Universal Health Care...

[brvheart 1,752]

Almost completely irrelevant?

I thought for sure this was going to nit pick my grammar or something. You've been nit picking me lately. Do you feel that way, or is it just me?

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I thought for sure this was going to nit pick my grammar or something. You've been nit picking me lately. Do you feel that way, or is it just me?

Hold on, I have to go back over my old posts to see what you're talking about.It's possible you've just been wrong a lot lately.Edit: I think only the Nemo one is a true nitpick.2nd Edit: Well, now this one too, but you would agree that's your fault, right?

[vbnautilus 48]

So those arguments you had with BG about per capita vs actual count only applies when you want it to? Got it.

I don't know what you are referring to here. I am responding to your claim that "this is not a lot of people". It's not really an objective claim you are making; you are just saying that this amount of people is not worth caring about. I disagree.

Still, a million people who got treatment and have trouble paying for it is much, much better than everyone being susceptible to dying and suffering on a waiting list, right?

I don't know.

Or do you think a tiny fraction of the population having money problems is worse than a much larger portion of the population suffering physical pain and death?

You're presenting a false choice, but regardless of that its not up to me to judge whether emotional/psychological suffering is worse than physical suffering.

[brvheart 1,752]

Hold on, I have to go back over my old posts to see what you're talking about.It's possible you've just been wrong a lot lately.Edit: I think only the Nemo one is a true nitpick.2nd Edit: Well, now this one too, but you would agree that's your fault, right?

The 2nd one is definitely my fault, no question. I'll just assume it was me then.

[mrdannyg 274]

Almost completely irrelevant?

This post would be a good example. BOOM HEADSHOT.

[hblask 1]

Also, when considering waiting lists for Canada and similar countries, consider that they are typically long because urgent situations get priority. Typically situations are given a certain priority level, with that level being regularly reviewed based on the patient's status. This regular review of status, and capacity to act on high-priority items makes the length of the waiting list almost completely irrelevant.

There are several people on this forum who would disagree that their unnecessary pain and suffering was irrelevant. And the relatives of the people who die on the waiting list would also beg to differ. I'm glad you can be so nonchalant about it though (as long as it doesn't affect your family, right?)

Good call, there is no middle ground. Thank goodness those popular and well-funded state and federal programs cover such a large amount of low-income people.

Uh, yeah, that was the point. My M-i-L is a social worker, and she says her biggest problem is not a shortage of funds, but getting the people who are eligible to come and get the care they are eligible for.

[brvheart 1,752]

I don't know what you are referring to here. I am responding to your claim that "this is not a lot of people". It's not really an objective claim you are making; you are just saying that this amount of people is not worth caring about. I disagree.

That's not what he said at all. Without putting words in his mouth, he was saying that you have 1 million people with financial problems on one side of the scale and everyone else's pain/comfort on the other side.... which way is the scale tipping.It's like those psychological tests that say - you are standing by a switch on a train track. If you pull the switch a mother and her baby will die, because they are stuck on the track. If you don't pull the switch, the train will kill 600 people tied to the main track. Do you pull the lever?Except in HB's scenario, no one is dying. The mother and baby are just hurting financially for 7 years.And if someone, which I think would be most people, actually pulled the lever and killed the mom/baby... does that immediately conclude that they thought that the mom/baby combo "is not worth caring about"?

[vbnautilus 48]

That's not what he said at all. Without putting words in his mouth, he was saying that you have 1 million people with financial problems on one side of the scale and everyone else's pain/comfort on the other side.... which way is the scale tipping.

That obviously is not really the choice we are faced with.

Except in HB's scenario, no one is dying. The mother and baby are just hurting financially for 7 years.

"Just" hurting financially.

[brvheart 1,752]

"Just" hurting financially.

As opposed to death? Yes.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

This post would be a good example. BOOM HEADSHOT.

No

[brvheart 1,752]

That obviously is not really the choice we are faced with.

But it's not just HB that is being hyperbolic about the issues on one side. They aren't as bad as he's claiming on the "every single person has to wait 2 years to see a doctor while in the middle of a massive heart-attack" side, and they aren't as bad as you're claiming on the "medical bills are the sole reason that 1,000,000 families are homeless" side.

[CaneBrain 95]

0.3% is a lot? LOL.Especially when you compare it to the alternative, which is 18 month waiting lists for everyone to suffer or die.Let's see, 0.3% gets the treatment they need and can't pay back the loan, or everyone suffers needlessly for 18 months.Boy, that's a pretty tough choice.

I have family that live in Canada and basically they say that this viewpoint is about as retarded as Michael Moore's movie about American Healthcare. They compared you to Michael Moore. True story.

[hblask 1]

That obviously is not really the choice we are faced with.

Really, it sort of it, at least when comparing so-called "universal" care to free markets.

"Just" hurting financially.

Yes, "just" financial pain, as compared to physical pain and death. Do you really think that word is unreasonable in that context?

[hblask 1]

I have family that live in Canada and basically they say that this viewpoint is about as retarded as Michael Moore's movie about American Healthcare. They compared you to Michael Moore. True story.

Let me guess: they've never needed cardiac or orthopedic care.

[vbnautilus 48]

Yes, "just" financial pain, as compared to physical pain and death. Do you really think that word is unreasonable in that context?

I do. Financial ruin is a fairly serious personal trauma, and again you seem to be ranking physical pain above emotional pain, but I don't really think that's the way people experience things. If our goal is human well-being, you can't just trade one of these for the other and think you are solving a problem.

[CaneBrain 95]

Let me guess: they've never needed cardiac or orthopedic care.

I think they probably have used the latter. Of course they never spent a week on the phone arguing with an insurance company that has incentive to screw them over to get coverage for something standard. I get to do that all the time!

[Balloon guy 158]

I think they probably have used the latter. Of course they never spent a week on the phone arguing with an insurance company that has incentive to screw them over to get coverage for something standard. I get to do that all the time!

Those are the lawyers doing that................

[hblask 1]

I do. Financial ruin is a fairly serious personal trauma, and again you seem to be ranking physical pain above emotional pain, but I don't really think that's the way people experience things. If our goal is human well-being, you can't just trade one of these for the other and think you are solving a problem.

Unless you think that "needless death" is equivalent to "bad credit record", then yes we can make that trade off, and I'd do it at the drop of a hat for my family.Anyone who wouldn't probably needs psychological help.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Let me guess: they've never needed cardiac or orthopedic care.

Cardiologists say Canada has cutting edge cardiac care, virtually no wait times

TORONTO - Danny Williams' decision to seek care for an unnamed heart condition in the United States may raise questions about the calibre of cardiac care in Canada, but experts contend little differentiates the options north and south of the border.Leading cardiologists say levels of expertise in this country are high and the full range of cardiac procedures is performed here. And unlike years ago, wait times are short to non-existent.Where the systems differ is on the issue of patient volume, several suggested. Some Canadian centres occasionally refer patients to the U.S. for procedures rarely done in Canada, sending those patients to specialized American centres that perform those surgeries more often."Really the only reason I can see patients wanting to go to the United States is . . . if they have something that's very unique in a centre that is doing some experimental work in some sort of area like that," said Dr. Blair O'Neill, a cardiologist at the Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute in Edmonton and vice-president of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society.None of the experts contacted by The Canadian Press knew what type of surgery the Newfoundland and Labrador premier is having done. Had they known, they would not be able to reveal it because of confidentiality rules.But several figures who know the cardiac care terrain here and in the United States suggested there are few medical reasons that a Canadian would need to seek care south of the border at this point. Major Canadian cardiac centres do virtually all the procedures U.S. centres do.Deputy Premier Kathy Dunderdale said getting the procedure done in Newfoundland was not an option.But cutting edge cardiac care is available at a number of centres in the country, including the Mazankowski institute, the Ottawa Heart Institute, the Montreal Heart Institute and the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre in Toronto."I would say that 99 per cent of what's done there (in the U.S.) is done just as well, with excellent results and done routinely here at the Heart Institute in Ottawa," said Dr. Robert Roberts, president of the University of Ottawa Heart Institute.Roberts has first hand knowledge. Prior to joining the Ottawa Institute five years ago, he was head of cardiology at the famed Baylor Medical Center in Houston, Tex., for 23 years.Baylor is where the late cardiac care pioneer Dr. Michael DeBakey practised. When experts guess where Williams has gone, it's high on the list, along with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.Several noted Williams may have sought care in the U.S. for privacy reasons. And O'Neill acknowledged some people still believe they will get better care at leading U.S. centres like the world-renowned Mayo Clinic.But several experts say that a Canadian might seek treatment in the United States for a rare condition that cardiac centres in this country treat infrequently.If that is the case, a patient's physician might feel it was more prudent to have the necessary surgery done at one of the major U.S. centres where these procedures are performed more often.For example, a couple of experts said a Canadian patient might wish to seek U.S. treatment for something like an aortic aneurysm, a weakening of the wall of the large vessel that conveys oxygenated blood from the heart to the organs. Such cases can be both complex and uncommon."Because they are so rare, there's really no single centre across the country that has a large experience with these," said Dr. Christopher Feindel, a cardiac surgeon at Toronto's Peter Munk Centre."And because they're fairly involved, obviously the results are better if they're done in a centre with lots of experience. And there's really very few centres worldwide with this experience."On the question of whether wait times might be behind a decision to go south, Roberts said his facility can get patients needing this kind of care in with very short notice, sometimes even a day.He said several factors have led to a substantial reduction in wait times in recent years.Rates of cardiac surgeries have been decreasing across the developed world. That's because developments in non-invasive procedures - slipping stents into arteries to prop them open rather than doing bypass surgery, for example - have eliminated many open heart surgeries. As well, more capacity has been built into the system.Feindel said the Munk's waiting time for non-emergency cases is within about two weeks. "Few patients really want to rush into a heart operation faster than that."It's likely Williams's case was not considered urgent if his doctors agreed to let him travel for care.

[vbnautilus 48]

Unless you think that "needless death" is equivalent to "bad credit record", then yes we can make that trade off, and I'd do it at the drop of a hat for my family.Anyone who wouldn't probably needs psychological help.

Sigh.You are saying that people must choose between dying and living in financial ruin, and that's just fine because hey they are "only" dealing with financial problems.I don't see why you think that letting people die and bankrupting them are the only two available choices.

[brvheart 1,752]

This post was removed because is was abusive.

[hblask 1]

Sigh.You are saying that people must choose between dying and living in financial ruin, and that's just fine because hey they are "only" dealing with financial problems.I don't see why you think that letting people die and bankrupting them are the only two available choices.

So far, in the real world, that seems to be the only option, but if you have some utopian plan in which nothing bad ever happens, feel free to elaborate.So far, the US system seems to be as close as anyone can get, where people are expected to care for themselves as much as possible, and govt programs combined with private charity fill in the gaps. In such a system, people who CAN care for themselves but fail to do so will suffer consequences. Consequences are an important part of a flexible, rigorous system. Removing consequences quickly leads to bad results.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Let me guess: they've never needed cardiac or orthopedic care.

Cardiologists say Canada has cutting edge cardiac care, virtually no wait times

Comments Henry ?I will give you that non emergency ortho is far too slow in most cases in Canada but for the life threatening things like cardiac care and cancer care the delays are minimal or aren't there at all.

[hblask 1]

Comments Henry ?I will give you that non emergency ortho is far too slow in most cases in Canada but for the life threatening things like cardiac care and cancer care the delays are minimal or aren't there at all.

I think it's great that Canada is finally doing something about this area. I suspect that in a few years some other area will suffer instead. It's like squeezing a water balloon.The ultimate problem is that when things appear free, people use more of them than they would otherwise. So that means one of two things will happen: costs (to the govt) will go up to unacceptable levels, or waiting lists will expand. With a concerted effort, they can reduce the pressure in specific areas of the system, but there is no free lunch in economics. Cardiac care is a good area to reduce waiting lists, partly because this is people who die a lot anyway, and partly because nobody gets open heart surgery on a whim. But where did the money for that come from? Higher taxes? Some other area of the budget? Some other area of health care?

[mrdannyg 274]

There are several people on this forum who would disagree that their unnecessary pain and suffering was irrelevant. And the relatives of the people who die on the waiting list would also beg to differ. I'm glad you can be so nonchalant about it though (as long as it doesn't affect your family, right?)Uh, yeah, that was the point. My M-i-L is a social worker, and she says her biggest problem is not a shortage of funds, but getting the people who are eligible to come and get the care they are eligible for.

Let me guess: they've never needed cardiac or orthopedic care.

Thanks to Bob for correcting your ignorant rants on this one. For what it's worth, I have several family members who have needed cardiac and emergency care, including transplants, and two right now on waiting lists.

I think it's great that Canada is finally doing something about this area. I suspect that in a few years some other area will suffer instead. It's like squeezing a water balloon.The ultimate problem is that when things appear free, people use more of them than they would otherwise. So that means one of two things will happen: costs (to the govt) will go up to unacceptable levels, or waiting lists will expand. With a concerted effort, they can reduce the pressure in specific areas of the system, but there is no free lunch in economics. Cardiac care is a good area to reduce waiting lists, partly because this is people who die a lot anyway, and partly because nobody gets open heart surgery on a whim. But where did the money for that come from? Higher taxes? Some other area of the budget? Some other area of health care?

You are arguing with yourself. Half a page up you argue that poor people in the US don't suffer because the government so generously funds low-income medical care. So maybe Canada's system is just well-funded?Thanks for pointing out that people will overuse something that has no direct costs, and those costs must be covered elsewhere, possibly by taxes. Don't know how we missed that.