Nissan Titan Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,278 Posts
So what now? Free rectal exams for life as compensation, lol.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,154 Posts
37Ll said:
wouldnt you love that
Get a life loser...........:bye: :bye: :bye: :fu: :fu: :fu:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
92,269 Posts
Could have been worse. At least they didn't amputate anything by mistake.......

And Papa, time to switch to decaf.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,510 Posts
Well it was fun while he did it. Now start saving!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Let this be a lesson to everyone. When you hear politicians (Mostly Democrats) talk about "free healthcare for everyone" this is what you can expect. You DO NOT want government provided healthcare!

Talk to anyone who has lived in another country and ask them how their "free healthcare" compares to America's healthcare.

:soap:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
TexTheTitan said:
Let this be a lesson to everyone. When you hear politicians (Mostly Democrats) talk about "free healthcare for everyone" this is what you can expect. You DO NOT want government provided healthcare!

Talk to anyone who has lived in another country and ask them how their "free healthcare" compares to America's healthcare.

:soap:
from: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa011&articleID=53B61670-E7F2-99DF-3E9FD5664899BF24

May 03, 2007

We're Number Two: Canada Has as Good or Better Health Care than the U.S.

Despite spending half what the U.S. does on health care, Canada doesn't appear to be any worse at looking after the health of its citizens

By Christopher Mims

The relative merits of the U.S. versus Canadian health care systems are often cast in terms of anecdotes: whether it is American senior citizens driving into Canada in order to buy cheap prescription drugs or Canadians coming to the U.S. for surgery in order to avoid long wait times. Both systems are beset by ballooning costs and, especially with a presidential election on the horizon, calls for reform, but a recent study could put ammunition in the hands of people who believe it is time the U.S. ceased to be the only developed nation without universal health coverage.

Gordon H. Guyatt, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who coined the term "evidence-based medicine," collaborated with 16 of his colleagues in an exhaustive survey of existing studies on the outcomes of various medical procedures in both the U.S. and Canada. Their work appears in the inaugural issue of the new Canadian journal Open Medicine, and comes at a time when many in Canada are debating whether or not to move that country's single-payer system toward for-profit delivery of care. The ultimate conclusion of the study is that the Canadian medical system is as good as the U.S. version, at least when measured by a single metric—the rate at which patients in either system died.

"Other people knew that Canadians live two to two and a half years longer than Americans," says Steffie Woolhandler, an author on the paper and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, citing a phenomenon that many attribute to differences in lifestyle between the two countries. "But what was not known was once you got sick, was the quality of care equivalent in the two countries."

Americans Less Likely to Survive Treatment

According to Woolhandler, by looking at already ill patients, the researchers eliminated any Canadian lifestyle advantage and just examined the degree to which the two systems affected patient deaths. (Mortality was the one kind of data they could extract from a disparate pool of 38 papers examining everything from kidney failure to rheumatoid arthritis.)

Overall, the results favored Canadians, who were 5 percent less likely than Americans to die in the course of treatment. Some disorders, such as kidney failure, favored Canadians more strongly than Americans, whereas others, such as hip fracture, had slightly better outcomes in the U.S. than in Canada. Of the 38 studies the authors surveyed, which were winnowed down from a pool of thousands, 14 favored Canada, five the U.S., and 19 yielded mixed results.

Mortality Isn't the Only Measure That Matters

Not all experts agree with the implication that the Canadian system is better than the U.S. system, however, or with the researchers' methodology. Vivian Ho, who is the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy chair in health economics at Rice University in Houston and has spent time living and conducting research in both the U.S. and Canada, argues that the study's focus on mortality could be misleading.

"When we look at health systems we look at other things than death," Ho explains. In her own research on hip fracture, which was cited in Guyatt's study, she found that the time a patient had to wait before surgery—which was significantly longer in Canada than the U.S. because of a shortage of operating rooms—made only a 1 percent difference in terms of mortality.

"But certainly if you ask people waiting in the hospital," Ho notes, "They're going to say I'd rather have the U.S. system…. Waiting means there's a significant amount of distress for an elderly patient, and also higher complications for pneumonia because you have the patient immobile for so long."

Patti Groome, an epidemiologist at Queens University Cancer Research Institute in Kingston, Ontario, said she believes that overall the paper was balanced. "But when you get into [the] meat of [the] paper they can't sort out what's going on…. There's way too much heterogeneity in these studies to come to a conclusion about these systems." In meta-analyses such as this one, "heterogeneity" in results corresponds to variations in the size of an effect across the studies being reviewed.

In other words, of the studies surveyed, some showed slightly better outcomes for the Canadian system and some showed slightly better outcomes for the U.S. approach, making it hard to draw any conclusion other than that, on balance, the two systems seem to yield only slightly different outcomes.

Money Doesn't Necessarily Buy Health

The study's authors highlight the fact that per capita spending on health care is 89 percent higher in the U.S. than in Canada. "One thing that people generally know is that the administration costs are much higher in the U.S.," Groome notes. Indeed, one study by Woolhandler published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2003 found that 31 percent of spending on health care in the U.S. went to administrative costs, whereas Canada spent only 17 percent on the same functions.

Ho believes, however, that there are also inefficiencies in the Canadian system. In her own work on hip fracture, she found that Canadian hospitals held patients for longer periods because there was no incentive to discharge them. "These patients are easier to take care of," she explains, "and that helps [hospital administrators] justify their budget…. I think there is room for economic incentives [in the Canadian system]."

"Personally," Ho adds, "my view is that the Canadian system is good for Canada and the American system is good for America. Neither side should switch, because the systems are a function of the population—the Canadian population believes much more in maintaining social safety nets."

This research may already be having an impact on policy debate: According to Woolhandler, Ohio democratic congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has plans to circulate the results of this study to Congress. Woolhandler herself would like to see this study play a part in a slightly different debate—one over whether it it is better to be sick and insured in the U.S. or in Canada. "I'd like to see politicians giving up on this mythology that the quality of care for sick people in the U.S. is unique."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Orange Crush said:
from: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa011&articleID=53B61670-E7F2-99DF-3E9FD5664899BF24

May 03, 2007

We're Number Two: Canada Has as Good or Better Health Care than the U.S.
OK, I'm not going to get into a Titan Talk Pissing match over politics because it's useless to try and prove a point through a forum. (I think someone referred to it as an E-Penis)

I would imagine that a website called "Scientific American" would have pretty liberal leanings. And after browsing their site for a few minutes, I was proven right. Several articles about Global Warming, New Powerful Stem Cells and an article titled, "Bush's Mistake and Kennedy's Error" lead me to believe that most of these readers will be voting for Clinton or Obama in November '08. And like I said, it's mostly democrats that push socialized medicine. So your article didn't do much to change my mind, or hopefully anyone else's

We can read articles all day long and debate over these things based on our readings. But when it comes down to it, you need to get this information straight from the horse's mouth. Ask a Canadian or European how they view their healthcare system after participating in ours. That last part is very important. If they have no experience with ours, they will have no frame of reference.

I love America and am insanely proud to call myself an American! It's awesome that we can debate stuff like this without the fear of being put in jail or even killed. With that said, our government hasn't really impressed me with the way they run things. If they can't even operate a DMV office in an efficient manner, why would we want them running our entire healthcare system?

*NOTE: When I spell checked this post, the only thing that came up was 'Obama' The suggested word was 'Osama' (I guess that kind of makes sense since his middle name is Hussein) :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
Orange Crush said:
from: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa011&articleID=53B61670-E7F2-99DF-3E9FD5664899BF24

May 03, 2007

We're Number Two: Canada Has as Good or Better Health Care than the U.S.

Despite spending half what the U.S. does on health care, Canada doesn't appear to be any worse at looking after the health of its citizens

By Christopher Mims

The relative merits of the U.S. versus Canadian health care systems are often cast in terms of anecdotes: whether it is American senior citizens driving into Canada in order to buy cheap prescription drugs or Canadians coming to the U.S. for surgery in order to avoid long wait times. Both systems are beset by ballooning costs and, especially with a presidential election on the horizon, calls for reform, but a recent study could put ammunition in the hands of people who believe it is time the U.S. ceased to be the only developed nation without universal health coverage.

Gordon H. Guyatt, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who coined the term "evidence-based medicine," collaborated with 16 of his colleagues in an exhaustive survey of existing studies on the outcomes of various medical procedures in both the U.S. and Canada. Their work appears in the inaugural issue of the new Canadian journal Open Medicine, and comes at a time when many in Canada are debating whether or not to move that country's single-payer system toward for-profit delivery of care. The ultimate conclusion of the study is that the Canadian medical system is as good as the U.S. version, at least when measured by a single metric—the rate at which patients in either system died.

"Other people knew that Canadians live two to two and a half years longer than Americans," says Steffie Woolhandler, an author on the paper and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, citing a phenomenon that many attribute to differences in lifestyle between the two countries. "But what was not known was once you got sick, was the quality of care equivalent in the two countries."

Americans Less Likely to Survive Treatment

According to Woolhandler, by looking at already ill patients, the researchers eliminated any Canadian lifestyle advantage and just examined the degree to which the two systems affected patient deaths. (Mortality was the one kind of data they could extract from a disparate pool of 38 papers examining everything from kidney failure to rheumatoid arthritis.)

Overall, the results favored Canadians, who were 5 percent less likely than Americans to die in the course of treatment. Some disorders, such as kidney failure, favored Canadians more strongly than Americans, whereas others, such as hip fracture, had slightly better outcomes in the U.S. than in Canada. Of the 38 studies the authors surveyed, which were winnowed down from a pool of thousands, 14 favored Canada, five the U.S., and 19 yielded mixed results.

Mortality Isn't the Only Measure That Matters

Not all experts agree with the implication that the Canadian system is better than the U.S. system, however, or with the researchers' methodology. Vivian Ho, who is the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy chair in health economics at Rice University in Houston and has spent time living and conducting research in both the U.S. and Canada, argues that the study's focus on mortality could be misleading.

"When we look at health systems we look at other things than death," Ho explains. In her own research on hip fracture, which was cited in Guyatt's study, she found that the time a patient had to wait before surgery—which was significantly longer in Canada than the U.S. because of a shortage of operating rooms—made only a 1 percent difference in terms of mortality.

"But certainly if you ask people waiting in the hospital," Ho notes, "They're going to say I'd rather have the U.S. system…. Waiting means there's a significant amount of distress for an elderly patient, and also higher complications for pneumonia because you have the patient immobile for so long."

Patti Groome, an epidemiologist at Queens University Cancer Research Institute in Kingston, Ontario, said she believes that overall the paper was balanced. "But when you get into [the] meat of [the] paper they can't sort out what's going on…. There's way too much heterogeneity in these studies to come to a conclusion about these systems." In meta-analyses such as this one, "heterogeneity" in results corresponds to variations in the size of an effect across the studies being reviewed.

In other words, of the studies surveyed, some showed slightly better outcomes for the Canadian system and some showed slightly better outcomes for the U.S. approach, making it hard to draw any conclusion other than that, on balance, the two systems seem to yield only slightly different outcomes.

Money Doesn't Necessarily Buy Health

The study's authors highlight the fact that per capita spending on health care is 89 percent higher in the U.S. than in Canada. "One thing that people generally know is that the administration costs are much higher in the U.S.," Groome notes. Indeed, one study by Woolhandler published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2003 found that 31 percent of spending on health care in the U.S. went to administrative costs, whereas Canada spent only 17 percent on the same functions.

Ho believes, however, that there are also inefficiencies in the Canadian system. In her own work on hip fracture, she found that Canadian hospitals held patients for longer periods because there was no incentive to discharge them. "These patients are easier to take care of," she explains, "and that helps [hospital administrators] justify their budget…. I think there is room for economic incentives [in the Canadian system]."

"Personally," Ho adds, "my view is that the Canadian system is good for Canada and the American system is good for America. Neither side should switch, because the systems are a function of the population—the Canadian population believes much more in maintaining social safety nets."

This research may already be having an impact on policy debate: According to Woolhandler, Ohio democratic congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has plans to circulate the results of this study to Congress. Woolhandler herself would like to see this study play a part in a slightly different debate—one over whether it it is better to be sick and insured in the U.S. or in Canada. "I'd like to see politicians giving up on this mythology that the quality of care for sick people in the U.S. is unique."
Why do all of my wife's Canadian relatives come to the U.S. for their health care? I have a English friend, that her mom and dad, both died while waiting on needed surgeries, they were over 60, so were put on a long waiting list, 2 years or more. They were told that if they felt that they couldn't wait that long, that they could go to the U.S.A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
TexTheTitan said:
OK, I'm not going to get into a Titan Talk Pissing match over politics because it's useless to try and prove a point through a forum. (I think someone referred to it as an E-Penis)
Hahaha, E-Penis! Ive never heard of that , funny stuff!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,310 Posts
TexTheTitan said:
I love America and am insanely proud to call myself an American! It's awesome that we can debate stuff like this without the fear of being put in jail or even killed. With that said, our government hasn't really impressed me with the way they run things. If they can't even operate a DMV office in an efficient manner, why would we want them running our entire healthcare system?
Agreed. Plus, healthcare is incredibly complex and constantly evolving...would you trust a political suit to determine whether or not your illness warrants basic or emergent attention, especially if they don't have any formal knowledge beyond researchers' recommendations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts
Orange Crush said:
from: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa011&articleID=53B61670-E7F2-99DF-3E9FD5664899BF24


The study's authors highlight the fact that per capita spending on health care is 89 percent higher in the U.S. than in Canada. "One thing that people generally know is that the administration costs are much higher in the U.S.," Groome notes. Indeed, one study by Woolhandler published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2003 found that 31 percent of spending on health care in the U.S. went to administrative costs, whereas Canada spent only 17 percent on the same functions.

"

what? gov't socialist system bueaucracy = 17% admin cost. US, for profit, incentive based system = 31% admin cost!! I think we are getting hosed, you vill pay more, and you vill like it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts
i<3mytitan said:
Agreed. Plus, healthcare is incredibly complex and constantly evolving...would you trust a political suit to determine whether or not your illness warrants basic or emergent attention, especially if they don't have any formal knowledge beyond researchers' recommendations?
well no, but i wouldn't trust an accountant either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
TexTheTitan said:
I would imagine that a website called "Scientific American" would have pretty liberal leanings. And after browsing their site for a few minutes, I was proven right. Several articles about Global Warming, New Powerful Stem Cells and an article titled, "Bush's Mistake and Kennedy's Error" lead me to believe that most of these readers will be voting for Clinton or Obama in November '08. And like I said, it's mostly democrats that push socialized medicine. So your article didn't do much to change my mind, or hopefully anyone else's

We can read articles all day long and debate over these things based on our readings. But when it comes down to it, you need to get this information straight from the horse's mouth. Ask a Canadian or European how they view their healthcare system after participating in ours. That last part is very important. If they have no experience with ours, they will have no frame of reference.
Only in a conservative Republican mind would anecdotal evidence trump an actual peer reviewed scientific research paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.

When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal evidence is often called a testimonial and is banned in some jurisdictions. The term is also sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony. Psychologists have found that people are more likely to remember notable examples than typical examples
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,528 Posts
TexTheTitan said:
OK, I'm not going to get into a Titan Talk Pissing match over politics because it's useless to try and prove a point through a forum. (I think someone referred to it as an E-Penis)

I would imagine that a website called "Scientific American" would have pretty liberal leanings. And after browsing their site for a few minutes, I was proven right. Several articles about Global Warming, New Powerful Stem Cells and an article titled, "Bush's Mistake and Kennedy's Error" lead me to believe that most of these readers will be voting for Clinton or Obama in November '08. And like I said, it's mostly democrats that push socialized medicine. So your article didn't do much to change my mind, or hopefully anyone else's

We can read articles all day long and debate over these things based on our readings. But when it comes down to it, you need to get this information straight from the horse's mouth. Ask a Canadian or European how they view their healthcare system after participating in ours. That last part is very important. If they have no experience with ours, they will have no frame of reference.

I love America and am insanely proud to call myself an American! It's awesome that we can debate stuff like this without the fear of being put in jail or even killed. With that said, our government hasn't really impressed me with the way they run things. If they can't even operate a DMV office in an efficient manner, why would we want them running our entire healthcare system?

*NOTE: When I spell checked this post, the only thing that came up was 'Obama' The suggested word was 'Osama' (I guess that kind of makes sense since his middle name is Hussein) :)

We all know science and facts have liberal bias :ftard:

How can you assume that "scientific american" would be a liberal rag? Because it touts facts rather than "god says blow up Iraq"

[Note, I'm on my period today...don't take too much offense...ha ha]



Loving america does not = yelling everything we do is the best... it means loving your country enough to make it better.

Our health care system sucks, not the service I agree, but the pricing is outrageous. Doctors and Lawyers are getting rich as hell at the expense of average americans. People are spending their life savings in the last year of their life on a regular basis...kinda sad. And now all you baby boomers are getting old and sickly....combine that with astronomical health care costs and you have a bankrupt nation..


WOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.

Good thing we spent that 470 billion blowing up Iraq, rebuilding it, and watching the Iraqis blow it up again...ha ha.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top