"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Tink, I'm fairly sure you didn't read this one:
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf


Yet you bypass the whole gist of the article, there are wait
times across Canada. Otherwise, why the hand wringing over it?
Besides, it was written for a(gasp) american Foundation...

here, I give you another from utoronto
"...An Ontario study reviewed the experience for 8,517
consecutive
coronary bypass patients following the establishment of a
provincial patient registry in 1991. While in the queue 31
patients (0.4%) died and 3 had surgery deferred after non-fatal
myocardial infarction (88)..."

"...Waiting lists are a source of frustration to physicians who
feel themselves
deprived of the ability to deliver clinical care in an optimal
fashion (95), a
situation which may also raise issues of medico-legal liability
(30). Moreover, physicians are uncomfortable with the ethically
ambivalent role into which, as a profession, they have
unwittingly been cast. On the one handm they are required to act
as the patient’s advocate, while on the other, they are expected
to ration scarce health resources on behalf of a constrained
system..."

So, despite the american paper above that says doctors are
indendent, that conclusion isn't entirely supported by reality as
the resources they must use are not under their control.

http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Shortt.pdf



"...There were 141 deaths (0.48%) among 29,293 patients.
Adjusting for age, sex, and waiting time, patients waiting for
valve surgery had a significantly increased risk of death
compared with patients waiting for CABG alone..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9616340



"...Based on data from tens of thousands of patients, it is now
clear that queuing
according to this system limits the risk of death for patients
awaiting surgery.
Currently about one in 200 to 250 patients will die while
awaiting isolated
coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) in Ontario..."
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/atrevised3.pdf


kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment, yet
another lie
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html








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.

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.
=====================
No, it does not.


frtzw906

rick says:
===============
Yet you bypass the whole gist of the article, there are wait
times across Canada. Otherwise, why the hand wringing over it?
Besides, it was written for a(gasp) american Foundation...
==============

No. The gist of the article is that the media hype about wait times is
exaggerated. Hence the comment about skewed statistics, etc. The entire
article says pretty much everything KMAN has been saying.

NOTE: "very long waits are the exception"

NOTE: "Very few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted to see
additional public funds used to reduce wait times"

And, central to their argument, because they preface the article with
it, is the notion that wait lists and wait times are difficult to
define.

And I didn't bother citing the condemnation they have of the American
system because, as you keep saying, you're certanly no advocate for the
market system in health care either.

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
rick says:
===============
Yet you bypass the whole gist of the article, there are wait
times across Canada. Otherwise, why the hand wringing over it?
Besides, it was written for a(gasp) american Foundation...
==============

No. The gist of the article is that the media hype about wait
times is
exaggerated. Hence the comment about skewed statistics, etc.
The entire
article says pretty much everything KMAN has been saying.

NOTE: "very long waits are the exception"
=====================
That wasn't the discussion, now was it? Nice strawman.



NOTE: "Very few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted
to see
additional public funds used to reduce wait times"

And, central to their argument, because they preface the
article with
it, is the notion that wait lists and wait times are difficult
to
define.

And I didn't bother citing the condemnation they have of the
American
system because, as you keep saying, you're certanly no advocate
for the
market system in health care either.
================
So now we have the truth about why you are so eager to embrace
this report. It neglects to find, or tell, the whole truth about
the Canadian system because they, like you, are agenda building.
Nice that you like to show your stripes so well.

Here, let me restore a couple of sites that you don't want to
see...

"...An Ontario study reviewed the experience for 8,517
consecutive coronary bypass patients following the establishment
of a
provincial patient registry in 1991. While in the queue 31
patients (0.4%) died and 3 had surgery deferred after non-fatal
myocardial infarction..."
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Shortt.pdf

"...Based on data from tens of thousands of patients, it is now
clear that queuing according to this system limits the risk of
death for patients awaiting surgery. Currently about one in
200 to 250 patients will die while awaiting isolatedcoronary
artery bypass surgery (CABG) in Ontario..."
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/atrevised3.pdf

Plus, you failed to reply to kmans claim that no one waits for
treatment in Canada.




frtzw906
==================
I notice that you dishonestly deleted all the info that says that
Canadians die on wait lists.
the site you keep refering to now, which I had posted before
anyway, does not claim there are no deaths from waiting.
The sites I provided, and you deleted, do.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM:

kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment, yet
another lie
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html

I never made that claim, as I've told you a dozen times (but you are such a
scumbag that you keep on lying) there are wait times in every health care
system, including Canada. In fact, you will recall that you yourself posted
an article about people waiting for a specific test in Newfoundland.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM:

kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment,
yet
another lie
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html

I never made that claim,
===========================
Yes, you did.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm
Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but".



as I've told you a dozen times (but you are such a
scumbag that you keep on lying) there are wait times in every
health care
system, including Canada.
=======================
That's not waht you claimed earlier, until your lies were
exposed, liarman.


In fact, you will recall that you yourself posted
an article about people waiting for a specific test in
Newfoundland.
========================
Which is where you denied that Candaians are waiting for
treatment. You lied then, liarman...

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 11:27 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM:

kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment,
yet
another lie
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html

I never made that claim,
===========================
Yes, you did.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm
Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but".

Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement.

Example:

What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to be
the biggest idiot on the planet!

To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick is
an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my
sentence about waiting.

Here is more of the context:

======

As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for
the
high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of
diagnostic imaging
at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is
"less than
ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and
followed by
other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan
gets one.
======================
LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency
treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the
list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more
than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond
treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment.


You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in
isolated or slum
areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their
convenience? Get
real.
====================
Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

=====

What I am saying (clearly) is that nobody is waiting 2 1/2 years to get
treatment. They get treatment the day they walk into the hospital. What they
are waiting for, as the article says, is a specific type of high-tech scan.

Note from the above: "While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients'
conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and
that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one.

Now, let's get back to what you have been saying:

rick: kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment, yet
another lie

I never made the statement that no one in Canada waits for treatment.

You owe me an apology.

But I bet you are too weak to do it.

as I've told you a dozen times (but you are such a
scumbag that you keep on lying) there are wait times in every
health care
system, including Canada.
=======================
That's not waht you claimed earlier, until your lies were
exposed, liarman.

No, I didn't. You owe me an apology.

In fact, you will recall that you yourself posted
an article about people waiting for a specific test in
Newfoundland.
========================
Which is where you denied that Candaians are waiting for
treatment. You lied then, liarman...

As you can see above, clearly I was explaining that those people were not
waiting for treatment, they were waiting for a specific type of high tech
test.

You owe me an apology.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 11:27 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM:

kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment,
yet
another lie
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html

I never made that claim,
===========================
Yes, you did.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm
Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but".

Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete
statement.

Example:

What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true.
He's got to be
the biggest idiot on the planet!

To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't
think rick is
an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing
with my
sentence about waiting.

Here is more of the context:

======

As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits
for
the
high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of
diagnostic imaging
at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait
is
"less than
ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated
and
followed by
other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency
scan
gets one.
======================
LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency
treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the
list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more
than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond
treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment.


You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in
isolated or slum
areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their
convenience? Get
real.
====================
Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility
in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment.
======================
Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to
that, now.



It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.
====================
Nope. You claimed that no Canadians were waiting for treatment.



=====

What I am saying (clearly) is that nobody is waiting 2 1/2
years to get
treatment. They get treatment the day they walk into the
hospital. What they
are waiting for, as the article says, is a specific type of
high-tech scan.

Note from the above: "While the wait is "less than ideal," he
said patients'
conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical
means, and
that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one.

Now, let's get back to what you have been saying:

rick: kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for
treatment, yet
another lie
==================
Nope. You clearly made that statement, liarman.



I never made the statement that no one in Canada waits for
treatment.
==================
Yes, you did. You even posted it yourself above, liarman.


You owe me an apology.
====================
No, fool, you are the one that has been lying all along, and have
been proven to have been doing so.



But I bet you are too weak to do it.

as I've told you a dozen times (but you are such a
scumbag that you keep on lying) there are wait times in every
health care
system, including Canada.
=======================
That's not waht you claimed earlier, until your lies were
exposed, liarman.

No, I didn't. You owe me an apology.
====================
No, fool, you are the one that has been lying all along, and have
been proven to have been doing so.



In fact, you will recall that you yourself posted
an article about people waiting for a specific test in
Newfoundland.
========================
Which is where you denied that Candaians are waiting for
treatment. You lied then, liarman...

As you can see above, clearly I was explaining that those
people were not
waiting for treatment, they were waiting for a specific type of
high tech
test.

You owe me an apology.
====================
No, fool, you are the one that has been lying all along, and have
been proven to have been doing so.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 11:27 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM:

kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment,
yet
another lie
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html

I never made that claim,
===========================
Yes, you did.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm
Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but".

Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement.

Example:

What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to
be
the biggest idiot on the planet!

To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick
is
an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my
sentence about waiting.

Here is more of the context:

======

As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for
the
high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of
diagnostic imaging
at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is
"less than
ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and
followed by
other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan
gets one.
======================
LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency
treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the
list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more
than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond
treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment.


You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in
isolated or slum
areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their
convenience? Get
real.
====================
Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment.
======================
Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that,
now.

Nono. Stop being dishonest.

I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment.

See the context above again. It is not that complicated.

I responded to your claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2
years for treatment. They are not.

It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.
====================
Nope. You claimed that no Canadians were waiting for treatment.

I made no such claim, you are a liar and a scumbag. There is no such thing
as a health care system where no one waits for treatment.

You owe me an apology.

KMAN wrote:
"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article et,
rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 11:27 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM:

kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment,
yet
another lie

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html

I never made that claim,
===========================
Yes, you did.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm
Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but".

Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete
statement.

Example:

What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's
got to
be
the biggest idiot on the planet!

To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think
rick
is
an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing
with my
sentence about waiting.

Here is more of the context:

======

As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for
the
high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of
diagnostic imaging
at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is
"less than
ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and
followed by
other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan
gets one.
======================
LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency
treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the
list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more
than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond
treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment.


You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in
isolated or slum
areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their
convenience? Get
real.
====================
Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment.
======================
Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to
that,
now.

Nono. Stop being dishonest.

I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment.

See the context above again. It is not that complicated.

I responded to your claim that the people in your example were
waiting 2 1/2
years for treatment. They are not.

It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.
====================
Nope. You claimed that no Canadians were waiting for treatment.

I made no such claim, you are a liar and a scumbag. There is no such
thing
as a health care system where no one waits for treatment.

You owe me an apology.

rick, I believe that you owe KMAN an apology for being so quick to beat
him up when he misspoke. You were correct to recognize his untenable
position intitially, and confront him with it, but he has since
modified and clarified that statement, and you owe him the civility of
his response when he recognized that he had misspoke. If he did not
initially recognize his misspeak, he definitly has at this time. I
would recommend that you allow his retraction, so that you can get on
with a meaningful discussion, unless you appear intransient and bring
disrepute on your obviously defendable position. TnT

On 2-Mar-2005, "KMAN" wrote:

Nono. Stop being dishonest.

Forget it - he's pulling a weiser.

Mike