A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott submits:
==============
In this case, HE chose his surgeon and HE chose
the hospital and he got his wishes.

Only because at that moment, the capacity was available and his heart
condition jumped him up the queue.
=====================

Which is what I've been saying all along: it is medical condition which
determines priority.

Indeed. If your medical condition is not high on the priority list, you
can't get a room or have surgery.

But please note also: there is no "national"
priority list.

But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by priority
is there not? If doctors are free to admit whomever they please whenever
they please and do surgery on them, how is the system "socialized?" If
things are as you imply, it's a free market economy. Obviously, it's not,
because many people are complaining about their inability to get served
because the government won't allow them to see a doctor or go to a hospital.

Can you explain this evident dichotomy between reality and your perceptions?

In some (most) cases, each doctor will have his/her own
waiting list. If you're holding out for the surgeon with the best
reputation, you can take your chances on his waiting list. You are NOT
obliged to take the first surgeon who comes available. In fact, you are
free to shop around for a surgeon whoes list is shorter (or
nonexistent).

Evidently not. Why does a teenager who need knee surgery have to wait three
years if she can "shop around" for a surgeon?

So, once more, Scotty, there is no monolithic, socialist, bureaucracy
which determines when and where your surgery is done.

It sure sounds that way, given the long delays for surgery people have to
endure.

That the best
surgeons have waiting lists ought not to come as a surprise.

I'm willing to bet that the teenager with the bad knee would take just about
any surgeon. Care to explain why she can't get surgery?

I'm
willing to bet that you'll also wait to get to be seen by the top
surgeon in Boulder. Surely that's not some socialist conspiracy. That's
the market. No different that in BC.

It's either a free market system or it's socialized. It can't be both. Which
is it?


What's curious, Scott, is that you suggest anecdotal evidence of
success is irrelevant because you, Mr. Weiser in CO, have concluded
that the system doesn't work. Come on up and give us a try.

Actually, I'm merely echoing the huge number of complaints and criticisms
I've seen in the press and on the Web put forward by experts.

If your system works so well, why can't the teenager get knee surgery and
why are so many people complaining?
--
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 asks:
==============
But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by
priority
is there not? If doctors are free to admit whomever they please
whenever
they please and do surgery on them, how is the system "socialized?"
===============

Just think about that for a moment will you. A "national" system, I
mean.

This is a HUGE country. How do you suppose that would work?!

Suppose I need heart surgery in Vancouver, and a surgeon happens to be
free in Toronto. Do you suppose that somehow a government bureaucrat
orders or directs me to Toronto to be serviced by this available
surgeon. Of course NOT!

The whole notion of a "national" directory or system or whatever for
establishing medical priorities is ludicrous. That's something even
Stalin would not have tried. You're guessing about what happens in
Canada, and in this case your guess is so impractical no
central-planning communist would even dream of trying it.

The experience of my father-in-law shows that he made the choice to be
operated on by a surgeon with a good reputation in a hospital which
specializes in heart surgeries. This meant he had to travel (including
taking a ferry) for his examinations and, eventually, for his surgery.
He could also have had it done in his local hospital. We have no way of
knowing what the differences in the relative waiting lists may have
been. Suffice to say, the surgeon he chose established the severity and
hence the priority of his case, and called him in, by helicopter, when
he could fit him in.

Again, I suspect this is not different than for surgeons in high demand
in the USA. Waiting, I mean.

And, Scott, it is YOU who calls our system "socialized", not us. We
talk about universal (insurance) coverage. What that means is, when my
father-in-law arrived at the hospital, he handed over his medical card
(like a cerdit card), it was swiped, the data was entered, and the
"billing" was taken care of, and he put the card back into his wallet.
End of story!

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott asks:
==============
But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by
priority
is there not? If doctors are free to admit whomever they please
whenever
they please and do surgery on them, how is the system "socialized?"
===============

Just think about that for a moment will you. A "national" system, I
mean.

This is a HUGE country. How do you suppose that would work?!

Same way it works everywhere else...not very well at all.


Suppose I need heart surgery in Vancouver, and a surgeon happens to be
free in Toronto. Do you suppose that somehow a government bureaucrat
orders or directs me to Toronto to be serviced by this available
surgeon. Of course NOT!

No, he just tells you you can't have heart surgery in Vancouver till a bunch
of other people get surgery first. Nor can YOU simply board a bus and go to
Toronto and walk in to a hospital and be admitted, because Toronto has its
own government-mandated priority list, and you're not on it.


The whole notion of a "national" directory or system or whatever for
establishing medical priorities is ludicrous.

No, it's a necessary component of a "national health system." If it's not
controlled by the government, it can't be "nationalized." The government
MUST set priorities in such systems through policy directives binding on
government health care employees and contractors. That's why teenagers with
bad knees can't get surgery...they are too low on the priority list, the one
that's created by the government, and have to wait.

That's something even
Stalin would not have tried.

Stalin did try it, although he disposed of a lot of excess patients the easy
way...he sent them to the Gulags.

You're guessing about what happens in
Canada, and in this case your guess is so impractical no
central-planning communist would even dream of trying it.

Funny, that's *exactly* what "central-planning communists" do.


The experience of my father-in-law shows that he made the choice to be
operated on by a surgeon with a good reputation in a hospital which
specializes in heart surgeries. This meant he had to travel (including
taking a ferry) for his examinations and, eventually, for his surgery.
He could also have had it done in his local hospital. We have no way of
knowing what the differences in the relative waiting lists may have
been. Suffice to say, the surgeon he chose established the severity and
hence the priority of his case, and called him in, by helicopter, when
he could fit him in.

And the surgeon was operating under directives and guidelines promulgated by
the central planning bureaucracy. If your father had had bad knees, he'd
likely still be waiting.


Again, I suspect this is not different than for surgeons in high demand
in the USA. Waiting, I mean.

The difference is that unlike your father, I can go to any other hospital in
the nation at will and seek service.


And, Scott, it is YOU who calls our system "socialized", not us. We
talk about universal (insurance) coverage. What that means is, when my
father-in-law arrived at the hospital, he handed over his medical card
(like a cerdit card), it was swiped, the data was entered, and the
"billing" was taken care of, and he put the card back into his wallet.
End of story!

Not quite. His access to hospitalization and surgery was controlled by
government policy. He got lucky because he had a "critical" illness. The
teenager with a bad knee isn't quite so lucky, is she? Care to explain how
it is that she can't just walk in and have surgery and swipe a card?
--
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 3/30/05 1:35 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott asks:
==============
But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by
priority
is there not? If doctors are free to admit whomever they please
whenever
they please and do surgery on them, how is the system "socialized?"
===============

Just think about that for a moment will you. A "national" system, I
mean.

This is a HUGE country. How do you suppose that would work?!

Same way it works everywhere else...not very well at all.


Suppose I need heart surgery in Vancouver, and a surgeon happens to be
free in Toronto. Do you suppose that somehow a government bureaucrat
orders or directs me to Toronto to be serviced by this available
surgeon. Of course NOT!

No, he just tells you you can't have heart surgery in Vancouver till a bunch
of other people get surgery first. Nor can YOU simply board a bus and go to
Toronto and walk in to a hospital and be admitted, because Toronto has its
own government-mandated priority list, and you're not on it.

ROFL! You are really making a fool of yourself. You have no idea how the
Canadian health care system works! Not a clue!

Scott objects:
=============
No, he just tells you you can't have heart surgery in Vancouver till a
bunch
of other people get surgery first. Nor can YOU simply board a bus and
go to
Toronto and walk in to a hospital and be admitted, because Toronto has
its
own government-mandated priority list, and you're not on it.
===============

OK, Scott, you need to decide, is it a "national" waiting list, or a
"city" list (obviously, in your mind, the provinces play no role in
this: or do they? What say you?)?

And, in Toronto, this "government-mandated" priority list: which
government are we talking about?

From your analysis, could I, however, walk from one hospital in Toronto
to another to improve my position?

Further, within one hospital, once I'm there, can I walk from one
surgeon's office to another to try to improve my position or exercise
some choice over who actually does my surgery?

We need answers Scott. These are very real, practical, dilemmas.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott objects:
=============
No, he just tells you you can't have heart surgery in Vancouver till a
bunch
of other people get surgery first. Nor can YOU simply board a bus and
go to
Toronto and walk in to a hospital and be admitted, because Toronto has
its
own government-mandated priority list, and you're not on it.
===============

OK, Scott, you need to decide, is it a "national" waiting list, or a
"city" list (obviously, in your mind, the provinces play no role in
this: or do they? What say you?)?

It's "national" in that the rules under which hospitals must operate are
promulgated by the federal government, which funds and regulates the system.
That it may be administered at the provincial or local level changes
nothing. Socialized medicine is, by definition, centrally-controlled, even
if no "central" list is kept.


And, in Toronto, this "government-mandated" priority list: which
government are we talking about?

Any government. All government.


From your analysis, could I, however, walk from one hospital in Toronto
to another to improve my position?

I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on
the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no
matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority. That a
different facility may not have the same number of people in line before you
is irrelevant. Moreover, I have my doubts that you would be allowed, once
assigned a priority at a hospital in your local community, to simply "venue
shop" in another city, thereby jumping the queue of those above you in your
original community. However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong. That
doesn't change the fundamental nature of the system, which is a
centrally-controlled, socialistic, rationed health care system.


Further, within one hospital, once I'm there, can I walk from one
surgeon's office to another to try to improve my position or exercise
some choice over who actually does my surgery?

I don¹t know. Nor do I care. The key question is who determines when you get
to go to the hospital in the first place. In Canada, it's the government.
Down here, it's the patient, or at worst the individual, free-market
hospital.

We need answers Scott. These are very real, practical, dilemmas.

--
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

On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It's "national" in that the rules under which hospitals must operate are
promulgated by the federal government, which funds and regulates the system.

You are so ignorant. The federal government does not fund the sustem, nor
does it regulate it. It provides some funding and defines minimal standards.
However, health care is a provincial jurisdiction and most funding comes
from provincial governments.

Socialized medicine is, by definition, centrally-controlled, even
if no "central" list is kept.

Canada's must not be socialized, since there's no central control.

Any government. All government.

You sound very paranoid.

I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on
the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no
matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority.

You are making this up as you go along. Too bad you don't care about
facts - the discussion would be a lot shorter if you did.

There is no priority list!

Priorities are set by the doctors and hospitals. You can get a different
result by dealing with a different doctor. Not all referring physicians
have equal access to all surgeons - they are a good old boy network and
some have better access to some than others.

Example - Toronto's top ophthalmologist is very hard to see. He specializes
in difficult cases. A friend of mine (a doctor) had a problem with his
nephew and could not get an appointment with the specialist in a timely
manner - his nephew ended up getting treatment with another specialist.
My doctor had a concern about me and got me an appointment with the
same top ophthalmologist in a week. It all depends on who you know.
No government involved. No list involved.

However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong.

No kidding - you're wrong more often than you're right. That doesn't
stop you from posting your bull****.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It's "national" in that the rules under which hospitals must operate are
promulgated by the federal government, which funds and regulates the system.

You are so ignorant. The federal government does not fund the sustem, nor
does it regulate it.

Sure it does.

It provides some funding and defines minimal standards.

It defines more than "minimal standards." It defines who get medical care
and when.

However, health care is a provincial jurisdiction and most funding comes
from provincial governments.

And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government.
Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system. They
can't.


Socialized medicine is, by definition, centrally-controlled, even
if no "central" list is kept.

Canada's must not be socialized, since there's no central control.

Sure there is.


Any government. All government.

You sound very paranoid.

Nah, just realistic.


I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on
the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no
matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority.

You are making this up as you go along. Too bad you don't care about
facts - the discussion would be a lot shorter if you did.

Hey, I said it was my guess. You're the one who replied.


There is no priority list!

Of course there is, and the teenage girl and old guy with bad knees are on
the bottom of it.


Priorities are set by the doctors and hospitals. You can get a different
result by dealing with a different doctor. Not all referring physicians
have equal access to all surgeons - they are a good old boy network and
some have better access to some than others.

Not according to the AP. I believe the AP, not you.


Example - Toronto's top ophthalmologist is very hard to see. He specializes
in difficult cases. A friend of mine (a doctor) had a problem with his
nephew and could not get an appointment with the specialist in a timely
manner - his nephew ended up getting treatment with another specialist.
My doctor had a concern about me and got me an appointment with the
same top ophthalmologist in a week. It all depends on who you know.
No government involved. No list involved.

Did the nephew require hospitalization and surgery? If not, your anecdote is
irrelevant.


However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong.

No kidding - you're wrong more often than you're right. That doesn't
stop you from posting your bull****.

Nor does it keep you from eating it up with some fava beans and a nice
Chianti.
--
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

I should know better than to get involved...

"Scott Weiser" wrote:


From your analysis, could I, however, walk from one hospital in Toronto
to another to improve my position?

I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on
the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no
matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority. That a
different facility may not have the same number of people in line before you
is irrelevant. Moreover, I have my doubts that you would be allowed, once
assigned a priority at a hospital in your local community, to simply "venue
shop" in another city, thereby jumping the queue of those above you in your
original community. However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong.

You are wrong.

The number of people in front of you does matter. There is no "government-assigned" priority. Each hospital that you venue shop
into rates your priority and serves you as they can, with those they feel are more in need of treatment first. If you leave one
hospital after being told your wait will be X hours, and go to another hospital, a nurse or doctor there might think you've got
something more serious than the person who triaged you in the first hospital, you'll get a different priority. But even if they
give you the same priority, if the second hospital has fewer people lined up in front of you with equal or greater priority, you'll
get helped sooner.

A relative was driving long distance to a family function last week. He decided to seek treatment for an infection on the way at
the hospital in Clearwater BC. He was in and out in under an hour. Arriving at the family function he commented on that, and
another relative, who lives in Kamloops BC, a decent sized city about an hour's drive from Clearwater, said that people in Kamloops
would often drive to Clearwater to go to the hospital (for minor emergency room treatment), knowing that the two hour round trip dri
ve would save them more time than that waiting in the Kamloops emergency room.

For certain specialized treatments (available only at certain hospitals), you are closer to being correct. But for minor, routine
stuff, you can "venue shop" all you want to try to find the shortest wait time.

-Paul

A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote:

I should know better than to get involved...

.....but you just can't help yourself...

Don't apologize, it's okay to admit your an addict.


"Scott Weiser" wrote:


From your analysis, could I, however, walk from one hospital in Toronto
to another to improve my position?

I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on
the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no
matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority. That a
different facility may not have the same number of people in line before you
is irrelevant. Moreover, I have my doubts that you would be allowed, once
assigned a priority at a hospital in your local community, to simply "venue
shop" in another city, thereby jumping the queue of those above you in your
original community. However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong.

You are wrong.

The number of people in front of you does matter. There is no
"government-assigned" priority. Each hospital that you venue shop
into rates your priority and serves you as they can, with those they feel are
more in need of treatment first. If you leave one
hospital after being told your wait will be X hours, and go to another
hospital, a nurse or doctor there might think you've got
something more serious than the person who triaged you in the first hospital,
you'll get a different priority. But even if they
give you the same priority, if the second hospital has fewer people lined up
in front of you with equal or greater priority, you'll
get helped sooner.

But, each hospital is required to abide by the prioritization guidelines set
by the government, are they not? Thus, there is still a
government-controlled priority list. Parse it any way you please, but if the
government IN ANY WAY sets policy for admitting or serving patients, even in
a general guidelines document or by so much as saying something to the
effect of "doctors shall treat patients according to the priority of the
illness", as to what the priority of treatment is, the whole system is
"government controlled."

A relative was driving long distance to a family function last week. He
decided to seek treatment for an infection on the way at
the hospital in Clearwater BC. He was in and out in under an hour. Arriving
at the family function he commented on that, and
another relative, who lives in Kamloops BC, a decent sized city about an
hour's drive from Clearwater, said that people in Kamloops
would often drive to Clearwater to go to the hospital (for minor emergency
room treatment), knowing that the two hour round trip dri
ve would save them more time than that waiting in the Kamloops emergency room.

For certain specialized treatments (available only at certain hospitals), you
are closer to being correct. But for minor, routine
stuff, you can "venue shop" all you want to try to find the shortest wait
time.

But you still get prioritized based on government standards, no matter what.
The hospital administrator is not legally free to decide to admit you for an
infected hangnail if there is anyone of higher priority in line in front of
you, right? Government control, pure and simple.
--
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