Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 6 Sep 2009 14:59 William Clark wrote: > In article <4aa3e396$0$4943$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:32:46 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: >>> On 06 Sep 2009 14:43:39 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:18:28 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: >>>>> On 06 Sep 2009 02:38:47 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In Canada if you're sick and you need expensive care, you get it, >>>>>> period. >>>>> Canadians get it all right, but not the way they think. Canada's >>>>> health care rationing kills. >>>> Spare me the bullshit. >>> From the Canadian Supreme Court decision July, 2005. >>> >>> "Delays in the public system are widespread and have serious, >>> sometimes grave, consequences," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin >>> and Justice John Major. "Inevitably where patients have >>> life-threatening conditions, some will die because of undue delay in >>> awaiting surgery." >>> >>> I assume that this decision came after a long trial with many expert >>> witnesses followed by a period of deliberation. Now if the greatest >>> legal minds in Canada say that the Canadian health care system results >>> in people unnecessarily dying, then who am I, or you for that matter, >>> to disagree. >> I guess things didn't work out on rec.sport.soccer, huh? > > Or anywhere else, for that matter. Do they know about your lying in rec.sport.golf?
From: Carbon on 6 Sep 2009 15:23 On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:59:15 +0000, assimilate wrote: > On 4-Sep-2009, Bobby Knight <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote: > >>> She is perceived by the left wing as so dangerous that anything she >>> says makes news. The left went into hyperdrive to destroy her when >>> she was added to McCain's ticket. I personally don't understand >>> what they see in her that is so threatening. >> >> I don't think they think of her as a threat, but a joke. > > A joke does not provoke the type of response she got. It quite obviously does. It still amazes me that the Republican machine is so hopelessly adrift that they actually coughed her up as a VP candidate. We could let that go, but then so many loons jump up to defend her. Belly laughs ensue all over again.
From: William Clark on 6 Sep 2009 15:24 In article <PrWdnQAkuZ42mznXnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: > William Clark wrote: > > In article <4aa3e396$0$4943$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:32:46 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > >>> On 06 Sep 2009 14:43:39 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:18:28 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > >>>>> On 06 Sep 2009 02:38:47 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> In Canada if you're sick and you need expensive care, you get it, > >>>>>> period. > >>>>> Canadians get it all right, but not the way they think. Canada's > >>>>> health care rationing kills. > >>>> Spare me the bullshit. > >>> From the Canadian Supreme Court decision July, 2005. > >>> > >>> "Delays in the public system are widespread and have serious, > >>> sometimes grave, consequences," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin > >>> and Justice John Major. "Inevitably where patients have > >>> life-threatening conditions, some will die because of undue delay in > >>> awaiting surgery." > >>> > >>> I assume that this decision came after a long trial with many expert > >>> witnesses followed by a period of deliberation. Now if the greatest > >>> legal minds in Canada say that the Canadian health care system results > >>> in people unnecessarily dying, then who am I, or you for that matter, > >>> to disagree. > >> I guess things didn't work out on rec.sport.soccer, huh? > > > > Or anywhere else, for that matter. > > Do they know about your lying in rec.sport.golf? Do they know that you think that you lie about what is in the US Constitution?
From: Jack Hollis on 6 Sep 2009 15:31 On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 10:47:06 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >What's scary is these people simply deny the problems with govt health >care. They don't care. For some people, ideology trumps reason and common sense. Today, I ran across an article that showed how much Canadians pay for private insurance that covers drugs that are not available from the national system. In some provinces the money payed by private insurance and/or paid directly by patients is more than the amount paid by the government. "Private insurers and patients in different parts of the country bear very different burdens for the cost of cancer drugs. Cancer patients themselves bear an inordinate financial burden vis-�-vis other patients with life-threatening disease, particularly east of the Manitoba border and even more so in the Atlantic provinces. Cancer patients, in large numbers, must rely on their private insurance plans, or in many cases on their own means to fund their life-saving treatment." The US has the highest cancer survival rates in the world. Canada does better than most countries but it's clear that this is not only due to the national system. There are many effective cancer drugs that are not available through the national system. In many provinces, if you don't have private insurance that covers these life-saving drugs or you can't pay for them yourself, you're more likely to die. I don't think there's any doubt that, without the contribution of private insurance and people paying themselves, Canada's cancer survival rate would be much lower than it is. http://www.canceradvocacy.ca/reportcard/2007/The%20Cost%20of%20Cancer%20Drugs%20in%20Canada.pdf Want to know another amazing fact? PMI = Private Medical Insurance "At the end of year 2000, 6.88 million people in the U.K. (approximately 11.5 percent of the population) were covered by PMI and the value of the PMI market was estimated at �2.45 billion (Laing and Buisson 2001), 5.1 percent of the estimated year 2000/2001 NHS expenditure of �48 billion." Eleven and a half percent of the people in the UK pay extra for health care that they already pay for in their taxes and can get for free. "Several factors impact on the decision to purchase PMI. These include the perceived magnitude of a potential loss because of illness, relative to income and an individual's degree of risk aversion (Cutler and Zeckhauser 2000; Santerre and Neun 2000). Choice and convenience, as offered by a private health care alternative, are also benefits sought by PMI subscribers (Bosanquet and Pollard 1997; Barr 1998). In some cases quality of care available through private insurance, relative to that available through an NHS system, may also be an incentive (Besley, Hall, and Preston 1999)." http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1361133
From: Carbon on 6 Sep 2009 15:31
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:19:19 -0700, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: > On Sep 6, 1:09 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:34:34 -0700, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: >> >> > Right now, insurance companies, individuals, health care providers >> > and the sick people themselves make the decisions. What I really >> > don't like about the system in Canada is it's a govt only thing. >> > Even if you have the money to pay for the treatment, you can't get >> > it in Canada if the govt says no. Right now a Canadian could go to >> > the Us, but that could change....... >> >> How do imagine that would happen? Armed guards at the borders? > > The facility simply will no longer be available How do you imagine the facility simply will no longer be available? |