Oh, Canada
 

Canuck57 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Listening to the anti abortion people protest any health plan that
would possibly include abortion, I was wondering what they do in
other countries to appease these opposite beliefs.

From:
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpaper...lly-Funded.PDF


The politicizing of abortion led to the current situation of
one-half of all abortions in Canada being performed at mostly
private clinics. Abortion clinics opened in the first place because
hospitals were failing to provide adequate services on a fair and
equal basis for Canadian women.

Hard to read that document and not see the logic.

Canadian liberals are a dogmatic bunch. They don't believe in
freedom of choice in much of anything from abortion, taxation, etc.
They are the first to impose their often myopic views on others.

As for our hospitals, the government services are not that good up
here. You should take note as at the rate the government is going,
they smell health care as a source of general revenue. It is coming
to a hospital near you in the USA.

Despite what you might hear, medical services aren't that good down in
the good Old USA either.

I had a sudden hearing loss issue that wasn't treated even though I
was in the doctor's office the next day. You have one week for
treatment, then it's permanent.

The doctors (several of them) diagnosed it as long term hearing loss,
which isn't treatable. Eventually United Health intervened and I got
treatment. Five weeks too late.

"Gee we are sorry," was all I got from the initial doctors.

My lesson was that I should have had hearing tests as part of my
regular physical so that there would be no argument about long term
versus sudden hearing loss.

I had the tests, but they chose, initially, to ignore them as they
weren't THEIR tests. Eventually someone looked at them and said this
isn't long term hearing loss.

Now I know something that's pretty damn important.

Oh, they already know about profit based health care. Trust me.

In Canada, you would wait 8 to 16 weeks just to see a doctor. First,
you go to a clinic and a technician (not neccessarily a doctor), they do
a 1 minute exam and submit the paperwork to the regional health care and
IF they approve it, you see a specialist.

I have lived on both sides of the border, I have used both systems. 90%
of Americans are better off in the USA as it is. For the 10% (or less)
they are not often because of their own stupidity. Less than 1% are in
a real hole there wasn't much they could do bout it.

So, like a classroom of kids you support service levels to the lowest
intelligence? In the case of health care, government runs it with no
competetion and revenue in mind lowers the servies standard to the UK or
Canada while skiming the tax revenue for statism?

My wife had a ovarian cyst. Took 3 1/2 months to see the doc, 28 weeks
was the initial wait for surgery. Fortunately someone canceled and it
was only 9 weeks. Who knows, maybe they died waiting? It was unknown
if it was cancerious but after the surgery, my prayer came true that it
was not.

Think twice, the decision Americans are making in this subject is for
practical purposes irreversable. And the amount of BS coming from
government hungry for your health care dollars as revenue speaks for
itself.

I had to wait 6 weeks to see a ear specialist at UCLA. They had nothing
worthwhile to say, waited another 4 weeks to see the House Ear Clinic.
They knew what to do, but told me it was too late, I should have come
on earlier.

That's not better.

Oh, Canada
 

Jim wrote:

I had to wait 6 weeks to see a ear specialist at UCLA. They had nothing
worthwhile to say, waited another 4 weeks to see the House Ear Clinic.
They knew what to do, but told me it was too late, I should have come on
earlier.

That's not better.

Your fault. Find better service elsewhere.

In Canada, it's not an option within their healthcare system. People who
try to contradict this are either stupid, mislead, or have an agenda to
push.

It's always revealing when an American attempts to tell a Canadian how
the Canadian healthcare system works.

Johnson

Oh, Canada
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 11/11/09 1:03 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:51:16 -0700,
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:54:03 -0800, wrote:

Listening to the anti abortion people protest any health plan that
would
possibly include abortion, I was wondering what they do in other
countries to appease these opposite beliefs.

From:
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpaper...lly-Funded.PDF

The politicizing of abortion led to the current situation of one-half
of
all abortions in Canada being performed at mostly private clinics.
Abortion clinics opened in the first place because hospitals were
failing to provide adequate services on a fair and equal basis for
Canadian women.

Hard to read that document and not see the logic.

Maybe there's some concern about this language: "All abortions are
medically necessary, since it is impractical and discriminatory to
separate out abortions done for "social" reasons from those done for
"health" reasons."

Some folks just don't believe that killing babies should have no
thought behind it whatsoever. I sure don't think I should have to pay
for them.

I am sure lots of thought goes into it. But since I don't have to live
with the consequences caporial or spiratual, I am quite content with
letting the decision be between the woman and the doctor.

Too bad you could take these no-rights people, brutally rape them to
get
them pregnent, makes up the arse, then dictate to them like sheep that
they will have the child.

There are methods to get rid of possible pregnancies from rape without
waiting until the baby is viable. Or, do women just wait for a while
before deciding they were raped? Something there makes no sense.


Then when the child gets old enough to ask how they were conceived,
they
can be told "?? raped me an so you were born...".

--

John H


Waiting for the baby to be viable??? That's not very pro-life. Isn't it a
baby from conception? What a bunch of horsepucky. You have no business in
my
or any woman's business. Butt out.



And in a nutshell, you have stumbled across herring's favorite sexual
position for himself...butt out.


Ewww.... TMI

--
Nom=de=Plume

Oh, Canada
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:51:16 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:54:03 -0800, Jim wrote:

Listening to the anti abortion people protest any health plan that
would possibly include abortion, I was wondering what they do in other
countries to appease these opposite beliefs.

From:
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpaper...lly-Funded.PDF

The politicizing of abortion led to the current situation of one-half
of all abortions in Canada being performed at mostly private clinics.
Abortion clinics opened in the first place because hospitals were
failing to provide adequate services on a fair and equal basis for
Canadian women.

Hard to read that document and not see the logic.
Maybe there's some concern about this language: "All abortions are
medically necessary, since it is impractical and discriminatory to
separate out abortions done for "social" reasons from those done for
"health" reasons."

Some folks just don't believe that killing babies should have no
thought behind it whatsoever. I sure don't think I should have to pay
for them.
I am sure lots of thought goes into it. But since I don't have to live
with the consequences caporial or spiratual, I am quite content with
letting the decision be between the woman and the doctor.

Too bad you could take these no-rights people, brutally rape them to get
them pregnent, makes up the arse, then dictate to them like sheep that
they will have the child.

There are methods to get rid of possible pregnancies from rape without
waiting until the baby is viable. Or, do women just wait for a while
before deciding they were raped? Something there makes no sense.

Problem is the zealots don't think that way. And it isn't their bodies.


The problem is certainly the zealots.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Oh, Canada
 

Johnson wrote:
Jim wrote:

I had to wait 6 weeks to see a ear specialist at UCLA. They had
nothing worthwhile to say, waited another 4 weeks to see the House Ear
Clinic. They knew what to do, but told me it was too late, I should
have come on earlier.

That's not better.

Your fault. Find better service elsewhere.

My fault? Those waits are what all third level referrals get. First is
your primary care physician, second is the specialist, third is UCLA or
House Clinic.

That is how the American Insurance Industry run health care system
works. I hope you never get to find out how wrong you are.


In Canada, it's not an option within their healthcare system. People who
try to contradict this are either stupid, mislead, or have an agenda to
push.

It's always revealing when an American attempts to tell a Canadian how
the Canadian healthcare system works.


I'm always amazed at how US citizens tell the rest of us how the
Canadian system does not work and they all hate it.

My Canadian friends seem to be proud of it. We don't have a system
unless you are lucky enough to have an employer who provides it, or you
are over 65.

Of course anyone replying in the negative about the Canadian system will
be suspected of being an American telling me how unhappy Canadians are.

I have what's considered a "Cadillac Health Care" plan. How dare we
consider someone with a good health care to have something with a name
that seems to say my health care plan is better than it needs to be?

It is good, but I'm having a problem with the level of care I got. The
second level was nothing more than a couple of old geezers who didn't
want to look very hard. Cost me some valuable time, which cost me a lot
of my hearing.

Oh, Canada
 

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:03:54 -0800, Jim wrote:

Johnson wrote:
Jim wrote:

I had to wait 6 weeks to see a ear specialist at UCLA. They had
nothing worthwhile to say, waited another 4 weeks to see the House Ear
Clinic. They knew what to do, but told me it was too late, I should
have come on earlier.

That's not better.

Your fault. Find better service elsewhere.

My fault? Those waits are what all third level referrals get. First is
your primary care physician, second is the specialist, third is UCLA or
House Clinic.

That is how the American Insurance Industry run health care system
works. I hope you never get to find out how wrong you are.


In Canada, it's not an option within their healthcare system. People who
try to contradict this are either stupid, mislead, or have an agenda to
push.

It's always revealing when an American attempts to tell a Canadian how
the Canadian healthcare system works.


I'm always amazed at how US citizens tell the rest of us how the
Canadian system does not work and they all hate it.

My Canadian friends seem to be proud of it. We don't have a system
unless you are lucky enough to have an employer who provides it, or you
are over 65.

Of course anyone replying in the negative about the Canadian system will
be suspected of being an American telling me how unhappy Canadians are.

I have what's considered a "Cadillac Health Care" plan. How dare we
consider someone with a good health care to have something with a name
that seems to say my health care plan is better than it needs to be?

It is good, but I'm having a problem with the level of care I got. The
second level was nothing more than a couple of old geezers who didn't
want to look very hard. Cost me some valuable time, which cost me a lot
of my hearing.

I'm curious what you were diagnosed with?

Oh, Canada
 

On 11/11/09 11:38 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:18:00 -0700, Canuck57 wrote:


I have lived on both sides of the border, I have used both systems. 90%
of Americans are better off in the USA as it is. For the 10% (or less)
they are not often because of their own stupidity. Less than 1% are in
a real hole there wasn't much they could do bout it.

So, what's your point? We are trying to improve our health care system.
Why would we use Canada's model? It's rated only slightly better than
ours.


http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

What's funny is they have everybody talking about health care. The facts
are being thrown to distract etc. but this is the game. What this bill
is, is a frekin' power grab by Washington, and we are joking about
health care,snerk.


Speaking of which, does that hospital in Manchester whose bill you
stiffed know you are a man of property?


--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.

Oh, Canada
 

jps wrote:

I'm curious what you were diagnosed with?

The initial diagnosis, from the level two "specialists" was long term
hearing loss. This is the result of being around loud noise. UCLA
seemed to agree, everyone looses some of their hearing eventually,
iPods, bands, bars, jets taking off, power tools, loud work places.

The eventual diagnosis was sudden hearing loss, which is usually caused
by a virus. This is treatable by steroids, but you only have a week,
beyond that, it's permanent.

I knew it was sudden, I remember when it happened, 4 pm, May 3.
Everything sounded tinny, then I couldn't hear the higher frequencies in
my right ear.

Usually this happens to people at night and they aren't aware, but the
people they deal with know they can't hear. "Speak up!" "Stop mumbling!"

I had hearing tests that showed this wasn't long term, but the doctors
refused to look at them. They told me I didn't know what I was talking
about. ENT (ear nose and throat) doctors don't want to accept anyone's
audiological exam except theirs.

Lesson learned was that I SHOULD have been getting yearly hearing tests
and documented where my hearing was, so that the good doctors could not
tell me this was a long term thing when I knew different.

To this day, no one thinks monitoring my hearing is something that
should be done, but I'm doing it myself, getting a hearing test anywhere
I can. I made a graph. It's not as lost as I was told. It has been
slowly been improving. I can now hear most of those missing frequencies.

It's not what it was 6 months ago, but it is acceptable. The doctors
recommended a hearing aid, which I now don't need.

$2500 not covered by my insurance. But I'm glad I don't need it.

Oh, Canada
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:18:00 -0700, Canuck57 wrote:


I have lived on both sides of the border, I have used both systems. 90%
of Americans are better off in the USA as it is. For the 10% (or less)
they are not often because of their own stupidity. Less than 1% are in
a real hole there wasn't much they could do bout it.

So, what's your point? We are trying to improve our health care system.
Why would we use Canada's model? It's rated only slightly better than
ours.


http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

What's funny is they have everybody talking about health care. The facts
are being thrown to distract etc. but this is the game. What this bill
is, is a frekin' power grab by Washington, and we are joking about
health care, snerk.

Oh, Canada
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:51:16 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:54:03 -0800, Jim wrote:

Listening to the anti abortion people protest any health plan that
would
possibly include abortion, I was wondering what they do in other
countries to appease these opposite beliefs.

From:
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpaper...lly-Funded.PDF

The politicizing of abortion led to the current situation of one-half
of
all abortions in Canada being performed at mostly private clinics.
Abortion clinics opened in the first place because hospitals were
failing to provide adequate services on a fair and equal basis for
Canadian women.

Hard to read that document and not see the logic.

Maybe there's some concern about this language: "All abortions are
medically necessary, since it is impractical and discriminatory to
separate out abortions done for "social" reasons from those done for
"health" reasons."

Some folks just don't believe that killing babies should have no
thought behind it whatsoever. I sure don't think I should have to pay
for them.

I am sure lots of thought goes into it. But since I don't have to live
with the consequences caporial or spiratual, I am quite content with
letting the decision be between the woman and the doctor.

Too bad you could take these no-rights people, brutally rape them to get
them pregnent, makes up the arse, then dictate to them like sheep that
they will have the child.

There are methods to get rid of possible pregnancies from rape without
waiting until the baby is viable. Or, do women just wait for a while
before deciding they were raped? Something there makes no sense.


Then when the child gets old enough to ask how they were conceived, they
can be told "?? raped me an so you were born...".

--

John H


Waiting for the baby to be viable??? That's not very pro-life. Isn't it a
baby from conception? What a bunch of horsepucky. You have no business in
my or any woman's business. Butt out.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Oh, so a women beating her kids is ok because it is her business. Strange
idea.