Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Jack Hollis on 7 Sep 2009 12:20 On 07 Sep 2009 00:07:08 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >I have addressed Jack's bullshit ad nauseum in the past. Done with that. Is the ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court where they said Canadians are dying on waiting lists bullshit? Or that study on the amount of money Canadians have to pay for private prescription drug coverage bullshit? I'm not really adding anything other than definitive sources that tell the truth about how bad Canada's health care is. In reality, I could post a lot more like how women with high risk pregnancies have to be sent to the US because Canada doesn't have neo-natal ICU's. Or that in 2006, the number of CT Scanners per million population in the US is 33.9 compared to 12 for Canada. Or that the number of MRI Scanners per million population in the US is 26.5 compared to 6.2 for Canada. This is why the US pays a lot more for health care than Canada and this is also why the US has the best health care in the world.
From: Carbon on 7 Sep 2009 12:21 On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:03:59 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > On 07 Sep 2009 00:06:20 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: > >>Everyone in Canada has healthcare. Millions in the US do not. Just on >>that blindingly obvious fact alone, there is way more rationing in the >>States. > > This is incorrect. Millions in the US don't have health insurance. > Everyone in the US has access to health care. If everyone in the US has access to the world's best healthcare, why is the average life expectancy so much lower than Canada's? Hmmm? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
From: Carbon on 7 Sep 2009 12:27 On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:20:47 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > On 07 Sep 2009 00:07:08 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: > >>I have addressed Jack's bullshit ad nauseum in the past. Done with >>that. > > Is the ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court where they said Canadians > are dying on waiting lists bullshit? Or that study on the amount of > money Canadians have to pay for private prescription drug coverage > bullshit? Again, it's all about context. Your cites are from an examination of Canada's healthcare system, not a comparison between it and the US. Obviously the Canadian system is not perfect, but it is way better than the US one. Average life expectancy chart below. According to the CIA's World Factbook, Canada is #8. US is #35. Similar culture and ethnicity, similar diet. Gee, I wonder what could account for this amazing difference? Hmmm.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 7 Sep 2009 13:25 On Sep 6, 2:31 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 10:47:06 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr > > <frostback2...(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-à-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... > > 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 Govt care becomes more focused on "preventative care" as time passes, and has less for actual treatment of sick people. Of course preventative care is cheap, and we can all pay for it ourselves, but that is not the point I suppose. Take 10X the money it costs in taxes and give it away for "free"! I'm all for the govt underwriting the cost of extreme care, you know, those cases where you run into a big expense, lose your job as a result of the medical condition and have no money to pay for anything...but that's not what they are talking about here. Of course your insurance company cannot drop you under the proposed laws, but as you have no income, I don't know how it is going to help because you can't pay, and if you are say confined to a wheelchair, need real long term care and retraining, I see nothing in the govt plan to deal with that sort of thing...and for me that is the #1 thing that worries me about health care.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 7 Sep 2009 13:26
On Sep 6, 2:31 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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? "Eliminate the waste"! The empty beads and unused facility will be eliminated, just as it has been in Canada. there will be enough to serve Americans...nothing for Canadians though. Sorry! |