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