• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Swedes enjoy world-class healthcare - when they get it

STOP LYING... that's really beneath you. I HAVE NOT... NEVER.. EVER.. "ignored the charts and data"... NEVER EVER EVER.

YOU ARE MAKING A BALD FACE LIE when you say that. And there is no "lack of argument".

Its simple.. YOU claim that other countries have better life expectancy and a lower cost because of their healthcare system.

And you use the graph to prove your point. THE PROBLEM IS THAT GRAPH ALSO SHOWS THAT COUNTRIES WITH SIMILAR SYSTEMS HAVE DIFFERENCES IN THEIR LIFE EXPECTANCIES AND COSTS.

YOU IGNORE THAT INCONVENIENT FACT.

Because that inconvenient fact shows that its not healthcare system that accounts for the difference...

STOP LYING... if you want to disagree.. that's fine... but don't you dare make up lies about me. Its beneath you.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/heal...e-they-get-post1069006215.html#post1069006215
 
STOP LYING... that's really beneath you. I HAVE NOT... NEVER.. EVER.. "ignored the charts and data"... NEVER EVER EVER.

YOU ARE MAKING A BALD FACE LIE when you say that. And there is no "lack of argument".

Its simple.. YOU claim that other countries have better life expectancy and a lower cost because of their healthcare system.

And you use the graph to prove your point. THE PROBLEM IS THAT GRAPH ALSO SHOWS THAT COUNTRIES WITH SIMILAR SYSTEMS HAVE DIFFERENCES IN THEIR LIFE EXPECTANCIES AND COSTS.

YOU IGNORE THAT INCONVENIENT FACT.

Because that inconvenient fact shows that its not healthcare system that accounts for the difference...

STOP LYING... if you want to disagree.. that's fine... but don't you dare make up lies about me. Its beneath you.

Who cares if you live to 85 is rather than 83.
As a Person who has lived In the uk, it's a huge relief to have not to pay even though you pay in taxes
No huge files, just an ID card
 
Who cares if you live to 85 is rather than 83.
As a Person who has lived In the uk, it's a huge relief to have not to pay even though you pay in taxes
No huge files, just an ID card


Yep.. its one of the reasons that if you compare most peoples experience with healthcare.. between the UK and the US.. the UK for most people will be seen as awesome.

Here is an example. You get a cold.. real sick and you need something for it. In a lot of countries like the UK.. you go down to the docs... don't have to wait in line much if at all. See the doctor or other provider.. no copay.. nothing but flashing the medical card
and you get seen.. get the tests you need and perhaps walk out with your medications right then.

In the US.. you get a cold.. you feel real sick and you go to the doctor and you are probably going to have to wait an hour or so. You probably will have to fill out a bunch of forms.. and you will get to see the provider for like 7 minutes.. and you will be given a prescription for the medication and the whole thing costs you 250 dollars because you haven't hit your deductible.

Sucks to be an American right?


Well.. except if you really have cancer. Now.. if that's the case.. in the UK.. you may not get the tests, surgeries, and other treatments...

that you WILL get in the US. because the UK gets some of their savings by managing those costs.. while in the US.. we do less of that.

So.. while you got your cold taken care of...

Your chance of surviving cancer is less in the UK.



there are tradeoffs here.
 
Based on what exactly?

I am basing my premise on the contention that we should "go to a system like Canada government insurance". I am basing my premise on " we should go to single payer and reduce healthcare by 50%).

Then I objectively point out what the Canadian government insurance pays for and what they do not.. and the ways that they get cost savings.

You.. are saying.. "I want a Canadian system"..

but then ignoring the facts about that Canadian system.

The canadian system includes private insurance
 
The canadian system includes private insurance

Yep.. which seems to be selectively ignored by folks that claim "we need to go to a system like Canada and get private insurance out of it".. :lamo

Remember.. ole Helix.. who thinks that your healthcare shouldn;t be based on where you live and what job you have?

Well guess what? The Canadian healthcare system is based on what province/territory you live in.. and private insurance that supplements that government insurance (if you have a supplement).. is for most people.. based on their employer.

but hey.... "lets go with a Canadian system and get rid of all that!".. :doh
 

In 2005 and 2009, Elizabeth Warren and her co-authors released two papers claiming that more than 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings in the U.S. were caused by medical debts. I wrote about the problems with these studies when they first came out, and even testified in Congress against reading too much into the findings of these studies because they suffered from several biases. Now an academic study published in the New England Journal of Medicine is skeptical of these results as well. The study tracks a stratified sample of adults between the ages of 25 and 64 who were admitted to the hospital for non-birth-related reasons between 2003 and 2007. It finds that fewer than 4 percent of hospitalizations resulted in bankruptcies, far lower than the 2009 study’s claimed 62 percent.

This quote makes no sense. It attempts to refute the percentage of bankruptcies caused by healthcare costs, by using the percentage of hospitalizations that resulted in bankruptcy. That's comparing apples and oranges, never mind that they ignore a huge percentage of hospitalizations, ie the ones outside the age range of 25-64.
 
Yep.. which seems to be selectively ignored by folks that claim "we need to go to a system like Canada and get private insurance out of it".. :lamo

Remember.. ole Helix.. who thinks that your healthcare shouldn;t be based on where you live and what job you have?

Well guess what? The Canadian healthcare system is based on what province/territory you live in.. and private insurance that supplements that government insurance (if you have a supplement).. is for most people.. based on their employer.

but hey.... "lets go with a Canadian system and get rid of all that!".. :doh

Nope, the Canadian system isn't perfect. I know, I live here, but it's a hell of a lot better than what you have down South. Your system costs 50% more, but delivers poorer outcomes. And we never need to worry if we will be denied coverage for preexisting conditions.

From Canada Health Act
health insurance covers surgery and services, including psychotherapy, in clinics and doctors' offices as well as dental surgery at dental offices and laboratory tests.

Yes you can get additional coverage from some employers, I have it. For example, if I get sick for six months, my insurance makes up for the lost income.
 
Last edited:
I waited 5 months to see a specialist in the us and I have great insurance

That wait time seems a tad excessive.

Was there a harsh need or was this more like a dermatologist routine exam?

If the need was big, you may want to get out of the HMO and get into a PPO.
 
"A new study says Government controlling your life will save your life! Give in to the control!"

Where do you get government control? You control your life, knowing that whatever happens, your health needs will be met, even if you are poor or lose your job.
 
Where do you get government control? You control your life, knowing that whatever happens, your health needs will be met, even if you are poor or lose your job.

Some people seem to think that's a terrible thing.
 
Nope, the Canadian system isn't perfect. I know, I live here, but it's a hell of a lot better than what you have down South. Your system costs 50% more, but delivers poorer outcomes. And we never need to worry if we will be denied coverage for preexisting conditions.

From Canada Health Act
health insurance covers surgery and services, including psychotherapy, in clinics and doctors' offices as well as dental surgery at dental offices and laboratory tests.

Yes you can get additional coverage from some employers, I have it. For example, if I get sick for six months, my insurance makes up for the lost income.

Actually no.. on many metrics we score higher than Canada.. Things like effectiveness in care, timeliness of care, etc.


However, you have the insurance the way you value insurance.. and in the states we have the same.

That's comparing apples and oranges, never mind that they ignore a huge percentage of hospitalizations, ie the ones outside the age range of 25-64.

Actually the medical bankruptcy due to medical bills is largely a myth... in fact.. when Canada and America bankruptcies were compared when Canada and America had similar bankruptcy law..


As for the notion that greater government involvement in health insurance will reduce bankruptcy, it is helpful to compare personal bankruptcy rates in the United States and Canada. Unlike the United States, Canada has a universal, government-run health insurance system. Following the logic of Himmelstein and colleagues, we should therefore expect to observe a lower rate of personal bankruptcy in Canada compared to the United States.

Yet the evidence shows that in the only comparable years, personal bankruptcy rates were actually higher in Canada. Personal bankruptcy filings as a percentage of the population were 0.20 percent in the United States during 2006 and 0.27 percent in 2007. In Canada, the numbers are 0.30 percent in both 2006 and 2007. The data are from government sources and defined in similar ways for both countries and cover the time period after the legal reforms to U.S. bankruptcy laws in 2005 and before the onset of the 2008 economic recession.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/medical-bankruptcy-myth
 
Where do you get government control? You control your life, knowing that whatever happens, your health needs will be met, even if you are poor or lose your job.

Your government says what medications and procedures are covered under your healthcare system.. does it not?
 
Actually no.. on many metrics we score higher than Canada.. Things like effectiveness in care, timeliness of care, etc.

Thanks for the good reply. :)

I don't see how timeliness in care can be scored higher in the USA, where some people never get care.


Actually the medical bankruptcy due to medical bills is largely a myth... in fact.. when Canada and America bankruptcies were compared when Canada and America had similar bankruptcy law..

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/medical-bankruptcy-myth

From the article:

Dranove and Millenson critically analyzed the data from the 2005 edition of the medical bankruptcy study. They found that medical spending was a contributing factor in only 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies. They also reviewed other research, including studies by the Department of Justice, finding that medical debts accounted for only 12 percent to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy.

To paraphrase "12-13% of Americans are citing medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy", but I didn't see any mention of Canadians going broke due to medical debt. Did I just not see it, or does my point still stand?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the good reply. :)

I don't see how timeliness in care can be scored higher in the USA, where some people never get care.
?

Well they get care.. but usually only when an emergency which is really inefficient. but you are right.. though we score well in timeliness.. 5.... we are hurt because we don't have everyone covered.

In fact.. here is the reality that single payer advocates DON"T want you to know.. .which is while the US does not score "Number one""... we also don't score dead last when it comes to a whole lot things.. like effective care... We score much higher than a number of countries that HAVE SINGLE PAYER SYSTEMS.

So.. IF the issue is really single payer.. well then.. we should score at the bottom for EVERY category.. because we don't have a single payer system... but wait.. we don't. In fact. we score considerable higher than a number of single payer countries... which means that single payer is not the panacea that single payer advocates want people to believe.

In fact.. its very possible that we could have a single payer system that would be WORSE.. than not only what we have now.. but that could make us worse in categories that we now do well in.

To paraphrase "12-13% of Americans are citing medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy", but I didn't see any mention of Canadians going broke due to medical debt. Did I just not see it, or does my point still stand?

Not sure what your point was.

What the article points out.. is that Americans are not going into bankruptcy due to medical debt.. and when you compare the Canadian bankruptcy and American bankruptcy at an apples to apples comparison.. you see that Canadians do not get any advantage to bankruptcy rates due to their healthcare system.

So.. I can't remember your point.. if your point was that people don't go bankrupt in Canada from medical debt? Then yes your point stands.. just as in America.. people don't really go bankrupt due to medical debt.

IF your point was that the Canadian medical system give Canadians an advantage in decreasing bankruptcy between the US and Canada? then no.. your point does not stand.
 
Let's take the maxima value, 63'000 deaths in 16 years because of waiting times in Canada. 4'000 deaths per year. Approximately 0.011% of the population.
In the US, approximately 45'000 people die every year because of lack of healthcare. That's roughly 0.014% of the population.

So yeah, 0.011% is way lower than 4%. Also, the numbers are pretty close, but you have a better chance waiting in Canada than living in the US. Also, you won't end up broke.

Single payer may not be the solution best fitted for the american government, but the numbers prove one thing without a doubt : the health care system needs reform and it needs it now.

I would agree to basic care, for normal illnesses, broken bones, etc. As for life extending treatments, or less common ailments? Keep the private insurers for that. We can give basic care to everyone at limited levels, and keep insurance companies alive for the other stuff.
 
Back
Top Bottom