke of a think tank in the sense that it is almost always doing the bidding of their corporate masters.

For example Fraser was producing hit pieces attacking scientific studies proving the health dangers of second hand smoke. Why? Because that is what their donor, Philip Morris, demanded of them. Likewise, they're coming up with a ridiculous "study" claiming Canadians are "fleeing" to the USA for health care when the facts suggest no such thing. The agenda is always anti-government and pro-industry, and the industry they are protecting depends on which industry is giving them money at the time.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Thousands flee Canada to US for health care.

Post by _Kevin Graham »

This is from the Physicians for a National Health Program: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/june/5-my ... are-system

The truth may surprise you about international health care

By Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., M.S.
AARP Newsletter, April 16, 2012

How does the U.S. health care system stack up against Canada’s? You’ve probably heard allegedly true horror stories about the Canadian system — like 340-day waits for knee replacement surgery, for example.

To separate fact from fiction, Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., the director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research in Indianapolis, identified the top myths about the two health care systems.

Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care.

How many times have you heard that Canadians, frustrated by long wait times and rationing where they live, come to the United States for medical care?

I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening.

The most comprehensive study I’ve seen on this topic — it employed three different methodologies, all with solid rationales behind them — was published in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs.

The authors of the study started by surveying 136 ambulatory care facilities near the U.S.-Canada border in Michigan, New York and Washington. It makes sense that Canadians crossing the border for care would favor places close by, right? It turns out, however, that about 80 percent of such facilities saw, on average, fewer than one Canadian per month; about 40 percent had seen none in the preceding year.

Then, the researchers looked at how many Canadians were discharged over a five-year period from acute-care hospitals in the same three states. They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care.

Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care.

Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care.

Myth #3: Canada rations health care; that’s why hip replacements and cataract surgeries happen faster in the United States.

When people want to demonize Canada’s health care system — and other single-payer systems, for that matter — they always end up going after rationing, and often hip replacements in particular.

Take Republican Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, for example. A couple of years ago he took to the House floor to tell his colleagues:

“I just hit 62, and I was just reading that in Canada [if] I got a bad hip I wouldn’t be able to get that hip replacement that [Rep. Dan Lungren] got, because I’m too old! I’m an old geezer now and it’s not worth a government bureaucrat to pay me to get my hip fixed.”

Sigh.

This has been debunked so often, it’s tiring. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for example, concluded: “At least 63 percent of hip replacements performed in Canada last year [2008] ... were on patients age 65 or older.” And more than 1,500 of those, it turned out, were on patients over 85.

The bottom line: Canada doesn’t deny hip replacements to older people.

But there’s more.

Know who gets most of the hip replacements in the United States? Older people.

Know who pays for care for older people in the United States? Medicare.

Know what Medicare is? A single-payer system.

Myth #4: Canada has long wait times because it has a single-payer system.

The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system.

Wait times aren’t like cancer. We know what causes wait times; we know how to fix them. Spend more money.

Our single-payer system, which is called Medicare (see above), manages not to have the “wait times” issue that Canada’s does. There must, therefore, be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course. It’s this:

In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.

Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.

Yes, they chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, they attack the system.

Myth #5: Canada rations health care; the United States doesn’t.

This one’s a little bit tricky. The truth is, Canada may “ration” by making people wait for some things, but here in the United States we also “ration” — by cost.

An 11-country survey carried out in 2010 by the Commonwealth Fund, a Washington-based health policy foundation, found that adults in the United States are by far the most likely to go without care because of cost. In fact, 42 percent of the Americans surveyed did not express confidence that they would be able to afford health care if seriously ill.

Further, about a third of the Americans surveyed reported that, in the preceding year, they didn’t go to the doctor when sick, didn’t get recommended care when needed, didn’t fill a prescription or skipped doses of medications because of cost.

Finally, about one in five of the Americans surveyed had struggled to pay or were unable to pay their medical bills in the preceding year. That was more than twice the percentage found in any of the other 10 countries.

And remember: We’re spending way more on health care than any other country, and for all that money we’re getting at best middling results.

So feel free to have a discussion about the relative merits of the U.S. and Canadian health care systems. Just stick to the facts.

Here is another study produced by the American Medical Student Association: http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Libraries/Comm ... .sflb.ashx
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Thousands flee Canada to US for health care.

Post by _EAllusion »

Kevin Graham wrote:Fraser was founded in part by Friedrich Hayek, which explains why Droopy loves it so much.


I like Hayek too. So? Are only think tanks founded by robots with no political opinions allowed the label nonpartisan? Partisan think tanks are those that have an association with a particular political group. They exist. In context, that's definition #3 that you provided. Those that do not are called nonpartisan. That's common parlance. Brookings is frequently referred to as nonpartisan, rightly, even though it is the liberal equivalent of CATO or Heritage. Think tanks dedicated to political policy almost invariably have some ideological bent.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Thousands flee Canada to US for health care.

Post by _Kevin Graham »

By definition it is partisan because it clearly follows a philosophical agenda that is political in nature. I only mentioned Hayek and the Koch brothers to drive home the point that we're really just talking about another wing of the far right propaganda machine. You don't have to be an official member of a political party to be considered partisan. The whole purpose of claiming to be nonpartisan is to imply objectivity.

But semantics aside, it is clear that the Fraser Institute produces highly biased "studies" that have traditionally been designed to support whatever industry is funding them at the time. And there is nothing in the study mentioned above that would support the conclusion that Canadians are "fleeing" to the USA for health care.

In fact, given that the bulk of Canada's population is within an hour's driving distance to the US border, you'd expect virtually all of them to be coming here for health care if their Health Care system were nearly as bad as the Right Wingers lead us to believe.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Thousands flee Canada to US for health care.

Post by _EAllusion »

I know "Koch Brothers!" has matured in to the liberal equivalent of when conservatives used to freak out at the name George Soros. The way it is used to short circuit analysis is embarrassing in either case.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Thousands flee Canada to US for health care.

Post by _EAllusion »

Kevin Graham wrote:By definition it is partisan because it clearly follows a philosophical agenda that is political in nature.


Think tanks are normally labeled partisan or nonpartisan based on whether the are affiliated with a particular political group. It's accurate to label Brookings nonpartisan in this context. Heritage can be called partisan because it is so clearly in the bag for the Republican party. But not all think tanks with an point of view line up with parties so neatly. CATO, also conservative in a sense, isn't aligned with any particular party in so neat a way.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Thousands flee Canada to US for health care.

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Well I wouldn't consider Brookings nonpartisan either. How about we change terminology here. Fraser is agenda driven. It is biased. That "study" it produced was two pages of fluff, none of which supported the conclusion that Canadians were going to the USA for the purpose of receiving health care. All it did was add up numbers from a survey which asked a simple question “Approximately what percentage of your patients received non-emergency medical treatment in the past 12 months outside Canada?”

That's it. It doesn't ask a follow up question such as "What percentage of them went outside Canada for the purpose of receiving health care?"

Even in its conclusion it doesn't support the title of the "study," which asserts "Leaving Canada for Medical Care 2011." Instead this is what the conclusion states:

In 2011, an estimated 46,159 Canadians received nonemergency medical treatment outside Canada.


No indication as to how many of these people left the country for that purpose. How many of them were on business trips when they had an accident? How many of them were touring America when injured? It doesn't say. It just leaves it to the imagination to conclude that this number says something about Canada's horrible health care system. The next assertion is:

In some cases, these patients needed to leave Canada due to a lack of available resources or a lack of appropriate procedure/technology.


:lol: In "some" cases? Well how many is "some"? Two, three, four, thirteen? What kind of "empirical study" fails to provide that crucial information?

In others, their departure will have been driven by a desire to return
more quickly to their lives, to seek out superior quality care, or
perhaps to save their own lives or avoid the risk of disability.


Again, no solid numbers are provided here except the overall number of Canadians receiving medical care outside Canada. We're just told that "some" of them probably left for reasons relating to Canada's horrible system, even though it is not clear how this study can conclude even that such since they relied on no survey information about this point.

Clearly, the number of Canadians who ultimately receive their
medical care in other countries is not insignificant.


LOL!

Well that isn't "clear" at all. How is it "significant"? It clearly wants us to interpret this to mean Canada's system is so horrible that Canadians are fleeing the country when sick, but in reality it has provided no evidence to support this. Instead, it just throws out these assertions about how "some" people leave for the purpose of receiving medical care. There is no study or analysis explaining how many of these people left for the purpose of receiving medical attention. Nothing to indicate how many of them were Canadians traveling to America as tourists, visiting family, or on business trips, who happened to need medical attention while they were away. Nor is there any comparison to the number of Americans receiving medical attention outside the USA.
Post Reply