National Health Systems

[Steve Weldon]

Unfortunately, as a physician myself, and seeing how the system works, I honestly think a minimum of 50% healthcare spending would be eliminated with good tort reform. This is the sentiment of every single EVERY single physician I have discussed this with. The physicians in this country know what the problems are with the system, yet nobody listens to us or even asks our opinions.

BTW, we do not profit from all these excessive tests and studies. We actually lose money as 99% of us do not own these labs or imaging centers, and we have to pay our staff to schedule these studies, get the records and reports from these studies which takes significant manhours.

Two of my best friends are doctors and they're telling me the same thing.  I worked for several years as the department head of prosthetics in a VA hospital and saw enough to convince me as well.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... It is not the physicians that are to blame here...

... leaches called attorneys.

Ok, how would we deal with, say a dentist employing totally unskilled labor as a technician and letting her administer and monitor anesthesia (a recent Chicago case)? His profit-increasing method resulted in death of a little girl.

[Steve Weldon]

Ok, how would we deal with, say a dentist employing totally unskilled labor as a technician and letting her administer and monitor anesthesia (a recent Chicago case)? His profit-increasing method resulted in death of a little girl.

What comes immediately to mind is charge them criminally.  If there are laws that say "thou shall" and if "thy don't" then make the punishment criminal rather than civil.  

I know.. but what about the poor parents who want?   Want what?  Justice or compensation?   I wonder if we started letting the injured parties decide "you get so much money or the person who broke the rules gets 10 years in jail, structured upwards for more serious injuries to death..

Compensation originally started out as a means to compensate survivors or their family for their lost potential.  If the little girl was say left injured by alive, what would it cost to provide her car during her lifetime?     If she died, what income would a kid in her social strata be expected to give their parents?    That's one type of compensation and I think reasonable.

But this "punitive" stuff is what's killing us.  Punitive is meant to punish the system, the police department, the city, the hospital.. and it's bankrupting us in many places.  

I can support criminal charges and payment for compensation.  I do not support punitive judgements.   They're about as useful in today's world as Affirmative Action, Green Stamps, Film, or heck even a Ford Pinto..

[Ligament]

Ok, how would we deal with, say a dentist employing totally unskilled labor as a technician and letting her administer and monitor anesthesia (a recent Chicago case)? His profit-increasing method resulted in death of a little girl.

That is irrelevant to the discussion. That is a criminal case.

Dentists are not involved significantly in the health care costs of this country.

[Steve Weldon]

You wrote "I would be surprised if a biased article for Canada would give any better of a grade to the US..  We can all see why ?"

As far as I can tell, you still have no specific reason to think the report biased.

In particular, you have no specific reason to think the report biased to show US health outcomes to be worse than those of other nations.

Dismissing a report as biased simply because you don't know who paid for the research is not a sign of healthy scepticism -- it's outright cynicism.

For those who will never have your abilities or your opportunities, "alternative routes" seem a figment of your utopia.

If wages are properly adjusted -- and there's the reason why.

1.  Are we hung up on the USA vs. Canada way I wrote that sentence?  I'll agree it was vague and looking at it I now wish I would have spent a few more seconds writing it differently, but I think I've paid my debt to the society of poor sentences by clearly explaining what I was thinking and what I meant.  To clear up any further questions allow me to address this again:

I would be surprised that an article written by a Canadian research group is anything but biased based on what I know and continue to learn about research group/study funding.  I think such a report would be biased on a level with Canada's political interests (I'm thinking of the typical Canadian politician criticism on US policies which are mostly half-truths and almost all self-serving) to not exclude countries other than the USA, but with an emphasis on the USA to be sure.

2.  Yep, any reasonably educated person will mark research/studies as biased when they lack information on who is paying for them.  Well, reasonably educated or unreasonably indoctrinated.  You choose.  

It's common knowledge that biased and outright corruption run deep in our research community.  And unfortunately it hurt to learn our scientific community as well.  But then, they both have in common that their livelihood, professional future, and more depends on a steady stream of incoming grants and other funding mostly brought on by our most controversial topics of the time.   Heck, we even have equipment reviewers disclosing their review Ipod was provided by Apple to keep their head above the taint.  Most of us here on this forum are reasonably educated reasonable photographers who know enough about the game to know how it works.  As such we know it would be an exception for a research or study group to be independently funded either by someone in government, academia, special interests.. or someone not connected to them.  As an exception it would seem mandatory a disclosure statement would preface any release from such research/study groups.  I didn't see one.

3.  Since you don't know I was a disadvantaged ethnically challenged kid from the wrong side of the tracks can we assume you're assuming there is always someone more disadvantaged than ourselves, and this is what you're basing this specific opinion on?  If so you're coming from the pits of pessimism on this one no?  Not a very realistic position to say the least.

4.  I agree it would take some doing and probably a decades worth of adjusting.. but it's doable.  And ultimately less corrupt and pure than artificially assigning employers as the default payers of health insurance for the rest of our days as we know them.. just because they tried to do a good thing at the wrong time i history. (this stuff requires a degree of humor..)


I've yet to figure out your position on all this.. but I'm listening when you're ready.  Hit me with your best solutions.  (but please not the Robin Hood scenario, it's been done to death).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That is irrelevant to the discussion. That is a criminal case.

Dentists are not involved significantly in the health care costs of this country.

That is just plain stupid, on all three points.

[Steve Weldon]

Again, this pre-judgement is an expression of cynicism, not of sound reasoning.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  I gave you supported reasoning and just because you reject it doesn't make it not given.   And you pretty much sit alone if you don't automatically consider the funding of any research/study as a vital piece of information to be used in it's evaluation.  I had a half dozen professors in my universities warn us of the same thing.. not that I'm now giving academia credit, but they're not all bad.  We just need to take the time to sort them out so we know how to rate their input to our educations.

 Well, I think we can agree I've been polite and answered your questions the best I could.  How about my questions, don't I deserve the same courtesy?

[Bryan Conner]

Considering funding as information to be used in evaluation of the research would be reasonable -- but that is not what you have done.

You have repeatedly claimed the research is biased without having any knowledge of the funding source, or showing anything that suggests bias.

That cynical dismissal is just as much an enemy to reason as naïve approval.

I agree with you Isaac.  But, what knowledge do you have that precludes the presence of funding induced bias in the research? 

As I have gotten older, I have come to the opinion that often when two opposing groups are very loudly stating that the other side is completely wrong, then the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  Not always true, but very often, in my opinion. 

[Ray]

1.  Ray, I wasn't exaggerating.  I was trying to find your bar, where you thought the problem to be.

2.  So your bar is one person?  Okay, but can you tell me if this happens any more/less than in any other westernized country?  I can't.  It's very easy for one person to slip through the cracks because of a less than skilled or motivated worker..   To me where the real problems are is when POLICY allows this to happen and policy stops being enforced.  This has not happened in America.  I would read different newspapers or internet sites..

3.  Non-essential medical procedures.. wow.  But I hear this a lot from single payer systems.   It really says it all doesn't it?  Healthcare is being rationed.

4.  Frutose is on our ingredients here.. and many people shop by if a product (say orange or fruit juice) contains frutose or regular sugar.   Though, it's been amusing listening to our politicians be lobbied by special interest groups who are telling us that frutose is just as safe and healthy, in fact more so, than cane sugar..

5.  But  will they flip on the next study?  It seems like every day some study is showing us without a doubt that we're being killed by our favorite foods.  Seems a shame.  The bar for "research" or "studies"  needs to be set a lot higher and I've got a plan on how to do this.  Don't base policy on research funded by special interests, government, or academia.  Too bad we can't trust our own governments.

Steve,
Ultimately, one can only go along with what makes sense and what seems credible. I don't claim any special insights into the American health-care situation. I can only draw conclusions from reports mentioned on the internet and other sources.

Wikipedia is certainly not an infallible source of information, but at least it allows corrections and amendments to its articles from people who think they have a more reliable or more in-depth understanding of the subject.

I'll quote the following fairly long extract from Wikipedia because I find it quite revealing of the difficulties in getting accurate information. If you disagree with the position represented in the article, why not amend it or add to it with more reliable information?

Essentially, what I understand from this Wikipedia article is that the number of uninsured Americans who die each year as a result of a lack of insurance is roughly equal to the minimum estimate of the number of insured Americans who die as a result of medical errors. But no-one has of course a reliable and accurate estimate of the true number of deaths each year due to medical error. Some estimates are in the hundreds of thousands. How could anyone possibly determine what the actual figure is. If every medical practitioner were to admit or confess when he/she had made a mistake or had been negligent, then we wouldn't need such an expensive legal system to try to get to the truth.

Enjoyed the pics!

At least you have impeccable taste.

A study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2009 found that lack of health insurance is associated with about 45,000 excess preventable deaths per year.[27] One of the authors characterized the results as "now one dies every 12 minutes."[28] Since then, as the number of uninsured has risen from about 46 million in 2009 to 48.6 million in 2012, the number of preventable deaths due to lack of insurance has grown to about 48,000 per year.[29]

A Hearst Newspapers investigation called medical error "far more deadly than inadequate medical insurance."[30] The number of Americans with access to care who are killed by medical errors is estimated from 44,000[31] to hundreds of thousands each year,[32][33][34] and the New England Journal of Medicine published a study finding that American hospitals injured around 20% of all patients every year from 2002-2007.[35] Notably, Representative John Murtha, who had voted for the House healthcare reform bill in 2009, died from a surgical error in 2010.[36] Moreover, the best predictor of longevity is education; in study after study, money and health insurance "pale in comparison."[37]

A survey released in 2008 found that being uninsured impacts American consumers' health in the following ways:[38]

More of the uninsured chose not to see a doctor when were sick or hurt (53%) vs 46% of the insured.

Fewer of the uninsured (28%) report currently undergoing treatment or participating in a program to help them manage a chronic condition; 37% of the insured are receiving such treatment.

21% of the uninsured, vs. 16% of the insured, believe their overall health is below average for people in their age group.

The costs of treating the uninsured must often be absorbed by providers as charity care, passed on to the insured via cost-shifting and higher health insurance premiums, or paid by taxpayers through higher taxes.[39]

On the other hand, the uninsured often subsidize the insured because the uninsured use fewer services[40] and are billed unfairly.[41] 60 Minutes reported, "Hospitals charge uninsured patients two, three, four or more times what an insurance company would pay for the same treatment."[42] On average, per capita health care spending on behalf of the uninsured is a bit more than half that for the insured.[17]

A study published in August 2008 in Health Affairs found that covering all of the uninsured in the US would increase national spending on health care by $122.6 billion, which would represent a 5% increase in health care spending and 0.8% of GDP. The impact on government spending could be higher, depending on the details of the plan used to increase coverage and the extent to which new public coverage crowded out existing private coverage.[43] Massachusetts' law requiring everyone to buy insurance has reportedly caused costs there to increase faster than in the rest of the country.[44]

[RFPhotography]

I was a bit leery about jumping in on this one, but thought it may begood to clear a few things up.

First, Canada is not a single payer system.  Health care is administered by the provinces.  While there are minimum requirements for service provision laid out in federal law, not all provinces are the same.

Second, I don't know if Michael pays for any supplementary health insurance, but there is a limit to what is covered by the government.  Once the 'normal' treatment regimen associated with a particular diagnosis or procedure is finished then any additional costs are, indeed, borne by the patient or the supplementary insurance policy.

Most supplementary insurance policies offered as part of a benefits package by employers will not have exclusions for existing conditions.  But it is common to have deductibles or co-pays.  If an individual pays for his/her own supplemental policy, there will also be exclusions for existing conditions as well as co-pays/deductibles.  Many supplementary policies, whether employer provided or self paid will also have annual and/or lifetime caps on coverage.

Lastly, and most importantly, I hope for you a speedy and complete recovery, Michael.

[Steve Weldon]

Considering funding as information to be used in evaluation of the research would be reasonable -- but that is not what you have done.

You have repeatedly claimed the research is biased without having any knowledge of the funding source, or showing anything that suggests bias.

That cynical dismissal is just as much an enemy to reason as naïve approval.

We have no knowledge of funding because they have selected to provide none.  This is unacceptable and irresponsible considering the current climate of their industry.   It doesn't take a genius to surmise why.  They have a responsibility to do so lest their studies appear tainted.  As a responsible consumer of their product how can I ignore this?

"As information to be used in evaluation", and considering they elected to  give none, wouldn't we consider the driver who refused a Breathalyzer to be under the influence (in fact most laws close this loop for us), or the person on trial who refused to speak in their own behalf to at least be hiding something?   This is no cynicism my friend.  It is due diligence.   

[Steve Weldon]

Steve,
Ultimately, one can only go along with what makes sense and what seems credible. I don't claim any special insights into the American health-care situation. I can only draw conclusions from reports mentioned on the internet and other sources.

Wikipedia is certainly not an infallible source of information, but at least it allows corrections and amendments to its articles from people who think they have a more reliable or more in-depth understanding of the subject.

I'll quote the following fairly long extract from Wikipedia because I find it quite revealing of the difficulties in getting accurate information. If you disagree with the position represented in the article, why not amend it or add to it with more reliable information?

Essentially, what I understand from this Wikipedia article is that the number of uninsured Americans who die each year as a result of a lack of insurance is roughly equal to the minimum estimate of the number of insured Americans who die as a result of medical errors. But no-one has of course a reliable and accurate estimate of the true number of deaths each year due to medical error. Some estimates are in the hundreds of thousands. How could anyone possibly determine what the actual figure is. If every medical practitioner were to admit or confess when he/she had made a mistake or had been negligent, then we wouldn't need such an expensive legal system to try to get to the truth.

At least you have impeccable taste.

1.  This is all anyone can do.  Especially when the numbers are influenced by so many factors and variables that we might/might not agree should be used.  Most often their conclusion that someone died from lack of health insurance isn't at all that they were turned away.. but often because they died from something that 'should' have been caught during a normal checkup (not from acute symptoms), but by the time they found it.. they died from it because it was beyond treatable.  Now.. did this guy die because he had no health insurance, or because he didn't spend for a checkup?  Consider that in most cases checkups aren't covered, often either are they covered for the insured,.. but the treatment would have been picked up by medicare or some charity group had they known he needed to be treated.  It's a catch-22.. kinda boils down to "if he did have insurance would his insurance have covered the checkup" and "would he have gone for the checkup (the number who don't is staggering)" and "Considering insurance doesn't routinely cover checkups shouldn't he have paid for this himself like everyone else does?"

Now.. we know they're talking about a great many things other than this.. so how can we refute?  I certainly have no interest in refuting what I consider a meaningless bit of writing.   However, if you want to read it and draw conclusions supporting your worst fears than you will.. but no matter what you or I do, it doesn't make this report any more or less true.   In other words it's chaff.. thrown out there knowing no one will specifically refute it.. to serve a purpose for one side of the debate.

2.  Exactly.  And the more educated you become on the tactics of both sides of the issue.. the more accurate your conclusions will be.  But this will take a while before you begin to sort them out.

3.  This conclusion though kinda goes along with what I've been saying..the number is small enough to be in there with the mistakes and errors and not necessarily because evil is being done.

[Steve Weldon]

Why should anyone need to show that Steve Weldon's repeated claims of bias are untrue?

Issac - let's leave our discussion with your final response.  It represents your position very well.  Thank you for your time.

[Bryan Conner]

Why should anyone need to show that Steve Weldon's repeated claims of bias are untrue?

Why should others suffer the burden of showing that frivolous claims are untrue?

The burden is on Steve Weldon to show supporting evidence for his claims.



Steve Weldon has repeatedly claimed that no information was provided about funding.

Here's the information I linked - How Canada Performs > Details and Analysis > Health

There's a menu item at the top of that page About HCP which leads to information about data sources, methodology and --

There was no need to get defensive by asking your questions.  I was not attacking your person or your opinion.  I merely wanted to know the answer.  The burden to provide proof should be equal on both parties when statements are made.  I simply chose to ask you the question because I believed you would have the answer.  Thanks for sharing that answer and information with me.  I do not know how a person could come to the conclusion that the study was biased based on the source of the funding.  This does not mean that those conducting the study were completely honest in their findings.  Maybe they were, maybe not.  If the general consensus of multiple independent studies supports the same conclusion then chances are it was an unbiased finding.

I think that sometimes studies are biased from the time the idea is formed.  If a person wants to provide information supporting any given theory or opinion, information can be found from somewhere or from someone. 

[Steve Weldon]

Not as-well-as my final response.

You've exceeded yourself Isaac.  Congratulations on finding a regular list of sponsors.  I found them the first time I looked on the site. These companies are not listed as funding the study in question.  

I'll ask you.  If you knew about this several posts ago and thought it showed who paid for this specific study why didn't you point it out then?  And show that it did?

About the list.  No where does it say this list is inclusive, nor do they say it's not but I think it's safe to assume they wouldn't turn away funding.  But if we go just by the 26 which is a waste of time until they say directly where the study was funded.. surely you've at least.. on the surface.. checked them out?   Until you do I'm not sure what you think you've accomplished.  It's all pretty half baked don't you think?

[Steve Weldon]

There was no need to get defensive by asking your questions.  I was not attacking your person or your opinion.  I merely wanted to know the answer.  The burden to provide proof should be equal on both parties when statements are made.  I simply chose to ask you the question because I believed you would have the answer.  Thanks for sharing that answer and information with me.  I do not know how a person could come to the conclusion that the study was biased based on the source of the funding.  This does not mean that those conducting the study were completely honest in their findings.  Maybe they were, maybe not.  If the general consensus of multiple independent studies supports the same conclusion then chances are it was an unbiased finding.

I think that sometimes studies are biased from the time the idea is formed.  If a person wants to provide information supporting any given theory or opinion, information can be found from somewhere or from someone. 

1.  I don't agree.   The source of funding is used to support charges in courtrooms, politics, and reasonable mindfs everywhere.

But what this is all about was one comment (among many) I made saying if a research/study group is not disclosing the source of their funding, then it leaves the door open to think all kinds of things, if proving nothing.  But even if the authors of this funding told us they were funded by "Make Canada's Healthcare Look Great Lcc" all we could say is the same thing..  I think they're biased, I think they're not.  It's an opinion, not a charge.  But if they are funded by a questionable source I think someone we know.. names starts with I..  might be more obliged to agree..

[Ray]

 Now.. did this guy die because he had no health insurance, or because he didn't spend for a checkup?

C'mon now, Steve. Be honest with yourself. If a guy doesn't have private health insurance in a country such as America where there is no universal public health insurance for everyone, it's presumably because he considers that he can't afford it, or if he can afford it, he chooses to spend the money on other things.

As a result of being reluctant, or unable to spend money on health insurance, is it not likely he will be equally reluctant or unable to spend money on check-ups or visits to the doctor for the slightest ailment? Is it also not likely that his pride might cause him to be reluctant to visit medical charity organisations? Is it also not likely that such medical charity organisations will not be well-equipped and adequately funded for the services they attempt to provide?

In Australia, our national health system is called Medicare and the cost of the system is supported by an additional tax on everyone's taxable income, except those who are too poor to be eligible to pay income tax. Even those who have their own private health insurance have to pay the additional tax, which is 1.5% of their taxable income. Those who are on a high income but who have opted to rely upon the public health system, are obliged to pay an additional Medicare levy up to a further 1.5%, as I understand the system.

The result of such a system is that no-one need feel discouraged from visiting a doctor in case he is landed with unaffordable medical bills. Generally, men tend to be more reluctant than women to visit a doctor when they have a problem that they think is not serious, and I'm a bit like that. I was once persuaded by a female friend to visit a doctor to get a prescription for antimalarial drugs before visiting Cambodia. She thought the country might be rife with malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

Just to humour her, I went along with the suggestion, but felt a bit silly. As it turned out, there were no outbreaks of malaria in any of the regions of Cambodia I visited, which included a flight to Phnom Penh from Bangkok; a river cruise along the Mekong from Phnom Penh to Siem Reap; a couple of weeks photographing the ruins around Angkor Wat, and an adventurous trip by road from Siem Reap to the Thai border through some very heavy flooding.

I stopped taking the tablets soon after arrival in Cambodia. However, what I found interesting was the thoroughness of the female doctor in Australia who had prescribed me the antimalarial drugs. Before prescribing the drugs she recommended I have a blood test, presumably to check if I had any condition which might interfere with the antimalarial drugs, and/or any unrelated condition which might need attention. The total cost to me for two consultations with the doctor, a blood test and the antimalarial pills, was insignificant. As I recall, just $10 or $20 for the subsidised antimalarial pills. What a great system!

[Steve Weldon]

C'mon now, Steve. Be honest with yourself. If a guy doesn't have private health insurance in a country such as America where there is no universal public health insurance for everyone, it's presumably because he considers that he can't afford it, or if he can afford it, he chooses to spend the money on other things.

As a result of being reluctant, or unable to spend money on health insurance, is it not likely he will be equally reluctant or unable to spend money on check-ups or visits to the doctor for the slightest ailment? Is it also not likely that his pride might cause him to be reluctant to visit medical charity organisations? Is it also not likely that such medical charity organisations will not be well-equipped and adequately funded for the services they attempt to provide?

In Australia, our national health system is called Medicare and the cost of the system is supported by an additional tax on everyone's taxable income, except those who are too poor to be eligible to pay income tax. Even those who have their own private health insurance have to pay the additional tax, which is 1.5% of their taxable income. Those who are on a high income but who have opted to rely upon the public health system, are obliged to pay an additional Medicare levy up to a further 1.5%, as I understand the system.

The result of such a system is that no-one need feel discouraged from visiting a doctor in case he is landed with unaffordable medical bills. Generally, men tend to be more reluctant than women to visit a doctor when they have a problem that they think is not serious, and I'm a bit like that. I was once persuaded by a female friend to visit a doctor to get a prescription for antimalarial drugs before visiting Cambodia. She thought the country might be rife with malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

Just to humour her, I went along with the suggestion, but felt a bit silly. As it turned out, there were no outbreaks of malaria in any of the regions of Cambodia I visited, which included a flight to Phnom Penh from Bangkok; a river cruise along the Mekong from Phnom Penh to Siem Reap; a couple of weeks photographing the ruins around Angkor Wat, and an adventurous trip by road from Siem Reap to the Thai border through some very heavy flooding.

I stopped taking the tablets soon after arrival in Cambodia. However, what I found interesting was the thoroughness of the female doctor in Australia who had prescribed me the antimalarial drugs. Before prescribing the drugs she recommended I have a blood test, presumably to check if I had any condition which might interfere with the antimalarial drugs, and/or any unrelated condition which might need attention. The total cost to me for two consultations with the doctor, a blood test and the antimalarial pills, was insignificant. As I recall, just $10 or $20 for the subsidised antimalarial pills. What a great system!

Ray -

1.  I am always honest with myself.  And with you.

2.     I was saying they weren't going, you're giving us reasons why.  Okay, I can see where all of your scenarios would be valid and I can think of 10x more.   But life is about making choices and I'd recommend everyone put their health care right there near the top.  Wouldn't you?

3.  This is where I disagree.  Just because healthcare is free doesn't necessarily mean that block of people finding excuses not to seek preventative care would all of sudden decide they would..  If you read more on the subject you'll see that preventative car (lack of people seeking it) is an issue even in one-payer systems.  Equally so to my surprise.  But the information is out there if yo care to seek it.

A good example would be dentists.. what is it about dentists where we wait until we can't avoid going in.. to go in?  I'll bet most of us can relate to that one.  Unless you know something is wrong and must be treated, or your symptoms are so painful you can't avoid it, there are a great many people who will avoid seeking treatment regardless of payment.

4.  Is there a cap on that 1.5%?  For instance, we already pay more than double that just for our social security, but it max's out, or you don't pay more, after $110,000 is reached.   

How would you feel about this if your country was charging you 4.6% for social security, laying another 6.2% on to your employer for the same thing, and then charging you 1.45% for medicare (medical for people over 62 of 65), and then they kept telling you both of these systems (social security and medicare) were broke, running dry, and by the time you retired they system would be broke and everything you put in it would be used up?  This is what we're told.  And on top of that they want up 35% more for income tax, up to 20% more for state income tax, and we haven't even got to sales tax rates where 10% states aren't unusual, tax on gas of up to 69.6 cents per gallon  (NY), tire tax, phone tax, and frankly the list of taxes we're subject to might fill a book.   

SO.. you're paying all these taxes and being told Social Security will probably be broke before you can draw on it, you hear constant bickering among politicians on how underfunded Medicare is and how it's not enough and our seniors aren't getting adequate car.. and they're raping your pay check before you get it.. and with sales/consumer taxes after you get it.  Now.. someone knocks on your door and says "Mr. Ray, we want to take more of your pay check and buy everyone healthcare insurance including those who are in the country illegally.   How much do you have left Ray?  And how much more are you willing to give?

I'd like to do away with all of it except the essentials.  And while I'm trying to figure out what's essential to me, I'm being told it's essential to pay for the healthcare and college tuition of those who are here illegally. 

Meanwhile.. not one credible agency is saying a one-payer health-care system will result in less cost.   In fact, it's already been estimated Obamacare will cost more than double what he promised it would.

So you tell me Ray.. what are you up for?

[Steve Weldon]

The "study in question" is "How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada" -- "Health" is one of the six aspects that are examined.

The companies are listed under the heading "Investors in How Canada Performs" in the description "About How Canada Performs", following the explanation -- "Twenty-six companies invested in the project this year, providing invaluable financial, leadership, and knowledge support."

Please tell us why those twenty-six companies - listed as providing "financial, leadership and knowledge support" for the "How Canada Performs" study - are not, what you would describe as "listed as funding the [How Canada Performs] study..."




It took an hour for the Director of "How Canada Performs" to confirm "There were no other sources of funding." apart from those listed.


Thank you for helping me really grasp, how truly destructive cynicism is to reason.

I think it's quite clear that you have not shown any reason for thinking there actually is bias in the information presented by "How Canada Performs".

1.  Would it help if we changed the name of "How Canada Performs" to "Research Group Inc?"   You do realise this is the name of their program and not their company?  This is a program specifically namedd, built and funded to show Canada in the best possible light.   Can you see it now?  Do you REALLY stand that there is no bias?  It's not a research company Isaac.. it's an entire program aimed at making Canada look their best.  So of course that's what they'll do.


2.  So you called the Directory and an hour later he got back to you and claimed there were no other sources of funding than those 26?  Impressive response I'll admit.

3.  I've shown multiple reasons.  Over and over again.  What you're trying to say is if we haven't caught the red-handed then we had no reason to investigate in the first place.  It's a good thing real research groups don't operate under the same rules or their studies would be worthless.  So would police departments.

4.  And I'm sure you've done your due diligence and checked out the political and other leanings of the group of investors they did reveal?  If so, please tell us about the first one.  Grainger Inc.  They're based out of Chicago and very well known to Americans.  We know which political parties they support, how much they donate to candidates, and we also know they're heavily involved with the business of health care.  Just a bit more than they're up to their ears with the Chinese.    But I'll bet.. that if some reporter digs up credible links showing Grainger to be corrupt or unduly influencing whatever.. that director will be the first to say "well, all of our investors aren't necessarily funding every study..

Isaac.. I understand there's a ostrich mentality out there.. they just want to believe in what they want.. and they never want to look for problems or issues.  I'm just not part of it.   We find out every day just how illegally involved certain companies and individuals are where they shouldn't be.  We all read the papers.  You just choose to wait for the final verdict.. and that's okay. 

But I do have plenty of reasons to suspect a program (not a company, but an actual program aimed with it's entire purpose being to show Canana performs well) called "How Canada Performs" is probably heavily invested to show it performs well.  And that they'll cherry pick information, ignore other information, manipulate statistics, or do whatever they can to justify their very existence and with it their funding.

[Ray]

 But life is about making choices and I'd recommend everyone put their health care right there near the top.  Wouldn't you?

Absolutely! But I think I might have news for you, Steve. Putting health care at the top begins with a healthy lifestyle, and that means eating wholesome and unprocessed foods which have a lot of fibre content; eating fresh fruit and vegetables on a regular basis, and exercising on a regular basis, including aerobic exrecise such as brisk walking or jogging, and anaerobic exrecise such as lifting weights in the gym.

Putting health care at the top also means avoiding harmful substances such as tobacco and other recreational drugs, and refraining from excessive alcohol intake.

It also means avoiding many of the foods recommended by the weight-loss industry, such as low-fat milk and margarines containing polyunsaturated vegetable fats. These are highly processed foods which are not natural. Saturated fats, as in full cream milk, butter, cheese, bacon and eggs, etc should be no problem provided one eats them in moderation. Moderation is the key word. Energy input should not exceed energy output.

If everyone were to follow my advice, I predict there would eventually be massive redundancies and unemployment amongst doctors and nurses. No work for them. We wouldn't want that, would we? 

SO.. you're paying all these taxes and being told Social Security will probably be broke before you can draw on it, you hear constant bickering among politicians on how underfunded Medicare is and how it's not enough and our seniors aren't getting adequate car.. and they're raping your pay check before you get it.. and with sales/consumer taxes after you get it. Now.. someone knocks on your door and says "Mr. Ray, we want to take more of your pay check and buy everyone healthcare insurance including those who are in the country illegally. How much do you have left Ray? And how much more are you willing to give?

Look, Steve! All governments can only operate with the taxes they are able to collect. Small taxes tend to equate with small governments, and large taxes tend to equate with large governments. There's always an ongoing discussion about which services should be funded by taxes through the Government, and which should be privately controlled.

I think everyone would agree that a nation's Armed Forces should be controlled and funded by the government, from everyone's taxes, because the armed forces are basic services which are fundamental to the security of the nation, and the life and death of its citizens.

Likewise, it is my view that medical services in relation to any life-threatening situation that might apply to any one of a nation's citizens, whether rich or poor, should be freely available, and paid for by general taxes.

When it comes to frills and niceties, that's a different matter. No-one has ever died of a tooth ache, as far as I know, and for that reason dental care is not free in Australia.

Also, basic dental treatment such as tooth extractions and fillings are not particularly expensive. If you think they are, then take a trip to Thailand. I had a tooth extracted in Bangkok a few months ago. It cost approximately $30. My only concern was that the rather attractive, but rather slight and demure female dentist, didn't look strong enough to tug out my massive tooth. But she managed okay.