|
Rick surmises:
============= Looks like you're reading that into the story, not reading it. Why would he have looked into going to the states for treatment if he was unwilling to leave at all. I doubt that he can go to other facilities in the health system he is tied to. ================ Well, why else would the reporter go into great length about how much a day away from work would cost him and how he was unwilling to to accept that loss and that he'd insist on staying in Penticton. If he were willing to leave town, that would be an entirely irrelevant bit of info. [Citation: "If he were to hire a roving notary to cover for him, it would cost $220 a day, plus living expenses "I don't make that, so the end result is I have to close my business." He has operated the business in Penticton for 15 years...."] Clearly he's unwilling to leave town to have the operation done. frtzw906 |
rick recommends a reading that says very little about actual deaths
while waiting: =========== should the people of Ontario be concerned by those numbers? There are doctors there that think so... http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/3/354 ========================== Again, I commend you on your sources. I read this source and it is very much a theoretical or hypothetical-case paper. Dr Hill presents a simple compartment model. He hypothesizes that perhaps waiting times could be reduced if, rather than giving hgh-risk patients priority for sugery, those with lower risks were given that priority. The concluding comments are what really counts: "Thus, the natural clinical tendency to give priority to the group with a higher mortality rate does not yield fewer deaths among patients on the waiting list and leads to a larger overall waiting list. To reduce the size of the waiting list by giving priority to the group with lower mortality rate (see Table 1) would probably be considered cynical and unethical, but it should be noted that such a policy would not increase the overall number of deaths per year. It can also be shown that these results hold where there are more than 2 risk groups. This analysis is not intended to be normative or to constitute a recommendation that priorities for surgery be changed. " So, there you have it. An interesting theoretical exercise "not intended to be normative or to constitute a recommendation that priorities for surgery be changed. " frtzw906 |
rick insists:
========== Because what you really want is for 'special' treatment to end, =============== YES I DO! Special treatment undermines the system. rick maintains: ============= You've continued to argue that no one has any special treatment. That there are no ways to get ahead o the waiting lists. =============== You've got me confused with someone else. I've known for years about special treatment for cases like WCB cases. It's ****ed me off for years. frtzw906 |
rick gleefully asserts:
============= LOL Thanks for admitting I'm right. There is a dual system already in place in Canada. The prefered get to have their treatment first, regardless of how many more serious cases may be in front of them. Maybe the ministers pretend it doesn't happen because they also take advantage of the system. ================ We've established that there is a degree of "duality". In the case of the armed services, I'm willing to accept that. In the case of the RCMP, I'm not convinced. In the case of WCB, I'm opposed. So, as a citizen, I have an opportunity to voice my opposition and vote accordingly. As to other types of duality, you'll also know, since you're very familiar with the Canadian system, that this is highly controversial. Further, you'd know that provinces which support such duality risk their federal funding for healthcare. This duality is far from a "given" in the long term. Nonetheless, Canada, no less than the USA and most western nations, must grapple with healthcare issues. It is probably useful to explore options. Perhaps the Bismark model might be more appropriate than the current Beveridge model. Perhaps the American model (highly unlikely)? Ultimately, the decision will be political. As such, it will be based on values. Right now, if I were betting, I'd bet on a system that is universal with priorities determined by medical need. "Special" treatment appears to be anathema to most Canadians (according to all polls). frtzw906 |
KMAN points out:
=============== That's why many Canadians are passionate about the issue and concerned about the rise of private health care. They are desperate to avoid becoming like the United States... Maybe the ministers pretend it doesn't happen because they also take advantage of the system. Could be. What's your point? That the US doesn't have a monopoly on selfish scumbags? We know that. ================= KMAN is absolutely correct. Canadians are passionate about this issue, and most (the VAST majority - check the polls) want no part of an American-style system. Don't forget, we've tried that and discarded the TShirt. So when there are flaws (name a system that has no flaws), we're also keen about fixing them. When there are selfish scumbags, the loopholes they used need to be plugged. Like ALL systems, it's a "work in progress". frtzw906 |
KMAN shares:
================ On a lighter note, I share with the group a low-res version of a photo that I call "Melt...Please?" =================== Melt? What are you talking about? Surely you guys don't still have ice and snow?! Condolences from the WEsT COAST. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott insists: =============== Everyone should be able to seek out a hospital and/or a surgeon that can provide service immediately. In Canada, while people sit on waiting lists, beds in hospitals are empty or occupied by chronically-ill patients. Even if your local hospital is idle, if you're not at the top of the list, they won't help you. =============== If beds are empty and the hospital is idle, why wouldn't they help you? Because they don't have any money or staff, and evidently because government bureaucrats don't give a damn about sick people and don't want to fill hospital beds because it makes them look bad to be at capacity all the time. It seems to me, you get waiting lists (waits of any kind) when enterprises (including hospitals) are operating at or near capacity. That would be true. But in the free market model, when such shortages occur, the market responds with more beds and services. You'll wait when there are no more beds, no more doctors, or no more nurses. What other reason would there be to wait? The question is *why* are there no beds, nurses or hospital rooms available. One of the most discussed waits in Canada appears to be MRI's. It seems we've not bought enough. On the other hand, it appears they're as commonplace as slurpy machines at a 7-11 in the USA. Quite likely, we've been a bit miserly when it comes to MRI's. On the other hand, all the private clinics in the USA which sport these spiffy macines are going to have to recoup their investments. This they do by taking it out of the pockets of those who require the MRI. Well, not quite. They can't simply charge whatever they want because their customers will go to a competitor, so they have to keep the prices down. Other than that, what's wrong with their providing a service for a fee? The Canadian government sees no need to spend more money on MRI machines because there's no economic reason to do so. They, like most government run enterprises, don't respond to marketplace pressures, they respond only to political pressures. So, wait for a couple of days in Canada, or wait a few minutes in the USA (and pay dearly for the convenience). Try "wait a year or more" in Canada. "Although computer scanning (in place of conventional x-ray) is routine diagnostic procedure in the United States, a patient in Ontario can wait as long as a year and four months for an MRI scan." If hospitals are "idle", there's absolutely no waiting. They quickly spring into action. You would think, but evidently not: "Despite many recent claims, there is little evidence of efficiency in countries with national health insurance. While people wait for months and even years for hospital admission, hospital managers appear uninterested in admitting more patients. € While more than 50,000 people wait for surgery in New Zealand, at any point in time one in five hospital beds is empty and one in four is occupied by a chronically ill patient using the hospital as an expensive nursing home. € While more than one million people wait for surgery in Britain, at any point in time about one-fourth of all beds are empty and another one-fourth are being used by nursing home patients. € While more than 250,000 people wait for surgery in Canada, at any point in time almost one in five hospital beds is empty and a fourth of all beds is being used by nursing home patients." Where do you get your data?! National Center for Policy Analysis, Report 166 frtzw906 -- 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 |
Scott simplistically states:
================== But in the free market model, when such shortages occur, the market responds with more beds and services. ==================== But... http://www.usaweekend.com/03_issues/...831nurses.html ... "More than 126,000 nursing positions in hospitals around the country are unfilled, according to the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. In addition, the workforce is shrinking, because it's aging (and retiring) at twice the rate of other occupations." Hmmmm.... as far as I can tell, there are shortages of medical personnel EVERYWHERE; whether in the Canadian system or the American. There are likely a myriad of reasons, but allow me to ride one of my hobby horses: as far as docs are concerned, it's the doctors' unions (I know they don't call them unions, but they're the toughest one of them all). They very successfully play the supply management game. The enrollment in universities is influenced by the "union". And, let's face it, the entrance requirements to get into med school in both Canada and the USA are nuts. If med schools pumped out more docs and nurses, neither Canada nor the USA would have shortages. This is not a free market vs any other kind of system issue, because there is no free market in the supply of labor in this industry. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott, commenting on many (most) in Canada getting immediate ca ================== Yup. While at the same time, teenagers who need knee surgery have to wait three years. ================== Notwithstanding the protestations of rick, several of us from Canada have commented on, and admitted, that one of the consequences of our style of healthcare is that, for some procedures, there are waiting lists. That's a fact. But it's a price we're willing to pay, I doubt you speak for everyone, or even a substantial number of Canadians, given how much dissatisfaction there is in Canada now and how many calls for privatization and reform. So let's take the cae you bring up: teenagers who need knee surgery. I don't know if teenagers in Canada who need knee surgery nmust wait 3 years as you claim. [Aside: you might be able to pull such an isolated case out of the archives somewhere, but it is unlikely to be the rule.] Now let's switch our focus to the USA for one moment. Let's also assume a teenager who needs knee surgery. Let's further assume that this kid's family is uninsured. Can we expect that she'll get immediate attention at her local hospital? Or will she need to wait? She need only wait till the money's available or her parents can find a charitable program or hospital to do the surgery pro bono. In Canada, it's not possible to take out a loan or get a grant and get the surgery done in a timely manner, so what was an acute injury will turn into a chronic disability due to lack of timely medical care that may cripple the child for life. Is it likely that as people with insurance arrive, some "bureaucrat" in the hospital will priorize and thereby establish a "waiting list"? Nope. The priority is set by the patient. Can you assure me that, under the American system, the teenager will get immediate attention, Yup. ahead of those with (a) more emergent need Yes, because she can go to a specialist surgical clinic that only operates on knees, and in so doing, avoid the critical care queue for emergent patients. (after all, she did arrive ahead of them) and (b) those with equivalent need but covered by insurance? There's lots and lots of surgical specialty clinics in the US. Tell me about your waiting lists for non-emergent cases without insurance, OK? That would be, perhaps, a list used by a charitable organization. However, the point is that in the US, the teenager is not *prohibited* from seeking out and obtaining any medical care that she needs from a provider willing to provide the service. In Canada, no matter how willing the surgeon, no matter how ready the charity is to pay for it...or the parents for that matter, government bureaucrats decide who gets to be treated. -- 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 |
in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/27/05 7:15 PM: KMAN shares: ================ On a lighter note, I share with the group a low-res version of a photo that I call "Melt...Please?" =================== Melt? What are you talking about? Surely you guys don't still have ice and snow?! Condolences from the WEsT COAST. frtzw906 Argh. Must...have...comeback...must...think... It hasn't rained here for months! |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/26/05 2:48 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it doesn't meet your needs. Really? How so? If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about that? Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've noticed you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet your needs"? You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation or be branded a liar. Brand away rick. Er, Scotty. It's clear to me that you wouldn't give a damn about a law that contradicted what Scotty Weiser believes to be his fundamental rights. Based on what evidence, precisely? If only I had a warrant... But seriously dear Scotty, it's just an impression. Again, based on what evidence? Or are you admitting that you're just a brainless bigot who judges people based on some mental aberration you suffer from? I'm saying that based on the persona you've displayed here I could see you with an assault rifle shooting up an entire town for passing a bylaw against having a different colour mailbox than the one you have. Well, that would make you a loon, but you're entitled to your opinion. You falsely presume that a "share" of some adult's medical problems can be ethically and legitimately imposed on others. It's imposed on me and I find it totally ethical and legit. Which is your right. How do you ethically justify imposing it on others, however? Do you have any reasoned argument in support of your position, or are you just brainlessly parroting some socialist dogma you once heard? It's very simple, and I have explained it. I believe in universal education and universal health care. This means I believe every citizen should contribute. Most of the citizens in the society where I live agree with this. Polly want a cracker? Do you suppose that if they had all had a gun, that the genocide in Rawanda would have even been possible? Or are you simply too callous and uncaring in your paranoid hoplophobia to admit that sometimes, having a gun can be a good thing. Only if you have a means of ensuring that the good people have 'em and the bad ones don't. So, because it's factually impossible to keep "bad people" from illegally obtaining guns, or machetes, or stones, or gasoline and matches, it's okay with you if "good people" are brutally murdered because they have been disarmed and are incapable of defending themselves, merely in order to comply with your impossibly stupid utopian ideal of a gun-less society? How remarkably barbaric and abysmally stupid. Handing out guns won't turn a barbaric society into a peaceful one. Actually, you're wrong. An armed society is a polite society. The usual failure however is that *not enough* guns are available in society, so that only the elite and the criminals have them, leaving the middle-class to be victimized by both without any chance of defending themselves. It will simply increase the rate of barbarism. Could it be true that you really have never heard of the concept of "self defense?" Can you possibly be that ignorant? You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department) for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out. Sure you can. Charity begins at home. Charity cannot provide universal education and health care. Why not? Because it is a charity, not a universal program with the requisite funding to operate one. That's not an explanation of why, that's a tautological assertion. You simply failed to understand. I'll try agian. You can't have a universal program if the means to deliver that program is dependent upon random contributions. Why not? You falsely assume that most people are not willing to contribute voluntarily to support those in need. Given the massive outpouring of private donations for the tsunami victims, I'd say that shows a fundamental mistrust on your part rather than any factual parsimony on the part of the public. When the charity doesn't get enough donations, what do you think happens? Operations close. Services are eliminated. So what? Perhaps those operations and services are unneeded or improperly run and need to be eliminated. You asked why a charity cannot provide universal education and health care. And you implied that without government funding, no care would be available. I merely posit that the closure of operations and the suspending of services may not be harmful to the ability of people to obtain the services, but is more likely to be a reflection of an elimination of government-mandated duplication and waste. Perhaps society, through its unwillingness to fund these programs, is saying that the objectives are unworthy and no longer comport with society's beliefs about who is eligible for charity. Why is society precluded from making such determinations? Some societies don't have universal education and health care. Er, no society has universal anything. At best, countries with socialized health care only provide minimal "free" services. Everything else is a la carte or mostly unavailable. -- 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 |
Scott thinks:
=========== I doubt you speak for everyone, or even a substantial number of Canadians, given how much dissatisfaction there is in Canada now and how many calls for privatization and reform. ================ WOW! Where DO you get your information?! A substantial (read: vast majority) number of Canadians support the current system and DEFINITELY reject privatization. Read virtually ANY (ALL) polls done on this issue. There is likely greater unanimity on this than on any other Canadian issue. Please cite your sources. frtzw906 |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/27/05 7:46 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scott, commenting on many (most) in Canada getting immediate ca ================== Yup. While at the same time, teenagers who need knee surgery have to wait three years. ================== Notwithstanding the protestations of rick, several of us from Canada have commented on, and admitted, that one of the consequences of our style of healthcare is that, for some procedures, there are waiting lists. That's a fact. But it's a price we're willing to pay, I doubt you speak for everyone, or even a substantial number of Canadians, given how much dissatisfaction there is in Canada now and how many calls for privatization and reform. There is a much stronger desire for universal health care in the US than the dismantling of universal health care in Canada. From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4798058/ Why can't the richest nation in the world provide health-care coverage to all its people? It's the question that hangs over all debates about medical care and insurance -- particularly in an election year when jobs -- and the employer-based health system that ties insurance to work -- are a key voter concern. The answer: It's not that Americans don't want to cover the 41 million uninsured . And the cost, pegged by Kaiser Commission on Medicaid & the Uninsured at less than $69 billion a year, isn't insurmountable, adding just 6 percent to annual health spending. It's just that no consensus exists -- in the public, among politicians, or in the health industries -- about how best to get the job done. And because the vast majority of voters have health insurance (85 percent of the population is insured, but 92 percent of those who participated in the 2000 election were covered), political leaders have little incentive to overcome that impasse. That's not to say Americans don't wish that health care was available to all. Some 62 percent support universal coverage, according to an October, 2003, Washington Post/ABC News Poll. |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/26/05 2:54 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/25/05 6:55 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent: ================ For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who have opted-out by evading property taxes. ============ And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must be very charitable indeed. Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay. And I don't have any kids in public school at all. A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free. And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the *children*, no matter what school they attend? Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools. That's precisely what I want to do. I know. That's what a lot of people who have some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do. That's what selfish prigs want to do. Not everybody who wants to eliminate government waste and inefficient, ineffective public schools is a "selfish prig." Demanding less wasteful, more efficient, and more effective public schools - and getting off your ass and contributing to that - is different from whining about it and wanting them shut down so you can keep more of your own money. Most of them are far more concerned about the education of children than you are. Oh dear, you aren't making a judgement about me are you? How do you know what my level of concern is? You advocate socialism. Ipso facto you donąt care about the individual. They simply realize that the free market, combined with a minimal amount of taxpayer-funded stipends for the truly disadvantaged will result in a much better system of childhood education. It will result in education for the wealthy. There is no free market incentive to provide education to the poor. Sure there is. Even industry realizes there is a genuine incentive to raise the next generation of workers so they are smarter and better able to adapt to the technological workplace. That's why big businesses support trade and vocational schools and colleges, as well as funding private elementary education. I have a perfect understanding of free market ecomomics. Remarkable. Why is it then that you are not the world's leading economist, to whom all others, with their imperfect understanding, go to for advice? Could it be that you overestimate your understanding? Free market economics is quite simple. Which makes it all the more puzzling why you don't understand it. The outcome of applying free market economics to education and health care is marginalize the poor and divide society into a rigid system of haves and have-nots. Socialist twaddle. There's no profit in educating people who can't afford to pay. Sure there is. You just have to take the long view. Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education, and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to high-quality, universally-available education we can have. Absolutely insane. What an erudite and reasoned rebuttal from the only person on the planet with a "perfect understanding" of free market economics. How do you define free market economics Scotty? What is it you see in your definition that leads you to believe that private sector educational insitutions will be motivated to educate the poor in a free market economy? Because, for one thing, the companies that will be employing them in the future donąt want to have to provide basic remedial education in the three R's. It's far more cost-effective to put money into educating children when they are children and are receptive to learning than it is to try to teach an old dog new tricks in order to have a pool of reasonably well-educated potential employees to choose from. And as I said, and you have continuously elided, I believe that it's reasonable for society to fund basic education for the *truly poor*, but through the free-market system, not through government run bureaucracies. Those that can pay, pay. Those that absolutely cannot pay still get educated, but the overall costs to society to educate the truly poor is far, far less than what we pay today for inefficient, ineffective public schooling that far too often does no good at all and graduates illiterate dunces because it's too expensive or "socially stigmatizing" to keep them back until they actually learn what they need to know. -- 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 |
Scott leads us through some convoluted reasoning:
================ She need only wait till the money's available or her parents can find a charitable program or hospital to do the surgery pro bono. In Canada, it's not possible to take out a loan or get a grant and get the surgery done in a timely manner, so what was an acute injury will turn into a chronic disability due to lack of timely medical care that may cripple the child for life. Is it likely that as people with insurance arrive, some "bureaucrat" in the hospital will priorize and thereby establish a "waiting list"? Nope. The priority is set by the patient. Can you assure me that, under the American system, the teenager will get immediate attention, Yup. =================== You assure me she'll get immediate attention, but earlier you said she'll get attention when the money becomes available. I established in my scenario that the was NO insurance and let's say, no money. How is the priority set by the patient. Sauppose she says: "I want to be #1." Does that make her #1? Of course not. And who tells her she can't be #1? Likely some hospital bureaucrat. Hmmm.... sounds like what you describe the Canadian system to be like. At least in Canada, her condition determines her priority. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/26/05 3:09 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Michael Daly at wrote on 3/25/05 9:36 PM: On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: HOSPITALIZATION and SURGERY. It does not, by law. Which law? Provide proof. The supplemental policies _do_ provide for hospitalization and surgery. It is you who is too ignorant to accept the truth. Mike What's he trying to say Mike? That we can't have health insurance? Or that it can't be used for hospital care? Neither. I'm saying that no amount of health care insurance in Canada will get you into a hospital or surgical suite ahead of anyone higher on the priority list than you. That it may cover all sorts of things that Canada's socialized medical system doesn't cover is beside the point. If you cannot use your insurance to guarantee you a room or surgery when YOU need it, not when the government decides to provide it to you, it's nothing more than palliative and gives you nothing more than a few perks in the hospital, provided you don't die waiting to be admitted. If you are saying that supplemental health care insurance in Canada won't allow me to skip ahead of some other person in the emergency room, that is quite true. Evasion. I didn't say "emergency room." I said that Canada rations hospitalization and surgery, of ALL kinds, both for acute, life threatening illnesses as well as non life threatening problems that require a hospital stay and/or surgery. My old medical insurance provided that I could go to any hospital in the world and get immediate treatment, including admission and surgery as necessary, without any delay, without any permission from anybody, and it would pay the bills. You only get to go into the hospital if some government bureaucrat decides you "need" to do so You don't have a clue. I can go to the hospital right now and see a doctor. But can you be admitted for your knee pain right away, or do you have to take your place in line. The issue is not whether you get seen for an initial evaluation, it's whether you get TREATMENT for your condition. But it would make more sense to go to one of the nice GP clinics unless it's a serious emergency. If you need a hospital stay or surgery, you can't get it when you want it, you have to get in line based on what some government bureaucrat says you deserve. and you "need" to do so more urgently than somebody else. Well, yeah, like any hospital, there are only so many doctors on duty. If a busload of kids crashes and they are coming in with burns and severed limbs and I am there with my sprained ankle, you are right, I will probably have to wait. Evasion. You'll wait no matter what, depending on the acuteness of your condition, even if there's a bed available, if your condition puts you down on the list. If they don't think you "need" to be admitted, or if they don't have room, you're ****ed, and you have to come to the US and pay the full price for your care. Having lived here for 30+ years I have yet to meet one person where this has ever happened. As I said, the paucity of your social circle is not the metric. Most people here have a family doctor that they see regularly. I have one. His office has an after hours service as well. If it is regular business hours, I can get an appointment with him pretty much whenever I want one. If it is after hours, I can see one of the other doctors that he shares his practice with for after hours care. About two blocks from his office is a nice hospital, where I have been, and friends and family have been, for everything from what turned out to be stomach flu to one of my best friends that had cancer (with the help of many fine doctors he beat it). And every time you jumped the queue with an emergency, somebody with a deteriorating chronic condition was pushed down and had to wait longer. -- 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 |
Scott replies:
================ Tell me about your waiting lists for non-emergent cases without insurance, OK? That would be, perhaps, a list used by a charitable organization. However, the point is that in the US, the teenager is not *prohibited* from seeking out and obtaining any medical care that she needs from a provider willing to provide the service. In Canada, no matter how willing the surgeon, no matter how ready the charity is to pay for it...or the parents for that matter, government bureaucrats decide who gets to be treated ==================== Bottom line: a teenager without insurance and without money is "prohibited" insofar as her freedom to seek care is illusionary. Fine in principle, nonexistant in practice. And, can we establish somehow, some way, for the last time, there is no "government bureaucrat" making these decisions. If there is such a guy, please give me his title. Where does he reside in the bureaucracy? Is he federal? Provincial? Local? frtzw906 |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/27/05 7:57 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/26/05 2:48 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it doesn't meet your needs. Really? How so? If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about that? Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've noticed you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet your needs"? You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation or be branded a liar. Brand away rick. Er, Scotty. It's clear to me that you wouldn't give a damn about a law that contradicted what Scotty Weiser believes to be his fundamental rights. Based on what evidence, precisely? If only I had a warrant... But seriously dear Scotty, it's just an impression. Again, based on what evidence? Or are you admitting that you're just a brainless bigot who judges people based on some mental aberration you suffer from? I'm saying that based on the persona you've displayed here I could see you with an assault rifle shooting up an entire town for passing a bylaw against having a different colour mailbox than the one you have. Well, that would make you a loon, but you're entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you aren't aware of the loony image you are projecting. You falsely presume that a "share" of some adult's medical problems can be ethically and legitimately imposed on others. It's imposed on me and I find it totally ethical and legit. Which is your right. How do you ethically justify imposing it on others, however? Do you have any reasoned argument in support of your position, or are you just brainlessly parroting some socialist dogma you once heard? It's very simple, and I have explained it. I believe in universal education and universal health care. This means I believe every citizen should contribute. Most of the citizens in the society where I live agree with this. Polly want a cracker? Scotty is a cracker! Do you suppose that if they had all had a gun, that the genocide in Rawanda would have even been possible? Or are you simply too callous and uncaring in your paranoid hoplophobia to admit that sometimes, having a gun can be a good thing. Only if you have a means of ensuring that the good people have 'em and the bad ones don't. So, because it's factually impossible to keep "bad people" from illegally obtaining guns, or machetes, or stones, or gasoline and matches, it's okay with you if "good people" are brutally murdered because they have been disarmed and are incapable of defending themselves, merely in order to comply with your impossibly stupid utopian ideal of a gun-less society? How remarkably barbaric and abysmally stupid. Handing out guns won't turn a barbaric society into a peaceful one. Actually, you're wrong. Actually, I'm not. An armed society is a polite society. The usual failure however is that *not enough* guns are available in society, so that only the elite and the criminals have them, leaving the middle-class to be victimized by both without any chance of defending themselves. Why are the middle class being victimized? It will simply increase the rate of barbarism. Could it be true that you really have never heard of the concept of "self defense?" Can you possibly be that ignorant? The ultimate self-defense would be to kill everyone else, and I have a feeling that's not too far off from what you believe. You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department) for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out. Sure you can. Charity begins at home. Charity cannot provide universal education and health care. Why not? Because it is a charity, not a universal program with the requisite funding to operate one. That's not an explanation of why, that's a tautological assertion. You simply failed to understand. I'll try agian. You can't have a universal program if the means to deliver that program is dependent upon random contributions. Why not? You falsely assume that most people are not willing to contribute voluntarily to support those in need. Given the massive outpouring of private donations for the tsunami victims, I'd say that shows a fundamental mistrust on your part rather than any factual parsimony on the part of the public. An outpouring of donations for disaster relief has nothing to do with providing and maintaining a universal system of healthcare. When the charity doesn't get enough donations, what do you think happens? Operations close. Services are eliminated. So what? Perhaps those operations and services are unneeded or improperly run and need to be eliminated. You asked why a charity cannot provide universal education and health care. And you implied that without government funding, no care would be available. No, I said you can't provide a system of universal health care if it is dependent upon random generosity. I merely posit that the closure of operations and the suspending of services may not be harmful to the ability of people to obtain the services, but is more likely to be a reflection of an elimination of government-mandated duplication and waste. And I merely posit that privatized health care (as it should) seeks to make money. There is no money to be made in providing health care to people who can't afford to pay for it. Perhaps society, through its unwillingness to fund these programs, is saying that the objectives are unworthy and no longer comport with society's beliefs about who is eligible for charity. Why is society precluded from making such determinations? Some societies don't have universal education and health care. Er, no society has universal anything. At best, countries with socialized health care only provide minimal "free" services. Everything else is a la carte or mostly unavailable. How minimal is minimal? My father had a hernia operation last year. My father in law had heart bypass surgery. One of my best friends had successful cancer treatment. All provided through our universal health care system. |
Scott:
============= And every time you jumped the queue with an emergency, somebody with a deteriorating chronic condition was pushed down and had to wait longer. ============= Hmmm.... triage is taught in med school here... and practiced in the hospitals.... so don't worry about those with a deteriorating chronic condition frtzw906 |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/27/05 8:07 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/26/05 2:54 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/25/05 6:55 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent: ================ For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who have opted-out by evading property taxes. ============ And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must be very charitable indeed. Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay. And I don't have any kids in public school at all. A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free. And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the *children*, no matter what school they attend? Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools. That's precisely what I want to do. I know. That's what a lot of people who have some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do. That's what selfish prigs want to do. Not everybody who wants to eliminate government waste and inefficient, ineffective public schools is a "selfish prig." Demanding less wasteful, more efficient, and more effective public schools - and getting off your ass and contributing to that - is different from whining about it and wanting them shut down so you can keep more of your own money. Most of them are far more concerned about the education of children than you are. Oh dear, you aren't making a judgement about me are you? How do you know what my level of concern is? You advocate socialism. Ipso facto you donąt care about the individual. Ridiculous. I believe that education and health care should be fundamental priorities in society. My mother would roll on the floor laughing to hear someone call me a socialist. I find it pretty amusing myself! They simply realize that the free market, combined with a minimal amount of taxpayer-funded stipends for the truly disadvantaged will result in a much better system of childhood education. It will result in education for the wealthy. There is no free market incentive to provide education to the poor. Sure there is. Even industry realizes there is a genuine incentive to raise the next generation of workers so they are smarter and better able to adapt to the technological workplace. That's why big businesses support trade and vocational schools and colleges, as well as funding private elementary education. Heehee. That's right, they are going to come into the ghettos of American and build beautiful hospitals and schools so all those poor kids can become executives in their company. You are so silly. I have a perfect understanding of free market ecomomics. Remarkable. Why is it then that you are not the world's leading economist, to whom all others, with their imperfect understanding, go to for advice? Could it be that you overestimate your understanding? Free market economics is quite simple. Which makes it all the more puzzling why you don't understand it. The outcome of applying free market economics to education and health care is marginalize the poor and divide society into a rigid system of haves and have-nots. Socialist twaddle. There's no profit in educating people who can't afford to pay. Sure there is. You just have to take the long view. Who has to? A company that is slashing costs to improve the outlook for their next quarterly report? You are so silly. Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education, and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to high-quality, universally-available education we can have. Absolutely insane. What an erudite and reasoned rebuttal from the only person on the planet with a "perfect understanding" of free market economics. How do you define free market economics Scotty? What is it you see in your definition that leads you to believe that private sector educational insitutions will be motivated to educate the poor in a free market economy? Because, for one thing, the companies that will be employing them in the future donąt want to have to provide basic remedial education in the three R's. It's far more cost-effective to put money into educating children when they are children and are receptive to learning than it is to try to teach an old dog new tricks in order to have a pool of reasonably well-educated potential employees to choose from. It's much more economical for them to get their workforce from populations that require as little additional investment as possible. You are not only an incredibly selfish person, but you have no clue about business either! And as I said, and you have continuously elided, I believe that it's reasonable for society to fund basic education for the *truly poor*, but through the free-market system, not through government run bureaucracies. There is no incentive for the free market to educate the truly poor or any other poor. Those that can pay, pay. Those that absolutely cannot pay still get educated, but the overall costs to society to educate the truly poor is far, far less than what we pay today for inefficient, ineffective public schooling that far too often does no good at all and graduates illiterate dunces because it's too expensive or "socially stigmatizing" to keep them back until they actually learn what they need to know. How will you ensure universal education (including the truly poor) through the free market system? Hint: "free market" means that you can't ensure that anyone will do anything. It's a free market, Scotty. |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/27/05 8:12 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/26/05 3:09 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Michael Daly at wrote on 3/25/05 9:36 PM: On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: HOSPITALIZATION and SURGERY. It does not, by law. Which law? Provide proof. The supplemental policies _do_ provide for hospitalization and surgery. It is you who is too ignorant to accept the truth. Mike What's he trying to say Mike? That we can't have health insurance? Or that it can't be used for hospital care? Neither. I'm saying that no amount of health care insurance in Canada will get you into a hospital or surgical suite ahead of anyone higher on the priority list than you. That it may cover all sorts of things that Canada's socialized medical system doesn't cover is beside the point. If you cannot use your insurance to guarantee you a room or surgery when YOU need it, not when the government decides to provide it to you, it's nothing more than palliative and gives you nothing more than a few perks in the hospital, provided you don't die waiting to be admitted. If you are saying that supplemental health care insurance in Canada won't allow me to skip ahead of some other person in the emergency room, that is quite true. Evasion. I didn't say "emergency room." I said that Canada rations hospitalization and surgery, of ALL kinds, both for acute, life threatening illnesses as well as non life threatening problems that require a hospital stay and/or surgery. No evasion intended. There is no question that priorities are established. My old medical insurance provided that I could go to any hospital in the world and get immediate treatment, including admission and surgery as necessary, without any delay, without any permission from anybody, and it would pay the bills. You only get to go into the hospital if some government bureaucrat decides you "need" to do so You don't have a clue. I can go to the hospital right now and see a doctor. But can you be admitted for your knee pain right away, or do you have to take your place in line. The issue is not whether you get seen for an initial evaluation, it's whether you get TREATMENT for your condition. Every time I have gone to the hospital (which is not necessary very often since I have an excellent family doctor I can see any time) I have received TREATMENT and this is the same experience as everyone I know. But it would make more sense to go to one of the nice GP clinics unless it's a serious emergency. If you need a hospital stay or surgery, you can't get it when you want it, you have to get in line based on what some government bureaucrat says you deserve. You have to get in line only in the same way you would at any hospital, e.g. a busload of injured nuns has just arrived. and you "need" to do so more urgently than somebody else. Well, yeah, like any hospital, there are only so many doctors on duty. If a busload of kids crashes and they are coming in with burns and severed limbs and I am there with my sprained ankle, you are right, I will probably have to wait. Evasion. You'll wait no matter what, depending on the acuteness of your condition, even if there's a bed available, if your condition puts you down on the list. Huh? You don't know what you are talking about. If I go to emergency right now complaining my stomach hurts, if there isn't anyone in the waiting room ahead of me, I will see a doctor immediately. I can accomplish the same with my own doctor who operates an after hours clinic in additional to his practice. If they don't think you "need" to be admitted, or if they don't have room, you're ****ed, and you have to come to the US and pay the full price for your care. Having lived here for 30+ years I have yet to meet one person where this has ever happened. As I said, the paucity of your social circle is not the metric. Neither are media references to isolated cases the metric. Most people here have a family doctor that they see regularly. I have one. His office has an after hours service as well. If it is regular business hours, I can get an appointment with him pretty much whenever I want one. If it is after hours, I can see one of the other doctors that he shares his practice with for after hours care. About two blocks from his office is a nice hospital, where I have been, and friends and family have been, for everything from what turned out to be stomach flu to one of my best friends that had cancer (with the help of many fine doctors he beat it). And every time you jumped the queue with an emergency, somebody with a deteriorating chronic condition was pushed down and had to wait longer. Getting treatment at emergency has nothing to do with someone in chronic care. And as you know, the Canadian system is far superior in treatment people with chronic conditions. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... Rick surmises: ============= Looks like you're reading that into the story, not reading it. Why would he have looked into going to the states for treatment if he was unwilling to leave at all. I doubt that he can go to other facilities in the health system he is tied to. ================ Well, why else would the reporter go into great length about how much a day away from work would cost him and how he was unwilling to to accept that loss and that he'd insist on staying in Penticton. If he were willing to leave town, that would be an entirely irrelevant bit of info. [Citation: "If he were to hire a roving notary to cover for him, it would cost $220 a day, plus living expenses "I don't make that, so the end result is I have to close my business." He has operated the business in Penticton for 15 years...."] Clearly he's unwilling to leave town to have the operation done. ======= He's talking about having to close down completely. Because he cannot get around to do his job. I doubt that even Canada is liberal enough to allow people dosed up on morphine to drive around the country. I still say that he's not allowed to go elsewhere in canada, and that is why he looked into going to the states. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick recommends a reading that says very little about actual deaths while waiting: So how many do you need? At what point, if you are the one that dies waiting for ttreatment, does it not matter that a few an be sacificed? =========== should the people of Ontario be concerned by those numbers? There are doctors there that think so... http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/3/354 ========================== Again, I commend you on your sources. I read this source and it is very much a theoretical or hypothetical-case paper. Dr Hill presents a simple compartment model. He hypothesizes that perhaps waiting times could be reduced if, rather than giving hgh-risk patients priority for sugery, those with lower risks were given that priority. The concluding comments are what really counts: "Thus, the natural clinical tendency to give priority to the group with a higher mortality rate does not yield fewer deaths among patients on the waiting list and leads to a larger overall waiting list. To reduce the size of the waiting list by giving priority to the group with lower mortality rate (see Table 1) would probably be considered cynical and unethical, but it should be noted that such a policy would not increase the overall number of deaths per year. It can also be shown that these results hold where there are more than 2 risk groups. This analysis is not intended to be normative or to constitute a recommendation that priorities for surgery be changed. " So, there you have it. An interesting theoretical exercise "not intended to be normative or to constitute a recommendation that priorities for surgery be changed. " ===================== Funny, but since you snipped out what you replied to, it might seem that way. However, you all you asked was if there were any medical people worried about waiting times. I just provided one example. frtzw906 |
I mean, consider this: the author asserts that Canadians pay (on
average) 48% of their income in taxes, "partly for health care". Does anyone know what sources are being used to provide these statistics? For instances what taxes are in this 48%. Is it just income tax, or does it include all taxes that the average person pays like sales tax, excise tax on gasoline, sin taxes, etc? Does it also include Canada Pension Plan (the Canadian equivalent of FICA in the US)? I live in Ontario, with a pretty good income, and if you're talking about tax on income including what I pay for CPP and EI (employment insurance), it's nowhere near 48%. It's actually closer to 29%. It almost sounds like they're quoting marginal tax rates, not average tax rates, especially not for Ontario which is one of the lower taxed provinces. Then she asserts that the Ontario gubmint spends 40% of tax revenues on health care. Then she expostulates: "Wow! Forty-eight percent of income for health care that you can't get when you need it. What a bargain!" I mean, gee-Zeus, that is just too inumerate for words! 40% of 48% is about 19% of Ontareans' income spent on health care, not 48%! That's not 100% accurate either, because the provincial governments, in this case Ontario, don't receive all of the tax revenue paid by a person. They only receive the provincial income tax, and sales tax, plus some transfers from the federal government. In other words, even if the 48% paid were true, you can't say that 40% of 48% is spent by Ontario for health care because Ontario wouldn't receive all of that alleged 48% of a residents income. Most income tax goes to the federal government. The US health care system has problems. The Canadian system has problems. They're just different problems, and the opponents and proponents of each of those systems will emphasize the negative points of the other system, in their arguments. As far as waiting times go, there's no visible difference in the time required to wait for general care. In Canada, if you're sick and you need to see your doctor, you call the office and you'll see your doctor. Similarly in the US. The biggest difference that I've seen is that in Canada there's a longer wait to see a specialist or for services that are not provided by a general practitioner. So, if your doctor says that you need to see a neurologist, and you call for an appointment, you might have to wait seven weeks for an opening. But, if your situation is so severe that you need to see a neurologist that day then they'd send you to an emergency room where you'd see a neurologist. If a person slips and hits his head, but doesn't develop any symptoms the doctor may order a MRI, and he'll probably have to wait a few weeks for it. If he doesn't regain consciousness, he'll get an MRI that day. Does that mean that someone won't fall through the net. It does happen sometimes, but it's not the norm. Nobody is saying that the system in Canada is perfect, far from it. But opponents of it seem to give the impression that Canadians wait weeks for everything, and that's not true, either. PS, I was quite pleased with the Canadian hospital that stitched up my chin after an unpleasant *contretemps* on the Rouge river in Quebec a few years ago. The locals advised me to drive across the Ottawa river into Refrew, ONT for medical treatment, since (they said) Ontario hospitals pay their physicians more, and thus get the cream of the Med school grads. Service was quick (the waiting room was empty, unlike several American emergency rooms I have visited, which always seem to be packed with people waiting eternally for treatment), treatment was good, and though they were unable to bill my healthcare plan directly, they provided me with all the documentation I needed to recover my costs. Of course Renfrew is a pretty low populated area. I went into an emergency room in Melbourne, Florida last summer and had equally quick service when I needed stitches. The bill when all was done was US$2,000. You mention that you've been to crowded US emergency rooms and I agree that some places are crowded (my dad spent 12 hours in one in New York). But, you can also spend that amount of time in an emergency room in Toronto. As I said, both systems have problems, just different problems. Do you prefer a net that will always be underneith everybody, but with bigger holes in the net, or a net with really small holes but which is only under a percentage of the population? Stephen Gallagher |
The US, of course, does have a socialized medical system, to some
extent. Medicare, the health insurance provided to persons aged 65 and older, is funded by the medicare taxes paid by individuals on their income (and the payroll tax paid by their employers). The US also has a socialized retirement pension system, aka Social Security retirement benefit. Stephen |
Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: snip : Yup, because you expect everybody else to pay for your bad driving habits : and the expensive medical consequences. What if others don't want to pay for : it? Why should you have a right to expect them to do so? Wow... colorado must be a red state... It's a bit funny that the states that had a majority of votes for the Republican presidential candidate have been called "red states", while the states whose majority voted for the Democratic candidate are "blue states". Red is the traditional color of socialism, while blue is the color of conservatism. Did someone do that on purpose? |
But what I find interesting about Frederick's story is that KMAN, Michael, and BCITORGB don't know what it is like being denied insurance coverage because of diabetes or cholesterol issues. We have no idea about the trauma or stress one might feel as the insurance companies jack up the premiums or outright deny coverage. Frederick states that "health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles". I don't have the figures at hand; perhaps the taxes I pay in Canada, and the portion thereof that goes to healthcare, are equal to or greater than Frederick's monthly premiums (somehow I doubt it). However, I do know that I'll always have that coverage. I could lose my health insurance at any time. If I were to change jobs, any potential new employer would have to weigh the added burden of putting a diabetic on their insurance policy. Thus, my job options become much more limited. My present employer could decide to drop insurance coverage (this happened to my wife). As I said before, most insurance companies would deny me coverage. (Cherry-picking is the vernacular for this common practice.) I would be **** out of luck, not to mention the burden placed on a family where dad has serious medical issues and can't get insurance. The threat of loss of insurance is a constant and pervasive source of worry for me, despite the sizable contributions I have paid into it over the years. That was your first mistake. Instead of paying for insurance, which is pretty much like throwing money down the sewer, you should have been taking that money and investing it, or saving it under your mattress for that matter, for a "rainy day" medical emergency, and paying for minor stuff out of pocket. You'd be way ahead of the game if you had done so. Health insurance is a mug's game. It's a massive fraud perpetrated on the people and the only thing is does is make the insurance companies and their investors rich. Figure out some time how much you've paid in premiums over time versus how much medical care you've actually *needed* (not the "convenience healthcare" where you go in because you've got the flu just so the doctor can tell you to go home and tough it out) and figure out exactly how much you *really* paid for your essential health care. It's way too much, I guarantee it. Some employers don't give you the option of not paying for health insurance, in the US. When I lived in the US, my two employers provided health insurance, but you had to participate in their plans, if you were a full tiime employee. It wasn't an option. Most big employers get the rates that they have from the insurance companies by promising them a certain amount of revenue in premiums. What's more, if you are an average working Joe, it's a complete waste of money because if you get *really* ill, and require emergency life-saving care in the US, you will get it. You can't be turned down by any federally-funded hospital if it's a matter of life and death. And you could lose your entire savings and your home when they send you the $150,000 bill for your emergency life saving care. Of course, piles aren't a life or death matter, so you may have to stick with Preparation H rather than getting surgery, but that's your problem, not mine or the rest of society's. And lest you think I'm being callous, I'm in *exactly* the same position you are. I don't have, and can't get health insurance. But I don't whine about it, I just figure out how to pay for it myself while not expecting others to pay my bills for me. Personal responsibility is a very liberating thing. Quit worrying and get to work figuring out how to cut expenses and start putting money aside for emergencies. Try a catastrophic health care plan that excludes anything related to diabetes and has a high deductible. Such plans are available at very reasonable costs. Of course, it does mean you don't get to run to the doctor every time you or your kids get the sniffles. But that's a good thing. It forces you to work hard at staying healthy (like teaching your kids to wash their hands and keep their fingers out of their noses) and it encourages you to save money. Or, suck it up and die if necessary. It happens to all of us eventually anyway, and you'll be making room for somebody else with better genetics. " If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." - Ebenezer Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol" |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott simplistically states: ================== But in the free market model, when such shortages occur, the market responds with more beds and services. ==================== But... http://www.usaweekend.com/03_issues/...831nurses.html ... "More than 126,000 nursing positions in hospitals around the country are unfilled, according to the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. In addition, the workforce is shrinking, because it's aging (and retiring) at twice the rate of other occupations." Hmmmm.... as far as I can tell, there are shortages of medical personnel EVERYWHERE; whether in the Canadian system or the American. There are likely a myriad of reasons, but allow me to ride one of my hobby horses: as far as docs are concerned, it's the doctors' unions (I know they don't call them unions, but they're the toughest one of them all). They very successfully play the supply management game. The enrollment in universities is influenced by the "union". And, let's face it, the entrance requirements to get into med school in both Canada and the USA are nuts. If med schools pumped out more docs and nurses, neither Canada nor the USA would have shortages. Med schools respond to market conditions in the US. As the doctor population shrinks, scarcity increases value and wages go up. As wages go up, more people choose to become doctors and nurses. It's pure free market economics. In Canada, however, compensation for nurses and doctors outside of private practices, particularly surgeons, is government controlled, so there is little motivation to become a surgeon or a nurse. This leads to more shortages, which leads to inadequate staffing, which leads to empty beds because there's no one to care for patients. This is not a free market vs any other kind of system issue, because there is no free market in the supply of labor in this industry. Don't be silly, of course there is...in the US. But you're absolutely right about the lack of a free market in Canada. Therein lies the problem. -- 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 KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/27/05 7:46 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scott, commenting on many (most) in Canada getting immediate ca ================== Yup. While at the same time, teenagers who need knee surgery have to wait three years. ================== Notwithstanding the protestations of rick, several of us from Canada have commented on, and admitted, that one of the consequences of our style of healthcare is that, for some procedures, there are waiting lists. That's a fact. But it's a price we're willing to pay, I doubt you speak for everyone, or even a substantial number of Canadians, given how much dissatisfaction there is in Canada now and how many calls for privatization and reform. There is a much stronger desire for universal health care in the US than the dismantling of universal health care in Canada. From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4798058/ Why can't the richest nation in the world provide health-care coverage to all its people? Because we understand the evils of socialized medicine, having watched other nations struggle and fail at it. The answer: It's not that Americans don't want to cover the 41 million uninsured . And the cost, pegged by Kaiser Commission on Medicaid & the Uninsured at less than $69 billion a year, isn't insurmountable, adding just 6 percent to annual health spending. It's just that no consensus exists -- in the public, among politicians, or in the health industries -- about how best to get the job done. And because the vast majority of voters have health insurance (85 percent of the population is insured, but 92 percent of those who participated in the 2000 election were covered), political leaders have little incentive to overcome that impasse. Nor should they feel compelled to do so. It is not government's job to supply health care. That's not to say Americans don't wish that health care was available to all. Some 62 percent support universal coverage, according to an October, 2003, Washington Post/ABC News Poll. Sure, if someone could wave a magic wand and give everybody free health care without all the awful things that happen under socialized medicine, who wouldn't think it's a good idea. But asking people if they like the idea of free health care is in itself a "push poll" question. When people find out the actual costs involved, and the inevitable waste, fraud and unavailability of socialized health care, they strongly reject it, which is why the Democrats aren't able to hornswoggle people into pushing Congress into such a disaster. We intuitively understand, based on long experience, that government-run monopolies are ALWAYS wasteful, inefficient and rarely provide even a fraction of the promised benefits. The VA is a classic example of "socialize medicine," and it's a dismal failure even for the relatively small number of ex-soldiers who were promised a lifetime of free health care for their service. And anybody on Medicare can tell you that even such cash-subsidy government programs are a failure too. Fact is that most Americans would rather pay more and have immediate access to the best health care system on the planet, without government intervention, than get the nothing-for-something that inevitably results from socialized medicine. -- 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:
Scott leads us through some convoluted reasoning: ================ She need only wait till the money's available or her parents can find a charitable program or hospital to do the surgery pro bono. In Canada, it's not possible to take out a loan or get a grant and get the surgery done in a timely manner, so what was an acute injury will turn into a chronic disability due to lack of timely medical care that may cripple the child for life. Is it likely that as people with insurance arrive, some "bureaucrat" in the hospital will priorize and thereby establish a "waiting list"? Nope. The priority is set by the patient. Nope. If it were, the girl would get her knee surgery. Can you assure me that, under the American system, the teenager will get immediate attention, Yup. =================== You assure me she'll get immediate attention, but earlier you said she'll get attention when the money becomes available. I established in my scenario that the was NO insurance and let's say, no money. How is the priority set by the patient. Sauppose she says: "I want to be #1." Does that make her #1? Of course not. And who tells her she can't be #1? Likely some hospital bureaucrat. Hmmm.... sounds like what you describe the Canadian system to be like. At least in Canada, her condition determines her priority. Difference is that if she doesn't like the priority given to her based on her income, she can seek out another service provider willing to put her higher on the list. Canadians can't. -- 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:
Scott replies: ================ Tell me about your waiting lists for non-emergent cases without insurance, OK? That would be, perhaps, a list used by a charitable organization. However, the point is that in the US, the teenager is not *prohibited* from seeking out and obtaining any medical care that she needs from a provider willing to provide the service. In Canada, no matter how willing the surgeon, no matter how ready the charity is to pay for it...or the parents for that matter, government bureaucrats decide who gets to be treated ==================== Bottom line: a teenager without insurance and without money is "prohibited" insofar as her freedom to seek care is illusionary. Fine in principle, nonexistant in practice. Nope. She can seek out medical care wherever and whenever she likes. All she has to do is find a provider willing to provide the care for what she can (or cannot) pay in return. That she can't walk into her corner hospital and *demand* service is not important. What's important is that she can choose freely from among tens of thousands of hospitals and hundreds of thousands to millions of doctors and specialty clinics and obtain immediate treatment from any who are willing to serve her. In Canada, she isn't allowed to even seek out a hospital or surgeon willing to treat her, perhaps pro bono, because her position in the queue is dictated by the government. And, can we establish somehow, some way, for the last time, there is no "government bureaucrat" making these decisions. Sure there is. If there is such a guy, please give me his title. Where does he reside in the bureaucracy? Is he federal? Provincial? Local? Well, there's the hospital Admissions Director, to begin with... -- 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 |
|
|
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/28/05 4:07 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/27/05 7:46 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scott, commenting on many (most) in Canada getting immediate ca ================== Yup. While at the same time, teenagers who need knee surgery have to wait three years. ================== Notwithstanding the protestations of rick, several of us from Canada have commented on, and admitted, that one of the consequences of our style of healthcare is that, for some procedures, there are waiting lists. That's a fact. But it's a price we're willing to pay, I doubt you speak for everyone, or even a substantial number of Canadians, given how much dissatisfaction there is in Canada now and how many calls for privatization and reform. There is a much stronger desire for universal health care in the US than the dismantling of universal health care in Canada. From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4798058/ Why can't the richest nation in the world provide health-care coverage to all its people? Because we understand the evils of socialized medicine, having watched other nations struggle and fail at it. The answer: It's not that Americans don't want to cover the 41 million uninsured . And the cost, pegged by Kaiser Commission on Medicaid & the Uninsured at less than $69 billion a year, isn't insurmountable, adding just 6 percent to annual health spending. It's just that no consensus exists -- in the public, among politicians, or in the health industries -- about how best to get the job done. And because the vast majority of voters have health insurance (85 percent of the population is insured, but 92 percent of those who participated in the 2000 election were covered), political leaders have little incentive to overcome that impasse. Nor should they feel compelled to do so. It is not government's job to supply health care. That's not to say Americans don't wish that health care was available to all. Some 62 percent support universal coverage, according to an October, 2003, Washington Post/ABC News Poll. Sure, if someone could wave a magic wand and give everybody free health care without all the awful things that happen under socialized medicine, who wouldn't think it's a good idea. But asking people if they like the idea of free health care is in itself a "push poll" question. When people find out the actual costs involved, and the inevitable waste, fraud and unavailability of socialized health care, they strongly reject it, which is why the Democrats aren't able to hornswoggle people into pushing Congress into such a disaster. We intuitively understand, based on long experience, that government-run monopolies are ALWAYS wasteful, inefficient and rarely provide even a fraction of the promised benefits. The VA is a classic example of "socialize medicine," and it's a dismal failure even for the relatively small number of ex-soldiers who were promised a lifetime of free health care for their service. And anybody on Medicare can tell you that even such cash-subsidy government programs are a failure too. Fact is that most Americans would rather pay more and have immediate access to the best health care system on the planet, without government intervention, than get the nothing-for-something that inevitably results from socialized medicine. We'll see. |
Scotty asserts:
================ Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system. ================== Perhaps that's how property tax is calculated in CO. In BC, your millrate is a function of your property's assessed MARKET VALUE. (Acreage is thus irrelevant) So, for a multi-unit apartment building, the market value will presumably be quite high, and thus the tenants do carry a tax burden. frtzw906 ================= |
Scott thinks:
================ In Canada, however, compensation for nurses and doctors outside of private practices, particularly surgeons, is government controlled, so there is little motivation to become a surgeon or a nurse. This leads to more shortages, which leads to inadequate staffing, which leads to empty beds because there's no one to care for patients. ============== Sorry Scotty, in Canada the compensation for doctors and nurses is governed by a bargaining process between, for example, the nurses union and various local/regional health boards. Here, in the Vancouver area, for example, the doctor's union/association will bargain with, among others, the board representing the Catholic hospitals in the region. The doctor's association bargains for the pay schedule amounts which determines doctors' pay. Hmmmm.... bargaining.... what a unique concept.... As to med schools responding to market conditions.... well, I'm from Missouri... are you telling me there's no collusion between the AMA (that is the doc's association, right) and the med schools? frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scotty asserts: ================ Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system. ================== Perhaps that's how property tax is calculated in CO. In BC, your millrate is a function of your property's assessed MARKET VALUE. (Acreage is thus irrelevant) So, for a multi-unit apartment building, the market value will presumably be quite high, and thus the tenants do carry a tax burden. Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in both use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while the mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every five years. There is no direct link between the income the property generates from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes. -- 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 |
wrote:
I mean, consider this: the author asserts that Canadians pay (on average) 48% of their income in taxes, "partly for health care". Does anyone know what sources are being used to provide these statistics? Canada, being a modern country with a national, single-payer health care system, is able to generate impressive and comprehensive health care statistics; See: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/splash.html -- "This president has destroyed the country, the economy, the relationship with the rest of the world. He's a monster in the White House. He should resign." - Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003. |
Scott asserts without knowing the facts:
================ Difference is that if she doesn't like the priority given to her based on her income, she can seek out another service provider willing to put her higher on the list. Canadians can't. ============== Not quite correct. When my father-in-law didn't like the coronary surgery options available to him in his smaller community, he asked his GP to refer him to one of the surgeons in the preemminent heart hospital in a larger city. No problem. And, when it came time for the surgery, he was helicoptered onto the roof of the city hospital from his island community. [damned good service if you ask me]. In this case, HE chose his surgeon and HE chose the hospital and he got his wishes. The problem with you, Scotty, is that you make up what goes on in Canada and/or you comb the internet for one-off bad examples. Yet those of us who live here and have experience (BCITORGB, KMAN, Michael, etc) with the system know that what you insist is true is, in fact, a fantasy. frtzw906 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com