Because people aren’t ■■■■■■■■ …nothing will survive without a customer base supporting it
Did you read the article?
Which extrapolations were correct?
I don’t know how a government can change a demographic shortage, short of banning contraceptives.
1 Like
I’ll look up the articles tonight, tho I
I am surprised ANYONE needs proof that a top-down centrally planned bureaucracy with zero profit motivation wouls occasionally overlook SOMEthing.
What are the odds that 100 Dilberrs are right 100% of the time?
Yes Canadians still drive here for HC. Obamacare didn’t ruin everything.
Its happening in Europe too.
Where are you getting that Canadian males are dying in huge numbers because of inadequate screening?
Highlighted: You don’t seem have a problem with it for the military and police. 
Canadians would overwhelming choose their model over ours in a vote today.
Yes I did, did you?
Of course. Are the ones obamacare is modeled on suffering and dying?
Would you have expected anything else from the Heritage Foundation?
It projected 2030 to 2050…but you’re already starting to see measures of serious cost containment which lessens patient care. And there are other measures that are meant to try to make things better especially on the pharmaceutical side.
Consider the following facts (made common knowledge circa 2008-2010 as Americans hotly debated Obamacare):
-
Canadians have long waiting periods for healthcare, the longest in the developed world.
-
That includes cancer screenings and cancer care.
-
HALF of all Canadians will contract cancer at some point in their lives, and ONE-QUARTER of all Canadians will die from it.
-
By comparison 22.5% of all American die from cancer.
-
When you do the simple math you find that since 268,932 Canadians die each year, (from any cause), Canada’s extra’ high rates of cancer deaths translates to 6,700 additional cancer deaths per year.
-
Canada is a sparsely populated country. In American-population terms, that would be an additional 65,700 deaths per year if we had the same terrible rates of cancer and cancer survival.
Documenting #1, 3, and 4 appears necessary.
SOURCE for #1(long waits in Canada)
- Canada lags behind other nations on timely access, Globe And Mail 2017 The top 10 leading causes of death in the United States
- CTV: 63,000 Canadians left the country for medical treatment last year (2017) 63,000 Canadians left the country for medical treatment last year: Fraser Institute | CTV News
- HUFF Po: Why Canadians Are Increasingly Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad;No health care system is perfect. (2017), Why Canadians Are Increasingly Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad | HuffPost Life
- Forbes: If Universal Health Care Is The Goal, Don’t Copy Canada (2014), If Universal Health Care Is The Goal, Don't Copy Canada
- Canada’s healthcare disaster, by Dick Morris, (2009), “Because of these long waits for colonoscopies, there is now a 25 percent higher incidence of colon cancer in Canada than in the United States. And because the leading drugs that we routinely use to treat the malady in the U.S. are banned in Canada because of their high cost, 41 percent of Canadians who get the cancer die of it, compared with only 32 percent in the United States.” http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/66149-canadas-healthcare-disaster?amp
SOURCE for #3
-
1 in 2 Canadians will get cancer: Cancer Society; 1 in 4 will die, CBC NEWS (2017), 1 in 2 Canadians will get cancer: Cancer Society | CBC News
-
Canadian Cancer Society: “Canadian Cancer Statisics 2017” http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-101/canadian-cancer-statistics-publication/?region=on
SOURCE for #4
“The top 10 leading causes of death in the United States”
(Cause #2 Cancer: Percentage of total deaths: 22.5 percent)
I suspect the cause is Canada’s long long waiting periods for healthcare care. During the 2008-2010 healthcare debate in America it came to light that those waiting periods include very long waits for screening protastate and colo-rectal cancers.
Although I had no trouble sourcing my statement (see above) it turns out Canada uses more stool sampling and fewer colonoscopies to screen for cancers so “the wait period” and “fewer colonoscopies” may be irrelevant.
“In essence Europeans are not having enough children to sustain the system in the future.”
Key word, Europeans. Muslim and other immigrant populations, from what I understand, are having 2-3 children in those countries. What is replacement level, two kids per family?
What is your proposal? Encourage everyone to have more children?
Incidentally, this is one argument I’ve never understood as far as those who lament European families get free health care and far more generous maternity & paternity leave than families in the U S. If, as in these benefits, there is already more of an incentive to have a family in those countries, why am I forever seeing commentary about Europeans not having enough children to sustain everything from their healthcare system to their native cultures?
Having fewer kids is part of it.
So is living longer. The way HC works makes it probable that even if birth rates among young couples stayed the same,
a higher % of a population will be old.
Old people don’t work, so they don’t pay in.
Old people are sick or have worn-out body parts more often.
The TYPE of care old people need is often more expensive.
Immigrant populations in Europe tend to have larger families, higher birth rates. They don’t count as part of the system?
And if there is universal health care and so much more generous maternity & paternity leave–something like a year following the birth of a baby–than in the U S, why are native born European families not having more kids?
One not so new trend that can be learned from Europeans is to use the pharmacist as the first go to for those coughs and sniffles. IMO the ER should be for, um, well, emergency care–difficulty breathing, chest pains, dehydration caused by vomiting, head injuries, etc.
It should not be for “indigent” medical care. There are public health clinics, free health clinics, volunteer endeavors by physicians and dentists for this.
And many insurers have options like phone a doc, doctors in supermarkets and drug stores, urgent care centers for the not as serious maladies, and those that may be but don’t require an emergency room.
Immigrants do count as part of the system. My point was to respond to your point about birth rates generally to show it is only half the picture.
Regardless of birth rates, adding lots and lots of elderly who
- don’t pay in
- require more frequent care
- require more expensive care
is going to make a system progressively more expensive witn time.
Even if birth rates never change a system that pays for itself on day one will, go bankrupt in a few short decades. To cover “tomorrow’s” longevity it must, on day one be massively over-funded.
(Replying to the discussion in general, not to any particular post.)
Imagine
- a traditional UK family consists of married parents who, in their early 20s have 3 babies and who, care for grandma. Grandma retires at age 65 and dies at age 72.
Compare that to
- a hypothetical UK family consists of married parents who, in their early 20s have 3 babies and who, care for grandma. Grandma retires at age 65 and dies at age 92 requiring annual medical care of the most expensive kind.
Now imagine the U.K. consists of millions and millions and millions of such families. Clearly birthrates are not the only factor indeed may not be the major factor.
