suv_guy_19 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Everything is done in order of need. It's that simple. If you're in less pain than someone else, you won't get your replacement as fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Here is the difference though. I'm willing to admit that some non emergency waits are too long...but there aren't many other problems. SO what's wrong with the American system...and why is the entire rest of the western world wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 Everything is done in order of need. It's that simple. If you're in less pain than someone else, you won't get your replacement as fast. Who decides what "need" and "less pain" is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 how many BILLIONS are paid for by taxpayers for UN-INSURED people whos treatment CANNOT be denied?....... I have first hand experience with this. Years ago a family moved in across the street form me. They were form Canada. It turns out that they moved to the U.S. because the wait for the caner was so long that whe would die by the time Canada treated her. If you believe the "govt. option" is the answer, you are wrong. First of all, employers will immediately switch your current insurance to it. Then, it will draw so many people away from private insurance that the private insurers will go out of business and we will have rationing of treatment. Won't that be fun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Who decides what "need" and "less pain" is? Doctors...and only doctors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 The wait for cancer radiation, therapy, and surgery varies from province to province. But the wait isn't long in most cases. Cancer surger for head and neck in my province is currently conforming to what it needs to (less than 6 weeks average) and radiation has an average wait of 1 week....varying from cancer to cancer. The waits that people talk about are almost always for things like hip and knee (again, that varies from province to province) and other elective surgeries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azulejost Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427 Debunking Canadian health care myths By Rhonda Hackett Posted: 06/07/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT Rhonda Hackett of Castle Rock is a clinical psychologist There are so many omissions and statistics presented that belie the facts of the US medical system vs. that of Canada it would take quite some length to cover. Healthcare is best left to those that do healthcare as is evidenced by this thread and some of the many comments. As a current medical student, I have been presented with all manner of presentations on our system vs. Canada/UK/etc. that continually use statistics such as those in this article to say how terrible US healthcare is compared to any other industrialized nation. The fact is, US healthcare is the most advanced, leading edge system in place in the world. Our research continues to develop new drugs and treatments that, while costly and expensive, promote the human condition. Demonizing drug companies can just as easily be turned into saying that any corporation or individual that makes a profit is evil and deserves to have the money taken from them. Why is it wrong for a company to attempt to make money to allow for future drug development and research with a drug that positively benefits patients? The US was established as a different type of country compared to Europe and Canada, one that places the individual as the focus instead of the collective. Heathcare for everyone for "free" sounds all well and good, but healthcare is not an inalienable right that accompanies one's birth. The nation does not have a responsibilty to provide coverage for anyone or everyone, instead only that the opportunities for each citizen be such that life can be lived as he or she sees fit within the confines of the law. Our system has its faults, but the elderly and poor are already covered by Medicare/Medicaid. Plus, we have coverage for children. Those are the only populations that should be safeguarded by some government sponsored insurance program. That is not to say that healthcare costs and coverage for those that are above the Medicaid line should be ignored. Forcing people to have insurance is not acceptable according to my understanding of the Constitution, nor should that be offered as one of the ways of approaching this. Should the forced coverage be required, people near the limit on the income determined sufficient to afford coverage will likely find it easier to just stay at home and use the government plan instead of working and living as they had. That will decrease tax income. If someone could afford coverage and doesn't choose to buy it, it's too bad for them when an emergent operation has to be performed and they find themselves thousands of dollars in debt. That was the risk they took, and turns out the roulette wheel of life didn't go their way. For those that are denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions and the like, that is a tricky area, but forcing insurance companies to cover any applicant is only going to make healthcare more expensive for everyone. Also, should the government have their own plan to "compete" with the private companies, it will be a situation much like the GM/Chrysler vs. Ford scenario now. Everyone will question how much favoritism the government will have especially given the fact only Uncle Sam can spend money without having a source for the money. This will drive up taxes while driving down the quality of health care until the US system becomes like that of Canada/UK wherein those that can afford to have private coverage in addition to their government "free" coverage do so. Another aspect of government care to be considered is its impact on the number of practicing physicians. The road to an M.D. is a long, frustrating, and highly expensive one. The current trends show fewer physicians are specializing, and with government coverage that would almost certainly be exacerbated due to the decreased financial gain that would be likely in specialties vs. primary care. The US healthcare system is not perfect, but it's far and away the best system ever created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Private coverage (other than wait time insurance...which is almost useless...and insurance for dental and eye) is forbidden in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Doctors...and only doctors. Exactly, that's why I posted the article AND link, geez! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 There are so many omissions and statistics presented that belie the facts of the US medical system vs. that of Canada it would take quite some length to cover. Healthcare is best left to those that do healthcare as is evidenced by this thread and some of the many comments. As a current medical student, I have been presented with all manner of presentations on our system vs. Canada/UK/etc. that continually use statistics such as those in this article to say how terrible US healthcare is compared to any other industrialized nation. The fact is, US healthcare is the most advanced, leading edge system in place in the world. Our research continues to develop new drugs and treatments that, while costly and expensive, promote the human condition. Demonizing drug companies can just as easily be turned into saying that any corporation or individual that makes a profit is evil and deserves to have the money taken from them. Why is it wrong for a company to attempt to make money to allow for future drug development and research with a drug that positively benefits patients? The US was established as a different type of country compared to Europe and Canada, one that places the individual as the focus instead of the collective. Heathcare for everyone for "free" sounds all well and good, but healthcare is not an inalienable right that accompanies one's birth. The nation does not have a responsibilty to provide coverage for anyone or everyone, instead only that the opportunities for each citizen be such that life can be lived as he or she sees fit within the confines of the law. Our system has its faults, but the elderly and poor are already covered by Medicare/Medicaid. Plus, we have coverage for children. Those are the only populations that should be safeguarded by some government sponsored insurance program. That is not to say that healthcare costs and coverage for those that are above the Medicaid line should be ignored. Forcing people to have insurance is not acceptable according to my understanding of the Constitution, nor should that be offered as one of the ways of approaching this. Should the forced coverage be required, people near the limit on the income determined sufficient to afford coverage will likely find it easier to just stay at home and use the government plan instead of working and living as they had. That will decrease tax income. If someone could afford coverage and doesn't choose to buy it, it's too bad for them when an emergent operation has to be performed and they find themselves thousands of dollars in debt. That was the risk they took, and turns out the roulette wheel of life didn't go their way. For those that are denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions and the like, that is a tricky area, but forcing insurance companies to cover any applicant is only going to make healthcare more expensive for everyone. Also, should the government have their own plan to "compete" with the private companies, it will be a situation much like the GM/Chrysler vs. Ford scenario now. Everyone will question how much favoritism the government will have especially given the fact only Uncle Sam can spend money without having a source for the money. This will drive up taxes while driving down the quality of health care until the US system becomes like that of Canada/UK wherein those that can afford to have private coverage in addition to their government "free" coverage do so. Another aspect of government care to be considered is its impact on the number of practicing physicians. The road to an M.D. is a long, frustrating, and highly expensive one. The current trends show fewer physicians are specializing, and with government coverage that would almost certainly be exacerbated due to the decreased financial gain that would be likely in specialties vs. primary care. The US healthcare system is not perfect, but it's far and away the best system ever created. She freely admitted there were pluses and minuses to the Canadian system. You need to admit the same to the US system! Healthcare is best left to those that do healthcare as is evidenced by this thread and some of the many comments. Because they've done such a great job already? The foxes are guarding the hen house. Too much self interest and not enough oversight. As a current medical student, I have been presented with all manner of presentations on our system vs. Canada/UK/etc. that continually use statistics such as those in this article to say how terrible US healthcare is compared to any other industrialized nation. So you want to protect your (future) self interest, I understand that. And to a point I agree. If all manner(s) of presentation that continually use statistics to compare the US to other industrialized nations......and the US comes up short..........there may be a problem there! Lets talk about run away costs: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-ca...orm/daily-dose/ New Study: Bankruptcy Tied To Medical Bills By Sarah Lovenheim Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses, according to a nationwide study released today by the American Journal of Medicine. That's nearly 20 percentage points higher than that pool of respondents reported were connected to medical costs in 2001. Of those who filed for bankruptcy in 2007, nearly 80 percent had health insurance. Respondents who reported having insurance indicated average expenses of just under $18,000. Respondents who filed and lacked insurance had average medical bills of nearly $27,000. Since 2007, the number of Americans without insurance has increased and filing for bankruptcy has become more difficult due to more stringent laws, according to the report. The authors of the study, David Himmelstein, Deborah Thorne, Elizabeth Warren and Steffie Woolhandler, say their findings "reflect the U.S. health care financing system is broken." Middle class families, they conclude, "frequently collapse under the strain of the health care system that treats physical wounds, but inflicts fiscal ones." Or 78%? http://bankruptcy.suite101.com/article.cfm...o_medical_bills Another..... http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133963.html How would you feel as a future doctor knowing that the system is throwing many middle class families into poverty? I won't even go into drug company profits, and why we have to pay for the development costs. The same meds are much cheaper in Canada, and are pennies on the dollar in some countries. The US was established as a different type of country compared to Europe and Canada, one that places the individual as the focus instead of the collective. That's B.S. It's a universal concept with differing interpretations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty...it_of_happiness to "liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France or "peace, order and good government" in Canada.[1] The phrase can also be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan, and in President Ho Chi Minh's 1945 declaration of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. An alternative phrase "life, liberty and property", is found in the Declaration of Colonial Rights, a resolution of the First Continental Congress. Also, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "[[That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily written by Thomas Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I believe that Life AND Health are a given right in the USA. More and more people are falling into the abyss of health neglect due to the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Aunt Betty.....has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery..... is finally scheduled for next month.....has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised Who decides what "need" and "less pain" is? Doctors...and only doctors. ....six months, the maximum acceptable waiting time benchmark established in Canada. Did a doctor decide to extend the "maximum acceptable waiting time" by 150%? If so, why? Edited June 13, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Often, there aren't enough doctors (like in every other country) or enough equipment (like in every other country)....but since everyone has access (like in many other countries), doctors have to prioritize and people with less of a problem will have to wait. You want me to say that the government decides, but I can't because it wouldn't be true. The government regulates and helps fund the system...that's all. BTW, the wait times are getting better...we'll reach the 6 month goal, but it will take a while. Edited June 13, 2009 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Private coverage (other than wait time insurance...which is almost useless...and insurance for dental and eye) is forbidden in Canada. So your master tells you to take what they give you and you don't have a choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Actually...we do have a choice. Any province can pull out of the Canada Health Act....none have any desire to. The system was put in because Canadians wanted it and Canadians are lucky to have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Actually...we do have a choice. Any province can pull out of the Canada Health Act....none have any desire to. The system was put in because Canadians wanted it and Canadians are lucky to have it. I bet they would not be able to or if they did would still end up paying for some of it. I can't really say that though because I know zero about it and have no desire to. 100% of Canadians wanted it? Everything I have seen about the founding of the US was to protect the individual. A majority could not take away the rights of the minority. If 99% of the people wanted to pay all there income to the government they shouldn't ba able to force it on the remaining 1%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Well, I didn't start the debate about Canadian healthcare here, an American did....but if you want to debate founding... While the US was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Canada (like Australia and most other Commonwealth Countries? was founded on the principles of peace, order, and good government. Its about individual rights and the rights of society together 100% of Canadians don't have to agree on anything. A vast majority like, use, and want the system..and so it isn't going anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Well, I didn't start the debate about Canadian healthcare here, an American did....but if you want to debate founding... While the US was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Canada (like Australia and most other Commonwealth Countries? was founded on the principles of peace, order, and good government. Its about individual rights and the rights of society together 100% of Canadians don't have to agree on anything. A vast majority like, use, and want the system..and so it isn't going anywhere. Well we are different then. To each there own. I don't think you can say "Its about individual rights" then say "100% of Canadians don't have to agree on anything. A vast majority like, use, and want the system..and so it isn't going anywhere." because that then takes away the individual right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Many Canadians would argue that it adds to freedom. It's all a matter of perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Well we are different then. To each there own. I don't think you can say "Its about individual rights" then say "100% of Canadians don't have to agree on anything. A vast majority like, use, and want the system..and so it isn't going anywhere." because that then takes away the individual right. Ah, different government systems. People in commonwealth countries have greater trust of their politicians than Americans, The American system is so grubby and corrupt with lobby groups owning politicians....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Ah, different government systems.People in commonwealth countries have greater trust of their politicians than Americans, The American system is so grubby and corrupt with lobby groups owning politicians....... That would include the AMA and drug lobbiests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 Did a doctor decide to extend the "maximum acceptable waiting time" by 150%? If so, why? {I've rearranged the response, but left the words as written} You want me to say that the government decides, but I can't because it wouldn't be true. The government regulates and helps fund the system...that's all. Often, there aren't enough doctors (like in every other country) or enough equipment (like in every other country)....but since everyone has access (like in many other countries), doctors have to prioritize and people with less of a problem will have to wait. Whether it be done by a doctor or a government bureaucrat, it's still rationing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Yes....but there is rationing in every system....and there always will be, especially when all people have access. Oh, and technically, since everyone gets care, it doesn't meet most definitions of rationing. People are seen in order of need. It will always be that way. Edited June 13, 2009 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 Yes....but there is rationing in every system....and there always will be, especially when all people have access. Oh, and technically, since everyone gets care, it doesn't meet most definitions of rationing. People are seen in order of need. It will always be that way. Ration - To allocate among demanders by some means other than the price they are willing to pay It's not central to the argument (for me, anyway). In a government-administered program, priorities are set by someone other than the patient. In the American system (for all its flaws), the individual sets his own priorities as to how (or if) he will maintain his health...... Private coverage (other than wait time insurance...which is almost useless...and insurance for dental and eye) is forbidden in Canada. as opposed to Canada, which sets the priorities in place of the individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Our government is much different than yours it seems. Canadians set almost all of the priorities...and one priority of Canadians is maintaining and improving public health. Any party that advocated otherwise would face certain defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Whether it be done by a doctor or a government bureaucrat, it's still rationing. Don't forget the HMO manager who decides your treatment might cost the company too much, so you get "rationed", and the doctor gets told your treatment will not be paid for, and you're SOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.