How many jobs depend on the Detroit Three?

Absolutely not true.

The only thing we have a waiting line for is elective orthopedic
surgery. That's because our othopedic surgeons are very busy performing
emergency hip surgery on EVERY senior citizen that slips and falls in
their bathtub and breaks their hip.[/QUOTE]
The boys at the Frazier institute would tend to disagree. The found
Hip replacements median total wait time (gp referral to treatment) was
20.7 weeks. You also have a waiting time of 4.6 weeks for medical
oncology and 5.8 weeks for radiation oncologists. Neurosurgery waiting
lists run 31.7 weeks. Actual wait times exceeded clinically "reasonable"
times in 81% of the comparisons.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/66d2ze

Nope. Means there is more use of older generics which means (in the
case of heart failure for instance) higher levels of angina, higher
disability, lower quality of life.

Which, of course, is a completely different kettle of fish from
MEDICAL quality of life which looks at aspects of a person's life
specific to whatever disease we are talking about.

****The price controls and ensuing savings

Emphasis mine.


Which goes to make my point since the savings was higher in the US
(47% savings in the US vs 29%).
I never said that individual ones weren't different, just that overall
they cost more in Canada. They also cost more to the system since the
ones that tend to be higher are also those that tend to be used more.

Frazier notes months long waits for for the above, with the longest
for US. They have access to many, but not used the same.

That is what Canadians like to believe.

No. Subsidized in this context means that much of the cost of a good
or service is paid for by someone other than the person using the
service in a way that hides the true costs from the user. We subsidize
by having the employer pay much of the costs. You subsidize by splitting
the subsidy more evenly between the government and the employer. No
perjorative meaning here, just simple economics.

Finally something we agree on. I would add not a real pertinent
statement either.

Pretty much my point.

Which means also that you can't go to another province and get
treatment paid for easily..

 

The boys at the Frazier institute would tend to disagree. The found
Hip replacements median total wait time (gp referral to treatment) was
20.7 weeks. You also have a waiting time of 4.6 weeks for medical
oncology and 5.8 weeks for radiation oncologists. Neurosurgery waiting
lists run 31.7 weeks. Actual wait times exceeded clinically "reasonable"
times in 81% of the comparisons.
[/QUOTE]

If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their methodology.
They are the ones who think it makes any sense at all to compare tax
rates between countries. Only an idiot or someone who wants to mislead
people, would do that.

 

Define socialized medicine.

 

Since they use mostly the actual figures from the Provincial
government, who would you like to use or are you still trying to suggest
that there are no waiting lines?

 

Probably. The US spends more per capita on health care than any other
nation on earth.

So you're saying the drug companies are cheating Americans by
overcharging us compared to what they charge in other countries? But
I thought free markets and capitalism were the solution to everything!

 

In the US, if you don't have health insurance, the wait time is
infinity. How is that better?

True, but there aren't generics for everything.

So the answer is, what, dozens of insurance companies, each with their
own different sets of forms?

 

Sorry, it wasn't you that made the original statements, although
I do welcome you to come up with a better metric.
BTW: WHO, the UN, EU, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund all compare
tax rates between countries as part of their regular work. You might
want to clue them on your findings.

 

As I said, they have a history of distorting things, not mentioning
things or redefining things to the benefit of whomever it is who is
paying their bills (ie Corporations).

 

A 2004 CBO report concluded that capping awards at $250,000 for non-
economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits "would basically save
only 0.4 percent of the amount that's spent now" on health care.
According to the report, "[M]alpractice costs amounted to an estimated
$24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of
overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to
30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only
about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health
insurance premiums would be comparably small."

And when the Republicans in Congress passed the Medicare prescription
drug law, they protected their friends in the pharmaceutical industry
by expressly forbidding negotiating for low drug costs. Thanks,
fellows!

And the costs associated with having for-profit insurers looking for
ways to deny claims.

 

And ithas been that way for at least the last 15 years I have been
following it.

 

Actually your wait time is until you get really sick and then the
law says the hospitals HAVE to treat you.
Never said it was better. I am merely pointing out that if we
accept the Canadian(or Brit or Japanese or any other model) we are
merely changing one set of nasty things for another. And 80% of the
population is still covered.

True, never said otherwise. Merely that much of the money saved
by the price controls on name brands is spent on higher prices for the
generics. In both cases, the percentage of the total health care
expenditures that goes to pharmaceuticals is pretty much the same. So,

 

Far-far-right-wing think tank. Really out on the fringe.

Totally false. Most new drugs are simply repackaging or minor changes
in ingredients to get that all-important patent and have exclusive
rights for years.

Life expectancy is directly tied to that. Anyway, he cited a source
for his claim; other than your dislike for the evil "socialism" (which
you cannot define), what's your source?

Frazier lies.

Insurance, by its very nature, is a subsidy. In a month in which you
don't use your insurance, you subsidize those who do.

Try going out of network here.

 

So who would you say are the people to talk to on this matter? Or are
you just naysing.

 

There is another CBO study (as well as a couple in JAMA, one from
Center for Medicare/Medicaid studies, and others) that suggest the
impact from "defensive" medicine is much more than that. If you cut back
the malpractice there would be other savings. However, I have yet to see
one that convinces me that even with added costs, it would be a percent
change over all. Although it might help.

Actually they only said that Medicare couldn't negotiate. The
companies who actually run the programs can and have.
Medicare's prescription drug program is structured so that insurance
companies must compete for customers, which results in more choices and
lets seniors search for the best value. In 2003, lawmakers estimated
seniors would pay an average monthly premium for prescription drug
coverage in 2009 of more than $44. According to government officials,
their average monthly premium next year for the standard plan will be
just $28. Compared to original projections, the cost to the taxpayers of
the new drug benefit is $243.7 billion, or 39%, lower over 10 years than
original estimates.
Despite the fact that in the first year Part D was actual under
budget and cheaper than forecast, it was still successful. A study by
IMS Health and independent consulting firm that examines the impact of
Medicare's prescription drug program on issues such as out-of-pocket
spending, generic drug usage, access to therapy, and rates of
compliance. Key findings:
€ Previously uninsured seniors benefited the most from the program,
decreasing their out-of-pocket costs by 60% and increasing their use of
pharmaceuticals by 26%.
€ Beneficiaries who switched from other third-party coverage to
Medicare's prescription drug program decreased their out-of-pocket costs
by 17% and increased their prescription use by 10%.
€ After reaching the initial coverage limit, only 6% of
beneficiaries entered the "donut hole," nearly half (45%) of whom did
not enter until the last quarter of 2006.
Under budget, cheaper and doing pretty much what it was supposed to
do.

Of course even the government plans don't cover a lot of things. You
have to be in a condition that meets the government definition of
"medical necessity" before treatment will be paid for under Mcare or
MCaid.

 

In the US, if you don't have health insurance, the wait time is
infinity. How is that better?

*************************************************************

One reason cost is so high is the people that do not have insurance are
still treated. Don't take my word for it, stop by your local ER on a
Saturday night and watch the crowds.

 

And you have the balls to rip on the Frazier people for one sidedness,

Totally wrong. Long line of studies showing that "me too" drugs
aren't. For instance if one SSRI antidepressant doesn't work, another
one might. Same with heart and some other medications. If one of a class
doesn't work, there are a number of drugs where another one might. The
"minor" changes are often therapeutic changes.

Find a single place in this where I said anything at all about
socialism. That is a lousy word with little meaning.

So there they are equivalent.

 

What are we talking about again? Wait times?

 

It is the deficiencies in our school system that encourages mediocrity in
the guise of "fairness." The answer to that is always 'we need more
money.' The most expensive school system in the US is Washington DC. The
cost per student would send others to some colleges, yet it has the worst
academic record. To hell with political correctness. Keep the kids back
untill their parents realize THEY need to get involved or they reach
sixteen. Educate those that want to be educated so they can move up in the
world and to hell with those that do not want to be educated. Some of my
great grand-children play soccer in a league that does not keep score, so as
nto to offend those that lose. Ask any one of them who one and they will
tell you who won. The world is full of competition and the kids know it but
many forget that fact when they go out into the world it seems. Those are
the ones our government sends a check to buy their vote and the rest of us
pay the "price."

 

I'm having a hard time understanding how my parents could become
completely literate during the depression and yet the city of Detroit
has a functional illiteracy rate near 50% due to underfunding. Do they
have less money to spend than schools did during the depression?

 

No argument with that.

That's all very well in principle, but how does a single parent
(deserted by spouse) working two poorly paid jobs to keep roof over
their heads and food on the table have time to become *adequately*
involved in the children's education?

What about children who leave the house, ostensibly for school, but
never show up? Or the kids that show up at school but walk the hallways
instead of going to class? (Both situations shown in a recent
documentary about an inner-city school in Baltimore, MD.)

What about schools that can't retain teachers for more than a few
months, so that students have substitute after substitute, many of whom
are not qualified to teach what they are assigned to teach and may not
be good teachers at all?

What about a system where schools depend for their finances on property
taxes that dwindle further and further as industry and commerce flee the
area?

Perce