Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

But of course you have no evidence of this.But I have evidence to refute this.
Link
Link

At least you could have used a non-partisan groups study that wasn't using questionable methodology. Fraser Institute

quote:

---

It has been described as politically conservative and right-libertarian....

​

and envisions "a free and prosperous world where individuals benefit from greater choice, competitive markets, and personal responsibility".

---

Their methodology is no different than creationism. They are looking for evidence to back up their goals. They are not following evidence to a conclusion. They have their conclusion and are looking for anything, even playing with statistics, to "prove" their stance.Their 'evidence" is a "waiting list survey" that they send to physicians. There is no independent verification of this data. Is it not possible that only like minded physicians participate? I know if my wife received a survey from the Heritage Institute she would throw it away. Without a a more comprehensive review of the methodology their numbers mean nothing.But there are huge other factors too.Look at their references. Not a single one is an independent reference. The author uses himself as a reference. Everyone of them refers to a Fraser Institute document.Now lets look at the figures. 43,000 Canadians sought care outside of Canada. Canada has a population of about 33 million. I will let you figure the percentage. So if the Fraser institutes #'s a correct then miniscule # of Canadians are seeking healthcare out of Canada. Which is in direct support of my arguments and the links I provided. Thank you.Now lets look at another point of this "study". You are using it to support the notion that Canadians are fleeing to the US for healthcare. I do not see anything about the US in your link. So this is of absolutely no support of your argument.More info about Canadians coming to the US. Link

quote:

---

Agreements between Detroit hospitals and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for heart, imaging tests, bariatric and other services provide access to some services not immediately available in the province, said ministry spokesman David Jensen.

​

The agreements show how a country with a national care system -- a proposal not part of the health care changes under discussion in Congress -- copes with demand for care with U.S. partnerships, rather than building new facilities.

​

Michael Vujovich, 61, of Windsor was taken to Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital for an angioplasty procedure after he went to a Windsor hospital in April. Vujovich said the U.S. backup doesn't show a gap in Canada's system, but shows how it works.

​

"I go to the hospital in Windsor and two hours later, I'm done having angioplasty in Detroit," he said. His $38,000 bill was covered by the Ontario health ministry.

---

Its a feature of their healthcare, not a problem. Do you think you could get an angioplasty for $38,000?A little aside. LinkIf you look at the full text you will see they use valid references and clearly describe their methodology.So any evidence at all that Canadians are coming over to the US in droves for healthcare? Any evidence at all that a significant percentage of Canadians prefer the US system as opposed to theirs?

Really? really?Have you stooped so low? This wasn't a survey it is propaganda.
4% response on a fax blast? Come on CS, you can do better than this.
Also the conclusions they reach are not supported by the questions in the survey.Will you even follow the media matters link provided to actually look at the substantial criticisms of this propaganda? The media matters link even links to their "methodology". It is quite a hoot.

Poison the well? Really? Maybe you should look up what that really means.The Fraser Institute is a conservative, libertarian-right organization. Do you dispute this? They have history of attacking the canadian health care system. Do you dispute this?
This organization you used as a source has no source for their data other than themselves. I have presented facts about the organization and the horrendous methodology they have used to reach the conclusions they wanted to reach. Again, this is not research, this is propaganda. But you have presented nothing to refute those sources or to show that it is different today. Must I repeat again. YOUR SOURCE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT CANADIANS COMING TO THE USA OR WHY THEY WENT OUT OF CANADA.This report does not support the contention that Canadians are coming to the USA in droves for medical care. Please show me how it supports that position.Have you done any research about US citizens traveling abroad for healthcare? Go ahead do some research we are talking about millions of people.Their report has methodological issues and puts forward a number of assumptions that the data can not support.From the report.

quote:

---

Among the consequences of poor access to health care in
Canada is the reality that some Canadians will ultimately
receive the care they require outside of the country. Some of
these patients will have been sent out of country by the public
health care system due to a lack of available resources or the
fact that some procedures or equipment are not provided
in their home jurisdiction. Others will have chosen to leave
Canada in response to concerns about quality (Walker et al.,
2009); to avoid some of the adverse medical consequences of
waiting for care such as worsening of their condition, poorer
outcomes following treatment, disability, or death (Esmail,
2009); or simply to avoid delay

---

Look at those references. It is the Fraser Institute. Esmail is the author of this report. Please go to those articles and show me where they support this conclusion. Both of these references read like propaganda with hard data lacking sorely. So you expect everyone to accept everything your present uncritically? I see you have nothing to support their methodology or conclusions. Why? So you think 43,000 is a large % of what ever you want it to be a percentage of? Again do research on US citizens traveling abroad for health care and once again. YOUR SOURCE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT CANADIANS COMING TO THE USA I have no idea there is no data presented to reach any conclusions. BTW, you did read in my last post about Ontario working with US hospitals didn't you? Would you consider that a failing of Canadian healthcare? So the US should expect worse healthcare because we are bigger? If you are going to make an assertion like this please back it up with a cogent argument. Well as those are thearguments you are attempting to make, it would behoove you to provide some evidence. Your source did not support either of these contentions.Showing bias and lack of support for your argument is not poisoning the well. It is a rational argument.

Number of doctors in USA
661, 400
Source
Number responding to survey
699Oh my god. You expect this survey to have any semblance of credibility?This is without even looking at how the answers they received do not support their conclusions.I think your preconceived beliefs have overtaken your ability to examine data critically.

You have presented this survey as relevant.

I had some time to investigate your source a little bit more. It ain't pretty.

quote:

---

Nor is there much that is fair or scientific about the Fraser Institute’s research, despite the claim it is subject to a rigorous peer review process. Saskatoon health policy consultant Stephen Lewis brilliantly deconstructs the Grade 9 methodology behind the institute’s annual report on hospital wait times and exposes it as skewed estimates on a hot-button issue, retailed as hard data, and intended to lure Canadians to the promised land of private medicine.

​

Never mind the 16-per-cent response rate in 2011, which alone cashiers validity, Mr. Lewis writes of the Fraser Institute’s effort. Even more fundamentally, the questionnaire asks respondents for neither the sources of their estimates, nor whether they consult any real data to support their responses.

​

So, as Nova Scotia Finance Minister Graham Steele put it: The Fraser Institute produces junk. It is not a serious institution. It is a political organization

---

Source

quote:

---

There are those who say the organization's birth was not completely benign; they charge that Michael Walker, an economist from the University of Western Ontario, helped set up the institute after he received financial backing from forestry giant MacMillan-Bloedel, largely to counter B.C.'s NDP government. ...

​

In 1999, the Fraser Institute raised the ire of scientists and health professionals when it sponsored two conferences on the tobacco industry. They were titled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." The institute was accused of putting its credibility on the line by allying itself with the tobacco industry's efforts to undermine credible scientific research.

---

Sorry - we can't find that page

quote:

---

The Fraser Institute’s motto is: If it matters, measure it. Mark Twain had a different take: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

​

It’s easy for statistics to become lies. A recent Fraser Institute mini study demonstrates how this can happen. This study was produced to contribute to the heated debate in the United States over Barack Obama’s proposal to bring in a publicly funded health-insurance option.

​

One argument used to support a public option is that it would reduce the large number of bankruptcies experienced by Americans who have inadequate insurance to pay for expensive medical procedures.

​

A 2007 national study by legal, medical, and sociological researchers found that medical expenses contributed to nearly two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations, the study noted. Three quarters had medical insurance but had accumulated large medical debts, lost significant income due to illness, or mortgaged their homes to pay medical bills. Some lost coverage when they changed jobs.

​

An earlier study by the same authors noted that Canada’s universal health insurance resulted in lower bankruptcy rates.

​

Not so, claims Brett Skinner, the Fraser Institute’s director of bio-pharma and health-policy research, and senior policy analyst Mark Rovere. If the 2007 national study is correct, they argue, because of Canada’s single-payer system, we should expect to observe a lower rate of bankruptcy in Canada compared to the United States, all else being equal. Yet the most recent data shows that the non-business bankruptcy rate in Canada is statistically the same as it is in the United States.

​

But Skinner and Rovere don’t use the most recent data, which would undermine their case. They use data from 2006 and 2007 that shows bankruptcy rates being higher in Canada than in the U.S. In both years, the Canadian bankruptcy rate was 3.0 per thousand population. In the U.S., the rate was 2.0 per thousand in 2006 and 2.7 in 2007. Skinner and Rovere conclude that a publicly funded health-care system doesn’t lead to lower bankruptcy rates.

---

Fraser Institute spins bankruptcy facts - rabble.caSpin and propaganda. Karl Rove would be proud.Sources need to be vetted. Anyone can claim or say anything. If the source will not provide you with their methodology and sources for the data then their conclusions should be questioned. Thinking critically is a virtue.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

There seems to be lots of evidence that the idea of Canadians flooding to the US for healthcare is a right wing myth. As of yet no one has presented any credible evidence that this argument has any weight.This myth is a central premise of the whole anti-PPACA movement. And like the majority of the arguments against the PPACA it is based upon lies and deceit.

quote:

---

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

---

Link
Coming to the US for services is a feature of Canadian healthcare not a flaw.

quote:

---

Cherkas is among an estimated 500,000 Americans treated abroad in 2006. As U.S. health care and insurance costs soar, more people are opting for medical and dental care in unfamiliar surroundings and thousands of miles from their families and doctors. "Medical tourism" has morphed in recent years from an obscure phenomenon into a global industry, fueled by the Internet, ease of travel, shorter wait times for appointments and greater international sharing of medical "best practices," says Karen H. Timmons, CEO of the Joint Commission International (JCI), the overseas arm of the nonprofit Joint Commission, which accredits U.S. health facilities.

​

Some U.S. companies and insurers, anxious to lower care costs, are driving the trend by urging employees to be treated in one of a growing number of countries that cater to foreign patients, among them India, Singapore, Hungary, South Africa, Dubai, Costa Rica and Brazil. Thailand remains a top destination, with Bumrungrad hospital alone treating 64,000 Americans last yearup 11 percent from 2005.

---

LinkOne hospital in Thailand sees more US citizens than all of the Canadians that supposedly leave the country(still waiting for a legitimate source) for medical care.Gee Sarah Palin used to go to Canada for healthcare. Classic right wing crap. Ok for me but not for thee.

quote:

---

The vocal opponent of health-care reform in the U.S. steered largely clear of the topic except to reveal a tidbit about her life growing up not far from Whitehorse.

​

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," she said. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"

---

LinkThe attack on PPACA by comparing it to the Canadian system is specious at best. Deceptive and lies in reality. The two systems are not alike at all.But when you actually examine the arguments against the Canadian system, the arguments tend to fall flat. They are usually based on distortions or out right lies. This is not to say the Canadian system is perfect. It has some deep seated nagging flaws. Even with its flaws the vast majority of Canadians want public healthcare and prefer their system over a US style system.

quote:

---

Canadians strongly support the health system's public rather than for-profit private basis, and a 2009 poll by Nanos Research found 86.2% of Canadians surveyed supported or strongly supported "public solutions to make our public health care stronger."[7][8]

​

A 2009 Harris/Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States, more than ten times as many as the 8% stating a preference for a US-style health care system for Canada[9] while a Strategic Counsel survey in 2008 found 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S.

---

LinkIf anyone wants to attack the PPACA then find a valid attack. The comparison to the Canadian system or pointing out flaws in the Canadian system are not valid points. If you feel you need to use the Canadian system then stay away from the whole "Canadians flocking to US" argument, because the hard evidence is not there and it forces a hard look at the US system that is not pretty at all.