Wellbutrin side effects. Wellbutrin weight loss….

Cheap zolpidem. Zolpidem tartrate. Ppurchase zolpidem. Zolpidem….

Something no doubt many Americans reading this aren’t going to register because it simply will never occur to them to pay attention to this little detail:

They’re complaining that the Canadian system under-performs compared to EUROPEAN systems. They are NOT complaining that it under-performs compared to the American system, which would be insane since the Canadian system clearly outperforms the one in the US.

And Pingry: You might be interested in another little fact that I find shockingly few Americans have any clue about considering the fact that health care is
such a prominent subject of debate:

US public (as in tax) spending on health care: 6.85% of GDP
Canadian public spending on health care: 6.95% of GDP

(As of 2005 at least, latest figures available from the OECD online database)

For one thing, Canadians actually only pay marginally higher taxes than Americans. for another, it isn’t because of their health care system, which consumes about the same proportion of government spending as the US already spends on IT’S system, but delivers, obviously, far more value for the money. what higher taxes exist are for other social services. Oh, and the fact that Canadians prefer balanced budgets (they were running budget surpluses and paying down the national debt for 12 years straight before the global recession hit) to constant irresponsible pandering tax cuts.

So, no… it’s not safe to say tax increases are necessary if the US were to enact an actual, real, single payer universal coverage model. At least not any tax increases of any significant size. If the US were to do so the negotiating ability of Medicare (let’s just cal the new system “medicare” expanded to the entire population) would wield ENORMOUS negotiating leverage and a corresponding ability to get prices for services back under control again. That represents massive cost savings by itself. It would be operating in a far larger risk pool, which always makes insurance operate with greater efficiency as it’s ability to mitigate risk due to point failures increases, and it would allow the kinds of large scale administrative savings that a “public option” simply cannot achieve… further extending the ability to reduce cost for services. How the heck does a care provider see any administrative overhead reductions if they go from dealing with 1500 private insurers plus medicare… to dealing with 1500 private insurers plus medicare plus whatever the public option is? They don’t. It’s worthless to them.

Although to be blunt, tax rates are too low in the US considering the fact that they’ve been fighting military conflicts in two countries for the last 8 years and have been running massive budget deficits and they should be raised anyway… but screaming whining children who erupt into near riot just from hearing the words “tax increase” in the States make that a political minefield no matter how good for the nation it is. But, different debate.

Cheers: it is ridiculously self evident that health care most certainly does not behave like any other market. The profit motives are all upside down and backward for one thing.

If I’m selling… let’s say cars… what does my ideal customer look like? First of all, they drive a lot. They NEED my product. And they will use it often, which translates to more service providing replacement parts and maintenance on top of the fact that they recognize that it is worth paying me for the car in the first place. and this is all a GOOD thing for me. I get individually compensated for meeting every single one of those needs. So I am going to gear my efforts towards providing the segment of the population with the greatest need for my product with what they are looking for, because that’s in my own best business interest. I make a good profit, society gets it’s needs met, everyone is relatively happy, nation ticks along relatively well. Hurray, the system works.

If I’m selling health insurance what does my ideal customer look like? Someone who USES health insurance a lot? Someone who is even likely to in the future? *Hell no*. Because they do NOT make me more money. They COST me more money… in direct proportion to how much services they use. So where is my motive to gear my business towards meeting the greatest needs of society in my business sector? It simply does not exist. My profit motive is in the opposite direction. I want to sell my services to the people who need them LEAST while doing everything in my power to avoid having the people who need my services most as my customers.

You will never, EVER, find any company providing any regular old consumer good employing an entire department of lawyers whose job is to try to figure out ways to wriggle out of a contractual obligation to deliver the services they’re selling to the people who most need their product. Ever. Because that would be **insane** in the market for any regular commodity. But it makes perfect business sense to a private insurer because that market is NOTHING like the market for most other things.

The private sector, to put it bluntly, sucks at providing insurance. It is very very good at making a profit doing it, but not by utilizing any business model that optimizes the benefit to society gained by their operating within that society. Government is far better geared towards providing insurance than the free market is if the goal of having the insurance exist in the first place is supposed to be to maximize the security of the society it is being provided to.

If on the other hand the only purpose you see for insurance is to create a mind bogglingly profitable insurance industry and the welfare of sick people simply isn’t a priority in your decision making… well, then the free market is your go to system.

Perhaps there's an inverse relation between quality of healthcare and life expectancy. Perhaps having a health care system where getting treatment is relatively easy is a moral hazard that encourages dangerous behavior.

Some day, perhaps, we will meet and I can give you a quick free lesson in how to read.

I agreed with you about the free market, you seemed to have missed that.

Then I presented my ideas on why I posted the link, which was to present the idea that healthcare aka English style was going to include gatekeepers. Then I offered my opinion that gatekeepers aren't a good idea.

And, of course I presented et.al. with the understanding that gatekeepers and gatekeeping (based strictly on the gatekeeper's arbitrary decisions) in health care is a uniquely socialistic idea.

Now most intelligent people understand that all socialistic ideas are bad, inherently bad, because they are socialistic.

See what a wonderful thing communication is?

THEY DO.

SEE ENGLAND

They don't do that anywhere else, but point taken.

They will plan our meals, monitor the air around our heads, make us have regular bowel movements, perform a blood test before sex, and then when we start to die, Bill Frisk will hook us up to life support and Dick Cheney can hit us with the electric cattle prod every once in a while to see if we can still twitch.

Doctor says to get more exercise and change your diet, and you don't do it, you get punished.
Doctor says quit smoking and drinking, you don't do it you get forced rehab.

All preventable illnesses will be cured!

Complete non sequitur. The article is not a comparison of expenditures; it's a comparison of value.

Canadians are getting ripped off at 10%, since other countries do better than Canada at lower percentages of GDP.

Since you undoubtedly already know that, this would be a great opportunity for you to explore why you need to resort to deception and deflection to make your case. Why are you so dishonest? If your arguments are all lies, is is any wonder that your policies are perceived as theft?

That we pay more for care means nothing without a comparison of quality. It could be as simple as Canadians not having sufficient personal incomes, to pay for the care they'd like to buy, after paying for the care they're required to buy.

Most folks who can afford it, have US medical insurance if something serious happens. They would get private insurance in Canada but that's against the law. Because in a society where all is equal and just, it's plain unfair for one person to die while waiting in line and another to live.

Wait times are only the beginning.

The entire system is run pretty much like a government agency. In Montreal a man walked into the emergency room with chest pains, was told to go out and call 911. The guy walked out and died just outside the hospital.

It turns out that amidst all the magic of universal heath care the rationing continues:

Old people can only see their doctors a limited time per year. Should you happen not to feel well at the wrong time of year, your cardiologist will tell you to "go to the emergency room".

Then you have to try to find a doctor.

The law limits the amount of patients a doctor can see. Two thing result from this:

A. It is very difficult to get seen by doctors still living here.

B. We're losing doctors.

Most kids worth their salt finishing med school pick up and leave for the greener pastures of The U.S. where they make several times more money than they would up here. So the number of doctors is dwindling and those who are left tend to be older who don't want to leave their elderly parents and the like.

Also, The ones that do remain, are not as good as doctors elsewhere and they have zero incentive to be any better because their income will remain identical. So both quantity and quality are affected.

Of course the solution for all this is simple: Extend wait times and let the fittest survive.

Surprising what you assume, Gil. I linked but did not give an opinion.

Essentially I think that your old drunk, if he can afford it, should receive the care he can pay for; and conversely I think the smoker who can't pay for his treatment should be buried by his family and sad words spoken over his inability to support his habit, his sickness, and any treatment.

You see, we aren't so far off, so far.

Where we differ is on the gatekeepers.

The gatekeepers want to shut the gate on those that can afford and those who can not afford indiscriminately, and then to ration treatment as they see fit.

You bet your ass, Gil, that the gatekeepers will never be deemed "unworthy" of treatment and therein lies the abuse that inevitably arises in any system where someone decides for others what they will have or will not have.

OOOOOOH, its great to be in with the in crowd!" Seems like a good song in there, eh?

If the NHS has gone ahead and implemented the concept of ignoring the unworthy and reserving the treatment for the worthy, it would be interesting to see over the last year if any of your house of Lords, or of the commons, ever are deemed unworthy, and certainly to check and see how your aristocrats stack up on the worthy/unworthy scale.

The crux of the matter, Gil, is that decision maker of worthy/unworthy won't be you or your wallet. That crux of the matter is the simple reason we intelligent people hate socialism and it evangelicals as much as we do.

"The USA spends 15% of our GDP on health care while Canada spends 10%. So I guess somehow that makes Canada less efficient then us???"

Only you could make such a declaration.

I'm not the one who's arguing 10 is more the 15. I'm not the one uncomfortable with the facts.

Hosts made it clear that troll doesn't have anything useful to say. Doesn't the troll have no shame?

Look how the troll started infesting a new thread, as soon as some uncomfortable questions were asked of him in another thread.

The way troll ended his comment gives you the impression that he is not interested in any of this, then I wonder why he is so obsessed with this blog.

The USA spends 15% of our GDP on health care while Canada spends 10%. So I guess somehow that makes Canada less efficient then us??? No they are just one of the least efficient countries that HAS universal health care. Most are even less expensive.

But of course people are posting what a disaster it will be for us to have universal health care because of the cost. No care is given for the facts but bringing them up is obviously trolling. Whatever….

Do you think ending the war on drugs will stop criminal violence on the streets? Will that help send the numbers higher?

U.S.A has a wider genetic mix of people than Canada.