Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Florida
23,795 posts, read 13,274,620 times
Reputation: 19952

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomzoom3 View Post
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/moth...061950107.html

I'm guessing they probably will never consider the US again as a vacation destination!
People from countries with reasonable health care costs should be warned by their government's state departments when traveling to our country. Visiting the US may cause bankruptcy.

This isn't even unusual. I met a British man who was bitten by a recluse spider and wound up with an $80k hospital bill for his antibiotics. I imagine there are many stories such as this that do not make the news.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Steeler Nation
6,897 posts, read 4,755,909 times
Reputation: 1633
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
So you're saying the news agency is misreporting the facts?

"Huculak told CTV there was no "high-risk pregnancy," she just had a bladder infection that caused some bleeding. Her doctor in Saskatchewan explained to Blue Cross that the infection didn't have anything to do with the early labor, but it didn't change the company's decision not to pay."



Please learn what rate means.
There is more to it than just rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:04 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,388,318 times
Reputation: 17261
From the link:
Quote:
The report said Canada had the second-highest rate of first-day infant mortality in the industrialized world, with roughly 900 babies — or 2.4 per 1,000 births — ending in early tragedy.
Only the United States posted a higher number of babies who die within their first 24 hours on earth, with 11,300 or 2.6 per 1,000 births.
I bolded the relative part.

also....ouch. apparently we should ignore that whole "top notch medical" thing.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:05 PM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,502,847 times
Reputation: 16962
Didn't read your own link did you sunshine:

excerpted:

Only the United States posted a higher number of babies who die within their first 24 hours on earth, with 11,300 or 2.6 per 1,000 births.

Over twice the mortality rate as Canada, so the title was accurate as all get-out with the U.S. being the WORST in the developed world.

I bet that isn't what you wanted to see and you read your links before posting them next time, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:06 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,269,301 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452 View Post
There is more to it than just rates.
If you knew what rate means you would not have brought up population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Yes because somehow Canada cant deliver a child.

And ignoring the fact that Canada has a lower infant mortality rate then we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452 View Post
Their population is a lot lower, maybe that accounts for some of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:06 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,388,318 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowne View Post
And why, pray tell, did not the bleeding heart Canadians extract their rare flower who was being held captive on an Hawaiian Island by the evil American medical cartel?
They tried, they couldn't get the flight apparently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:10 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,388,318 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
So if the bill would have been say something ridiculously slow, like

$10

You'd still expect government to pickup the tab?
What part of universal healthcare do you not understand?

Its not free-we would all pay for it in taxes, but its resulted in some top notch healthcare systems around the world, whose average care and costs are better then ours.

Yes I know, you can find some cancer we do better at. But if you don't cherry pick data we suck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 11,031,664 times
Reputation: 6192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Didn't read your own link did you sunshine:

excerpted:

Only the United States posted a higher number of babies who die within their first 24 hours on earth, with 11,300 or 2.6 per 1,000 births.

Over twice the mortality rate as Canada, so the title was accurate as all get-out with the U.S. being the WORST in the developed world.

I bet that isn't what you wanted to see and you read your links before posting them next time, eh?
Not sure if this study in particular had the same issue but in the past, when comparing other countries to North American infant mortality rates, the biggest issue was how other countries determined their mortality rates.

This article does a decent job of explaining the complexity. So I wouldn't put too much stock into either the US or Canada's supposed high rate because the it's deceiving. It lists the reasons why these statistics aren't generally accurate.

Infant Mortality: A Deceptive Statistic | National Review Online
Quote:
Infant and neonatal mortality rates are complex, multifactorial end-points that oversimplify heterogeneous inputs, many of which have no relation to health care at all. Moreover, these statistics gleaned from the widely varied countries of the world are plagued by inconsistencies, problematic definitions, and gross inaccuracies, all of which disadvantage the ranking of the U.S., where accuracy is paramount. Even though Oestergaard’s WHO report lists several “challenges and limitations” in comparing neonatal mortality rates, sensationalized headlines continue to rage about the supposedly poor showing of the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Steeler Nation
6,897 posts, read 4,755,909 times
Reputation: 1633
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Canada's health insurance is not stupid enough to be held to ransom by America 'greed without accountability' so they cover you only for what they would pay were the same issue to happen in Canada.

The optional purchased Travel Insurance company in question is this one:

Blue Cross Blue Shield Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My retirement benefits program includes travel insurance for 'Out of Province' which means it's good anywhere in the world and right there in the small print with triple asterisks beside it is the disclaimer saying something like "Should you experience a medical emergency event in the United States; if condition is stabilized so as travel is medically possible, we will arrange a med-flight to evacuate/return you to Canada" AND that my friends, is an AMERICAN insurance agency!

There is no such rider in the event I experience a problem anywhere else in the world.

Get that? "Should you have a problem in the U.S. we'll pay whatever it costs to get your azz out of there pronto!" An American insurer no less.

Preferring as you do to allow a third and fourth party to screw with your well being has got to be the dumbest thing you embrace when you scream about freedoms and rights to the extent you do. Willingly placing yourselves into the shylock arena of insurance cubicle denizens and hospital profiteers is anything BUT libertarian in nature.

Keep up with the nonsense though; it's entertaining, I'll give you that.
It will be settled for much less. With that said, My retirement insurance covers me any where also and I pay about $100 per mo. Anthem BCBS. never got a bill in my life no matter what insurance I had at the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Steeler Nation
6,897 posts, read 4,755,909 times
Reputation: 1633
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And our insurance companies usually only pay the same that the government would be paying..

Which is why I dont understand the big push to nationalize health insurance saying it would be cheaper...

it wont be.. Treatments have a cost associated to them and its dictated by zip code and procedural code, and whos paying the bill is immaterial.
People are being disillusioned by Obama care as we speak!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top