Weiser says:
============
the examples of people waitlisted to death in Canada
and Britain are commonplace.
===============

I think the misunderstandings are due to differences in how medical
priorities are established. In Canada, "your turn" is decided by a
physician. If more emergent cases arise, your less-critical procedure
is "delayed". That is, you have no "absolute" time for your procedure,
because the system cannot anticipate more important cases coming up.

As I'm given to understand from conversations with Americans, your
"place in line" is a function of both emergent need and ability to pay.


Philosophically, the Canadin people do not accept that money should be
a factor in these decisions. For us, the only criteria in making these
decisions ought to be medical -- that is, whatever medical
professionals think the priorities ought to be.

Overly simplistic, but a reasonable picture, I think.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
============
the examples of people waitlisted to death in Canada
and Britain are commonplace.
===============

I think the misunderstandings are due to differences in how medical
priorities are established. In Canada, "your turn" is decided by a
physician. If more emergent cases arise, your less-critical procedure
is "delayed". That is, you have no "absolute" time for your procedure,
because the system cannot anticipate more important cases coming up.

As I'm given to understand from conversations with Americans, your
"place in line" is a function of both emergent need and ability to pay.


Philosophically, the Canadin people do not accept that money should be
a factor in these decisions. For us, the only criteria in making these
decisions ought to be medical -- that is, whatever medical
professionals think the priorities ought to be.

Overly simplistic, but a reasonable picture, I think.

It works fine until the system becomes overloaded with non-critical cases.
When that happens, people get prioritized and waitlisted, and not
infrequently die while waiting for the list to move along because the system
is bogged down with "emergencies," both legitimate and non-emergent cases
that are given a false high priority through political influence or other
forms of corruption.

One of the problems with socialized medicine is that because it is centrally
organized, you can't bypass the wait list for your assigned doctor/hospital
by going somewhere else where there are fewer people on the list, because
this is seen as "jumping the queue."

In the US, if your doctor is too busy to see you, you can go find one that
isn't so busy, anywhere in the US...or indeed in the world.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weisr says:
===============
In the US, if your doctor is too busy to see you, you can go find one
that
isn't so busy, anywhere in the US
================

Similarly, in Canada, if my doctor is too busy, I am free to go to
another. Very often, when I have a minor OWie, I simply go to the
clinic in the nearest shopping mall and "some" doctor or another sees
to the malady.

Weiser says:
=================
It works fine until the system becomes overloaded with non-critical
cases. When that happens, people get prioritized and waitlisted, and
not infrequently die while waiting for the list
===========================

You misunderstand the process. If you are about to die, you are clearly
not a "non-critical" case. Thus you are moved to the head of the line.
People do not die waiting. People may get ****ed-off waiting for
elective procedures when emergency cases get higher priority. But,
would you have it any other way? You can't buy yourself to the front of
the line. Your medcal condition determines where you are in the line.
Seems logical and fair to me.

Weiser says:
===================
given a false high priority through political influence or other
forms of corruption.
=======================

Look, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and tell you that never
happens. It very occasionally does. And when it does, the public
outrage is palpable.

Suffice to say: it happens rarely enough to not be significant to this
discussion.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weisr says:
===============
In the US, if your doctor is too busy to see you, you can go find one
that
isn't so busy, anywhere in the US
================

Similarly, in Canada, if my doctor is too busy, I am free to go to
another. Very often, when I have a minor OWie, I simply go to the
clinic in the nearest shopping mall and "some" doctor or another sees
to the malady.

Weiser says:
=================
It works fine until the system becomes overloaded with non-critical
cases. When that happens, people get prioritized and waitlisted, and
not infrequently die while waiting for the list
===========================

You misunderstand the process. If you are about to die, you are clearly
not a "non-critical" case. Thus you are moved to the head of the line.
People do not die waiting. People may get ****ed-off waiting for
elective procedures when emergency cases get higher priority. But,
would you have it any other way? You can't buy yourself to the front of
the line. Your medcal condition determines where you are in the line.
Seems logical and fair to me.

They die not because they are critical, they die because they *become*
critical, and unsalvagable, because they cannot obtain treatment for
illnesses that would prevent further declines in health, leading to
debilitation and/or death, because "critical" cases come first.

One anecdote I read was the heart patient awaiting surgery in England who
wrote to the Queen to beg for help because she was two years down the
surgery list. The Queen commiserated with her and suggested that if she
actually had a heart attack, she would move up on the list.

Such people suffer for years both with debility and often in pain, with
their conditions continually deteriorating until, while not critical enough
to jump the queue, they eventually succumb to irreversible medical problems
that might have been prevented, or significantly slowed if they had received
prophylactic treatment early on. But in socialized medicine, such
prophylactic treatment falls to the bottom of the waiting list, and often
doesn't happen.

Basically, the system waits till you've become critically ill to treat you,
and then you have a much higher risk of dying because the disease's course
is irreversible.


Weiser says:
===================
given a false high priority through political influence or other
forms of corruption.
=======================

Look, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and tell you that never
happens. It very occasionally does. And when it does, the public
outrage is palpable.

As it should be. Then again, it's a matter of being hoist on your own
petard. You folks created the socialized medicine system and you accepted it
because you think you shouldn't have to pay for your own medical care...that
someone else (everyone else) should be responsible for your illnesses, so
you suffer the consequences, which is fine by me.

My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal responsibility.
Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem of
taxpayers. Does that mean that poor people may die because they cannot
afford emergency treatment? Sometimes, but not often, because our federal
government subsidizes (there's that nasty word again) hospitals to provide
emergency medical care to the indigent and poor. It's pretty much true that
in the US, if you urgently need life-saving medical care, you can get it,
regardless of your ability to pay.

Routine care, elective care, and non-critical care is another thing. You may
suffer more from bronchitis than a rich person because you cannot afford the
antibiotics, and you may suffer the ill effects of type II diabetes because
you don't need emergency insulin, but that's your problem, not the
taxpayer's.

On the other hand, you can also go to the myriad of charitable hospitals
(most of which were founded by and are still supported and operated by the
Catholic Church) and receive some of the best medical care on the
planet...absolutely free, and at no cost to taxpayers.


Suffice to say: it happens rarely enough to not be significant to this
discussion.

Unless you happen to be one of the ones who dies...

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says:
==========================
Such people suffer for years both with debility and often in pain, with
their conditions continually deteriorating
=================

Could it be that you're describing people in the USA who cannot afford
medical coverage? Hell, as you describe Canada, at least we've
acknowledged their illness and pain. I'm guessing these people aren't
even statistics in the USA because they can't afford to see a doctor to
figure out what's bothering them in the first place.

Weiser says:
===============
But in socialized medicine, such
prophylactic treatment falls to the bottom of the waiting list, and
often
doesn't happen.
=============

Precisely the opposite is the case. Because EVERYONE is entitled to
treatment, everyone goes to see the doctors before conditions worsen.
Thus, prophylactic care is administered to all who need it -- very
EARLY in the process.

Weiser says:
=============
My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal
responsibility.
Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem
of
taxpayers.
==============

And, of course, that is your decision to make. Most other western
nations take the view that the health of their citizens is likely
(along with their education) their most valuable resource (of strategic
national import). Without a smart, healthy, populace, a nation can't
compete in economic (or military) battles.

Clear philosophical differences.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
=============
My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal
responsibility.
Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem
of taxpayers.
==============

And, of course, that is your decision to make. Most other western
nations take the view that the health of their citizens is likely
(along with their education) their most valuable resource (of strategic
national import). Without a smart, healthy, populace, a nation can't
compete in economic (or military) battles.

Considering the widespread use of prescription drugs with amounts that
are staggering by most western nation's standards, the high percentage
of overweight and obese people, it seems that the population is a lot
less healthy than that of most other western nations, despite the
enormous amounts spent on health care in the U.S..

Since health care spending in the U.S. towers over that of other western
countries with a much older population, and the health of the average
U.S. citizen isn't equal to or better than those in other western
nations, it seems obvious that the system doesn't work all that well.
Increased health care spending obviously doesn't equate improved public
health.

Wilko

P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of
shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying
to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade
lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated
weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid.

Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up
most of them before they could fire a shot, but half of them would
probably die of heart attacks if they had to run 100 yards to cover.

Nah, I don't see that citizen uprising with privately owned weapons
happen... ever! :-)

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


Wilko

P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of
shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying
to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade
lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated
weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid.

Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up
most of them before they could fire a shot,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

but half of them would
probably die of heart attacks if they had to run 100 yards to cover.

Maybe. But then again, if even 50 million fat men with guns manage to kill
only one soldier apiece (not difficult at all, particularly if you're
willing to die in the process) we win, because the other feature of our
government is that we deliberately limit our standing army to levels that
cannot threaten the liberty of the people.

And even the issue of the National Guard and state guard forces has been
carefully thought out by the Framers. They said, and rightfully so, that a
local militia force, under locally-elected officers, would be unlikely to
agree to march to another state to impose martial rule.

That's why National Guard commanders are not appointed by the federal
government, but are selected by the Guard units themselves, ratified by the
Governor.

In the unlikely event that a demogog attempts a coup in the US, it is almost
impossible to get the bulk of citizen-soldiers in the various guard units to
go along with orders from Washington to violate the Constitution and oppress
the local citizenry...because the guard troops ARE the local citizenry and
they will simply refuse such orders. Indeed, they are far more likely to
refuse such illegal orders from Washington and then organize with other
state guard units to attack local federal troop concentrations and invade
Washington to put down the tyrant.

Even supposing federal soldiers seized all National Guard arms prior to
declaring martial law nationwide, our federal army is not large enough to
control the population...deliberately so...and the National Guard can be
re-armed with weapons *from civilians* that would make them an effective
fighting force against usurping federal troops.

This is particularly true because a would-be tyrant cannot afford to simply
carpet-bomb the very cities and populations he's trying to take control of,
so the war becomes a guerilla war waged by grunts in the field, not
high-tech standoff munitions.



Nah, I don't see that citizen uprising with privately owned weapons
happen... ever! :-)

That's what makes you a slave...the slave mentality. That was proven by your
nation's collaboration with the Nazis in WWII. Unless you're willing to die
to protect your freedoms, you don't deserve your freedoms.

On the other hand, at need, I have sufficient arms to arm at least three
soldiers with effective military battle rifles, along with a basic
ammunition load for each, while still having plenty of precision, long-range
weapons for my own use. I guarantee you that even if I can't dash a hundred
yards in 10 seconds, I can hit a human-sized target at ranges out to one
thousand yards with at least an 80% probability. Soon, I'll be extending
that effective range to closer to 1500 yards for humans and 2000 yards for
materials, with a somewhat smaller hit probability but a much wider target
destruction capability that includes unarmored and lightly-armored vehicles
and other equipment.

Should I be called upon to defend the Constitution and the nation, I
guarantee to take out at least one enemy soldier before they even know I'm
there, and probably several more before they can take me, if in fact they
can. There are a lot of people just like me out there...enough to ensure
that any invasion or attempt to overthrow our government is doomed to
failure, even without the cooperation of the National Guard.

You are free to disbelieve me if you like, but I'd recommend that you avoid
serving in the UN forces should it decide to try to take over America, if
you wish to survive. Remember the advice of military experts about
underestimating your enemy.

I would like to fill you in on an interesting bit of unknown military
history.

Back in the mid-70s, commanders of the Special Forces decided to do some
training in the northern part of Florida, near Jacksonville. They decided to
stage a training mission that called for a large group of special forces
personnel to "invade" the area around the Okeefenokee Swamp. They invited
local residents to participate as OPFORs (Opposing Forces) to oppose the
beach landing and infiltration. The locals were supplied with M-16's and
MILES gear, but otherwise they provided all their own equipment and
transportation. All they were told was that a landing would be taking place
somewhere within a specified area of beach.

To make a long story short, the locals wiped out the SF troopies. Kicked
their asses right back into the ocean, to the massive embarrassment of the
brass. It made the papers all over Florida, and I heard about it in college
in Daytona Beach.

Since then, no military training exercise has ever used local civilians as
OPFORS.

So, discount the abilities of US citizens to defend their country at your
peril.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
==========================
Such people suffer for years both with debility and often in pain, with
their conditions continually deteriorating
=================

Could it be that you're describing people in the USA who cannot afford
medical coverage?

Exactly.

Hell, as you describe Canada, at least we've
acknowledged their illness and pain.

And then string them along with false hope, only to abandon them in the end
because they've become hopeless cases.

In the US, you are responsible for yourself, and you can't lay the blame off
on anyone else, like the government. That's personal responsibility and
that's the way things ought to be. The rule is: "Sometimes you die."

I'm guessing these people aren't
even statistics in the USA because they can't afford to see a doctor to
figure out what's bothering them in the first place.

Perhaps, but if they want help, they can get it.


Weiser says:
===============
But in socialized medicine, such
prophylactic treatment falls to the bottom of the waiting list, and
often
doesn't happen.
=============

Precisely the opposite is the case. Because EVERYONE is entitled to
treatment, everyone goes to see the doctors before conditions worsen.

Not if their condition is not sufficiently grave at first exam to move them
up on the list.

Thus, prophylactic care is administered to all who need it -- very
EARLY in the process.

Doubtful.


Weiser says:
=============
My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal
responsibility.
Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem
of
taxpayers.
==============

And, of course, that is your decision to make. Most other western
nations take the view that the health of their citizens is likely
(along with their education) their most valuable resource (of strategic
national import). Without a smart, healthy, populace, a nation can't
compete in economic (or military) battles.

And yet we have the best medical care system on the planet and thus the
greatest likelyhood that a sick person will be made well.

Valuing people as a resource does not infer that the government is required
to nanny them 24/7. The cool thing about humans is that we keep making more
of us.


Clear philosophical differences.

Not really. The US does not devalue its citizens because it does not choose
to provide government-run health care. It tries to find ways to make the
economy provide health care even to the indigent within the capitalist
system because as a nation we generally recognize that government run
programs are tremendously inefficient and generally poorly run, no matter
what nation they occur in.

The vast majority of workers (not non-producing indigents) in this country
enjoy the finest health care in the world and are thus quite healthy as
compared to many citizens in socialized medicine systems. That they have to
pay for their health care only serves to stimulate them to remain healthy
and take care of themselves.

Those in socialized medical care systems have no impetus to take care of
themselves because they don't have to pay to get care.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says:
=================
The vast majority of workers (not non-producing indigents) in this
country
enjoy the finest health care in the world and are thus quite healthy as
compared to many citizens in socialized medicine systems. That they
have to
pay for their health care only serves to stimulate them to remain
healthy
and take care of themselves.
=========================

On this, I defer to Wilko and his previous comments -- Right On, Wilko!

OK, I'm no specimen of healthy living. Canadians may not be the
fittest people on earth. But, my god, do you Americans ever look at
yourselves?!

You guys are, collectively, HUGE! Collectively, you guys are UNFIT. I'm
biggish. But when I get off the plane in the USA, the first thing I
note is how absolutely slim I look.

I'm thinking your bit about "That they have to pay for their health
care only serves to stimulate them to remain healthy and take care of
themselves." is NOT working for the USA. Another one of those free
enterprise, libertarian notions that's works well in an economics
textbook, but looks quite different in reality.

Your statement leaves me ROTFL.

frtzw906

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weisr says:
===============
In the US, if your doctor is too busy to see you, you can go find one
that
isn't so busy, anywhere in the US
================

Similarly, in Canada, if my doctor is too busy, I am free to go to
another. Very often, when I have a minor OWie, I simply go to the
clinic in the nearest shopping mall and "some" doctor or another sees
to the malady.

Weiser says:
=================
It works fine until the system becomes overloaded with non-critical
cases. When that happens, people get prioritized and waitlisted, and
not infrequently die while waiting for the list
===========================

You misunderstand the process. If you are about to die, you are clearly
not a "non-critical" case. Thus you are moved to the head of the line.
People do not die waiting. People may get ****ed-off waiting for
elective procedures when emergency cases get higher priority. But,
would you have it any other way? You can't buy yourself to the front of
the line. Your medcal condition determines where you are in the line.
Seems logical and fair to me.

They die not because they are critical, they die because they *become*
critical, and unsalvagable, because they cannot obtain treatment for
illnesses that would prevent further declines in health, leading to
debilitation and/or death, because "critical" cases come first.

One anecdote I read was the heart patient awaiting surgery in England who
wrote to the Queen to beg for help because she was two years down the
surgery list. The Queen commiserated with her and suggested that if she
actually had a heart attack, she would move up on the list.

Such people suffer for years both with debility and often in pain, with
their conditions continually deteriorating until, while not critical enough
to jump the queue, they eventually succumb to irreversible medical problems
that might have been prevented, or significantly slowed if they had received
prophylactic treatment early on. But in socialized medicine, such
prophylactic treatment falls to the bottom of the waiting list, and often
doesn't happen.

Basically, the system waits till you've become critically ill to treat you,
and then you have a much higher risk of dying because the disease's course
is irreversible.


Weiser says:
===================
given a false high priority through political influence or other
forms of corruption.
=======================

Look, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and tell you that never
happens. It very occasionally does. And when it does, the public
outrage is palpable.

As it should be. Then again, it's a matter of being hoist on your own
petard. You folks created the socialized medicine system and you accepted it
because you think you shouldn't have to pay for your own medical care...that
someone else (everyone else) should be responsible for your illnesses, so
you suffer the consequences, which is fine by me.

Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada who died
waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking, you should be
able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are talking about, why
not just admit that?

My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal responsibility.
Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem of
taxpayers. Does that mean that poor people may die because they cannot
afford emergency treatment? Sometimes, but not often, because our federal
government subsidizes (there's that nasty word again) hospitals to provide
emergency medical care to the indigent and poor.

Why do you do that? I thought you believe in "personal responsibility" and
"personal responsibility" means that if you don't have enough money to pay
for medical care, then you should die.

I also wonder why you have public schools, that doesn't seem to fit with
your definition of personal responsibility either. My goodness, that's
billions and billions of dollars going to subsidize poor families who can't
take responsibility for sending their kids to private schools.