KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/2/05 12:28 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
BCITORGB at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:31 PM:

Tink, I'm fairly sure you didn't read this one:
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf

Could not read all of it for all the reading I have been doing, but
read enough of it!


I quote: "In short, patients get on wait lists in Canada through
a
poorly understood, haphazard, unaudited, entirely private process
largely controlled by individual physicians."

The authors tell us that the notion of a waiting list and the
notions
of waiting and waiting times are hard to define. For example,
when
"exactly" does a patient (and, in this case, I don't care if it's
in
Canada, the USA, the UK, or whereever) get "on" a waiting list?
Tink,
when you call your family doctor, and the receptionist informs
you
that
you can come in on Thursday, you're on a waiting list (if this is
a
day
other than Thursday).

But what is particularly interesting in the statement in question
is
the part about it being an "entirely private process largely
controlled by individual physicians." So, no big bad government
determining who gets to wait. It is the physician, using his/her
best
knowledge, who determines the nature of our wait. I think this is
exactly what KMAN, Michael, and I have been trying to say.
Doctors
in
Canada operate privately.

Yes and the Drs are employees of the Canadian Gov, employed to make
those decisions.


Tink, your source goes on to say: "Wait times tend to be, in
statistical jargon, highly skewed. This means that very long
waits
are
the exception. A few long waits can have the same misleading
effect
on
wait time statistics as a few palatial mansions on average
housing
prices." NOTE: "very long waits are the exception"

To complete that thought, the authors say: "But in the world of
selling
papers and tv advertising spots, the exception often makes the
story.
This gets an unassuming public understandably concerned, playing
nicely
into the hands of those seeking to get more money into the
system."

Is that not EXACTLY what KMAN has been saying? This is hype!

NOW READ THIS CAREFULLY (IT TAKES THE CANADIAN PULSE): "Some
recent
Canadian research has found that not all patients are unhappy
about
waiting. Very
few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted to see
additional public funds used to reduce wait times (although this
may be
related to the procedures they were waiting for and may also now
be
changing, as Canadians seem increasingly concerned about access
to
care). Fewer still seemed interested in shelling out extra money
personally to reduce their wait time."

NOTE CAREFULLY: "Fewer still seemed interested in shelling out
extra
money personally to reduce their wait time." That's us, cheap
Canadians
(just ask the folks in Florida)!

Anyway, Tink, thanks for the link. It goes on, and on, and on,
supporting KMAN's points.

frtzw906

Dang. I owe Tinkerntom and apology. I never should have assumed he
understood the information he was posting. Sorry Tinkerntom!

KMAN and frtwz, I do know how to read, and I understand that the
above
link supports much of what you have been saying about the Canadian
Medical System, and it has been educational to me to do this
research.

Cool.

I have learned more in the last few days about Canadian Medical
System
than I probably know about US system, and I've learned about the US
system as well, in comparison to Canada. These issues are pertinent
even here as there are movements to modify our Medicare and Social
Security programs. In doing this research, I have read regarding
systems in Sweden, Nederlands, UK, Aus. and Nz. I have collected
several hundred links, and have a lot of reading to do on a cold
winter
night, next year, since winter is just about over here! And it will
be
time to go boating!

Now wrestling with statistics is not my strong suite, being an
ENTP,
but I have tried to present various sides of the discussion, and
recognize that there are alot of biased voices yelling out their
viewpoint. I am aware as I said that a number of links support your
contentions, and there are some that do not support you. Some are
happy
with the system, some are unhappy, such is the nature of man. Even
the
Gorsuch case was closely linked to the Tory political party, which
if
you are a Tory, was probably acceptable. However if you were of
Doers
ND party (?), you would probably not be so sensitive.

The "Tory" party was the "Progressive Conservative" (PC) party which
no
longer exists (sadly, I think) and now we have the Conservative party
(which
was formerly the Reform party and then the Alliance party and then
riding a
groundswell of right-wing social conservatism mainly in the west of
Canada
managed to swallow up the PC party) the Liberal party (which is a
party of
big business in a country where "liberal" has far different
connotations
that it does in the USA) and we also have the New Democratic Party
(NDP)
which is not "new" at all and although failing to develop broad
appeal
remains an important voice on such issues as health care and
individual
rights. In what is truly a fascinating twist, we also have the Bloc
Quebecois (BQ) which is based only in the province of Quebec and
shares some
similarities with the NDP but they only run candidates in Quebec and
as a
rule must make some sort of stupid statement about Quebec sovereignty
on a
weekly basis.

I also posted some international links, regarding the general
condition
of socialized medicine, that had studied the Canadian system in
part. I
tried t present various viewpoints that would not necessarily be in
agreement with my conservative political position, but which I felt
presented a cognitive approach that could be studdied.

As I said before, in fairness, I did not post organ donor list, or
folks waiting to get their ingrown toenails taken care of, that may
have died of some other cause that was not related to their being
on
this particular list. I was impressed that it appears that the
Canadian
system is especially good at providing preventative care that
raised
the general health of the society at large, and especially in the
segment of poor and indigent that would not have health care other
wise.

That's probably what we are most proud of. For the most part, one's
race and
economic status does not prevent access to very good medical care.
This
contrasts strongly with countries like the US. On the other hand,
rich
people have to wait longer than they would in the US, and some argue
that it
would be better if they could just purchase the services they want
and free
up space for the less fortunate. The problem with that is that once
people
of means are no longer part of the system, they are probably going to
be
less thrilled about paying into it, and the whole thing falls apart.

I also read that even on the list of seriously ill, that those on
the list receive some modicum of medical care, that if they
survived
the initial event, they could be expected to continue healthier
until
their eventual medical procedure, with an accompaning reduced
mortality
rate. This would be little consolation for someone like Sean
Gorsuch
who's mother died while on a wait list, which brings us to the
point of
this whole discussion, the other discussions will have to wait.

Sigh. As you konw, this case was rare, and the government is
responding to
it.

The question that was being ask by KMAN regarding claims by rick
about
sick people dying while waiting for a medical procedure, is a
different
issue altogether. rick is not comparing to US privatized medicine,
or
that there are wait list here as well, or even saying that the wait
list in Canada are too long. In fact I have seen no where, where
rick
made any qualitative assessement or comment on the quality of care
eventually provided. He has made no comment about whether any
Canadians
are happy or unhappy with the timeliness of the medical care
provided.

Right. He's a weasel. Which is why I was trying to pin him down on
something. Unfortunately I did so in haste and he's jumped on a badly
posed
question, presumably for his own amusement, and completely taken away
from
what could have been a useful discussion about health care. Although,
we are
sort of having one now :-)

FOCUS! He only said that some have died while waiting for a Medical
Test or Procedure.

That is not to say that they were very ill, and would not have died
anyway. They may have died in the US wait list, but that is not the
point of what he is saying. He is not saying there were not
mitigating
factor, or bad doctors. Just that for whatever reason, they died
before
they received the prescribed procedure, and that in these cases,
the
wait time was too long. Whether it was 1 day, 10 days, 10 weeks, or
2
years, the patient died with their name on a list. I understand
that
the wait times may be skewed and the particular person who dies, is
the
exception, but that does not change the fact that they are now
dead.
There may be private medical service available, that could have
saved
their life, but for whatever reason, they did not avail themselves
of
it and they are now dead. It may be a physician that puts them on a
list, but they are now dead none the less. I understand that the
media
loves a nasty story cause they can sell more airtime or newspapers.
Politicians love these stories so they can point the finger at the
other politicians. Unions can leverage some more money. And it
gives
academics to research, and statiticians something to figure out how
to
count, and to happily count. And Usenet writers to hack about, but
it
does not change the fact that a person died while listed, and that
is
all rick was saying!

Other links have been supplied to support this statement by rick,
and
it is time for KMAN to concede that he was asking the wrong
question
again, and apologize to rick. Concede, get it over with so we can
move
on!

I already did it, Tinkerntom. You are right. I was trying so hard to
get
rick to argue in some sort of an honest way that I pushed him on a
question
that wasn't well conceived.

I would take an apology as well if one is on the table! You
insisted
that I join this dance, and then stepped on my toes when I didn't
dance
the way you expected me to dance. I was content to set this one out
as
I stated before, and I will bow out now, before I get my nose broke
or
bent out of shape. TnT

You actually did a nice job of pointing out that the a technical
arrangement
of my question (clearly not the spirit of my question, however) was
flawed.

Now I'm after an apology from rick for repeatedly claiming that I
said no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment. Stay tuned. Or maybe even
turn your
talents to bringing that to a close, since you did a nice job on this
one
(seriously).

I heard a concession in their someplace, but may I suggest that you
post a reply in this thread that would be unambiguous, and with out all
the other accompaning overburden of top post so that rick will have no
excuse to misunderstand! and rick be nice!

On my account, I accept your apology and look forward to a continuing
dialog!
Eh, you Canadians are not so bad either, understanding that your
Canadians TnT