| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 donąt 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 |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott states:
============= And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government. Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system. They can't. ================= Now, are you 100% sure that provinces can't opt out of the national healthcare system? Now be VERY careful when you answer this. This IS a trick question. To answer it, you'll need to explain what would happen to a province that opts out (or tries to opt out). I hear Jeopardy music in the background..... Scotty, your time is running out!!!! frtzw906 |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: It defines more than "minimal standards." It defines who get medical care and when. Prove it. And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government. Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system. They can't. The roles of the provincial government are defined in the constitution. Opting out is not an option. This has nothing to do with the federal government having control. You're ignorance is showing, as usual. Not according to the AP. I believe the AP, not you. Only because you're stupid enough to believe everything you read without checking the facts. You claimed that you checked the facts, but since you refused to provide any reasonable reference to what it is you checked, it is clear that you lied about that. I'm not surprised. Did the nephew require hospitalization and surgery? If not, your anecdote is irrelevant Yes - torn retina. Mike |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott:
============= And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government. Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system. They can't. =============== Allow me to help you tear another page out of your encyclopaedia of ignorance: [source: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com..._%28Canada%29] "The term medicare (in lowercase) (French: assurance-maladie) is the unofficial name for Canada's universal public health insurance system. Under the terms of the Canada Health Act, the provinces provide all residents with health insurance cards, which entitle the bearer to receive free medical care for almost all procedures. Patients are free to choose their own doctor, hospital, etc. Health institutions are either private and not-for-profit (such as university hospitals) or state-run (such as Quebec's CLSC system). Doctors in private practice are entrepreneurs who bill the medicare system for their fees." Does that help? frtzw906 |
| 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 | |||
Hybrid Mode
