| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#264
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#265
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
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" |
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
| Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
| OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
| OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General | |||
Linear Mode
