Forums | MacLife

midgetcop wrote:

midgetcop wrote:

resedit wrote:

Finally - having to wait for non critical medical service is not what I would consider "equal" benefits. I like being able to make an appointment because I have a sore shoulder and be able to see a doctor that week - not to get evaluated into a priority list, but to get the dang thing taken care of.

Another misconception - I don't have to wait to see my physician for something like a "sore shoulder". I make an appointment to see him for *whatever*, and I usually get my appointment in the next few days, and it has nothing to do with the seriousness of my condition.

Waiting lists refer to hospitals and in particular the E.R. - patients are attended to based on the seriousness of their condition (triage). i.e. when I went in for heart palpitations about 2 years ago, I was rushed in because it was a heart issue. On another occasion, I had nicked my wrist with a nail, and I waited for a couple of hours. Lists also refer to necessary operations, etc. I do realize, but I can't speak on much experience on that issue because I haven't yet been in that situation. I've had familiy members go in for heart surgery, hip replacement, cancer treatment, etc. I have yet to hear their complaints in regards to waiting times.

I've said as much more times than I can count (and more), but lots of people simply don't want to believe it. It's an ideological thing, I suspect.

resedit wrote:

I've said as much more times than I can count (and more), but lots of people simply don't want to believe it. It's an ideological thing, I suspect.

And the desire for "universal healthcare" isn't?
I've already specified how it could easily be done w/o the bloat of a national plan.

No, you're totally ignoring a misperception of the Canadian system that you've made, and you're continuing to ignore it. When are you going to address my last post and rectify your mistake?

midgetcop wrote:

resedit wrote:

I've said as much more times than I can count (and more), but lots of people simply don't want to believe it. It's an ideological thing, I suspect.

And the desire for "universal healthcare" isn't?
I've already specified how it could easily be done w/o the bloat of a national plan.

No, you're totally ignoring a misperception of the Canadian system that you've made, and you're continuing to ignore it. When are you going to address my last post and rectify your mistake?

There have been plenty of links by people here about the long waits - and not just with emergency services.

Released in October 2005, Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada found the median wait from the time a patient was referred by a general practitioner until the time he or she actually received treatment was 17.7 weeks. (Median wait means half of all patients waited less and half waited longer.)

The report by Nadeem Esmail, senior health policy analyst for Fraser, and Michael Walker, senior fellow and president of the Fraser Institute Foundation, was the fifteenth annual study of wait lists for health care in Canada.

Waits varied by province and by specialty, the study noted. Ontario had the shortest median wait at 16.3 weeks, while Saskatchewan had the longest, 25.5 weeks. Cancer patients had the shortest median wait--5.5 weeks for medical oncology and 5.7 weeks for radiation oncology. Orthopedic patients had the longest waits, at 40 weeks.

There is no comparable measurement for waits in the United States because health care generally remains in the private sector and long waits for needed care are typically not a problem.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18276

for example.

Links are well and good, but Midget (and myself) are talking about direct, personal firsthand experience. I'm not saying there's no such thing as wait times up here (indeed I don't think there's a health care system on the planet that doesn't have them), I'm saying it's getting too much focus.

Also your comment about "the bloat of a national plan" shows you're still horribly misinformed. The Canadian system is not a national plan. The federal government passed a law many years ago saying every Canadian had to have guaranteed, equitable health care, but it's up to the provinces to impliment it.

The government indeed doesn't get involved with providing health care. It merely sets prices and pays the bills.

You of course don't factor in the infinite wait times that many americans have for medical treatment.

I wonder what median wait times would be when you factor in the millions of uninsured.

To make matters worse here, most hospitals are non-profit.  They get tax exemption.  Now, they are being heavily scrutinized and there are special interest groups who want to see that status revoked.  Which means that health care systems that give away millions in charity care every year and eat a lot of unpaid Medicare and Medicaid costs will no longer be able to afford to do so.  You can also kiss any future health care expansion goodbye.

The free market system has several centuries to get it right and hasn't.  Sure, some things rich people can afford that poor people can't - like Ferraris, Bang & Olufsen sound systems and Macs ().  It's a perk of being rich.  But quality healthcare should not be reserved only for the rich.  It's not just those traditionally thought of as "poor" having problems.  Lots of working people can't afford the increases in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.  If the rich want to pay more for higher level amenities (private waiting rooms and such), that's fine.  But everyone in this country should have access to high-quality, medically-necessary care.  Not to mention that treating many conditions early on reduces the number of expensive acute admissions, saving quite a bit of money and keeping beds open for those who are more ill.

If the free market system could guarantee coverage for every citizen, I'd say let it.  But it can't or won't.  They had their chance, they smurfed it up.  France, Germany, UK, Israel, Australia and many other nations manage to provide universal healthcare and remain free market economies.  It is not a slippery slope to Communism.

Farmerkev wrote:

It's strange isn't it, mankind survives for eons without medical insurance and now it's a critical necessity.

Maybe that's why the average life span has gone from 35 to 72 or so. Do you think?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healt … iting.html

INDEPTH: HEALTH CARE
Waiting for access
CBC News Online | September 10, 2004

Long waiting times are the main, and in many cases, the only reason some Canadians say they would be willing to pay for treatments outside of the public health care system.
- Roy Romanow in his report on the future of health care in Canada, November 2002

That news is from Canada.

wellfleation wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

It's strange isn't it, mankind survives for eons without medical insurance and now it's a critical necessity.

Maybe that's why the average life span has gone from 35 to 72 or so. Do you think?

When exactly did medical insurance become the norm? It wasn't 200 years ago. Life expectancy was already increasing at a fast pace before anyone thought of medical insurance, and, as has been pointed out already, that has a lot to do with reducing infant mortality and treatment/immunization for childhood diseases.

[Tycho?] wrote:

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Wonders when res will realise he has those choices because of "liberal" requirements set by state law.

I'm not opposed to laws just because they are "liberal".
Reasonably priced health insurance from the employer is a good thing.
Universal health insurance is not a good thing.

Universal health insurance will drive prices up and quality down, and it will be paid for by the tax payer. Communism doesn't work.

Did you miss the thread comparing health care statistics? Where the US paid HUGE amounts more per person than countries with universal health care, yet had equal or worse benifits? I dont know why people say Universal Health Care doesn't work, when it has been shown to work very well in many different cases.

I pay $200.00 per month for a Bluecross/Blueshield family account, and the employer pays the rest. In the US we pay more, simply because we have more choices, and often faster service. I believe that in the UK, those who have the money can choose private medical service-if so the person chooses, or their "socialized health care." State/city workers (schools, fire, police, DOT, etc.) have pretty good medical coverage, and not too expensive. So good some of these medical insurances are, that even sex-change operations are paid for in CA.

Farmerkev wrote:

wellfleation wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

It's strange isn't it, mankind survives for eons without medical insurance and now it's a critical necessity.

Maybe that's why the average life span has gone from 35 to 72 or so. Do you think?

It would be interesting to know up to date figures and estimates. Just guessing but the largest gains in life expectancy probably come from sanitation, antibiotics and vaccines (impact everyone).

The largest impact came from food availablitly. It's amazing how well the body resists diseases when it has adequate nutrition. The average life expectancy nearly doubles when the food supply is distributable and accessible to the population. This is borne our in Western Europe 18th - 19th Century, and in China 20th Century.

The addition of adequate sanitation helps as does basic health care. But without food, you don't advance over a broad population base.

after-life wrote:

I don't understand how any insurance company could justify not covering sex-change operations.

Gender identity disorder is a legitimate medical condition, and sex reassignment is the only way to treat it.

The same way that congress limited cosmetic surgury for dependents in the Military at military hospitals. On the surface it appears a frivolous procedure, until you look at it closely.

How do those doctors hone their skills on cosmetic surgury in anticipation of war wounded who will need massive cosmetic surgury due to wounds? Or is it the considered opionon that soldiers don't get disfigured by thier wounds?

Agreed.