OT Health Care

Upscale wrote:
> "FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Depending upon the answer, they do have a Lee Valley in Saskatoon, so
>> you could move there.
>>
>> Just to put it back on topic.
>
> I actually considered moving to Saskatchewan at one point. All that flat
> land and me hating hills so much. Now I'm glad I didn't. The land would be
> flat, but I'd have been washed away in the floods. :)

I think you've got us confused with Manitoba. :) Not much flooding in
Saskatchewan this spring.

Chris

Upscale wrote:
> "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Health care is locally governed, so there are going to be regional
>> differences. For reference, I'm in my 30s, and live in Saskatoon,
>> Saskatchewan, Canada, a city of a bit over 200000 people.
>
> What's the physician availability like there Chris?

Around here, it's no problem. Some of the smaller towns are having a
real difficulty, and up north it's a big deal. I think some of the
larger cities are having problems with this as many MDs are specializing
because they can make more money with less work. I understand that some
family docs have a sideline of cosmetic surgery work to bring in some
extra cash--there has been discussion about the possibility of conflict
of interest when the same doctor is practicing both privately and publicly.

>> My wife and I just had our first child. No significant delays,
>> generally good care. We did pay for a doula to help us through the
>> process, but midwives are covered in some areas and that might be an
>> option for next time.
>
> I've got a friend who is considering hiring a midwife. Was it expensive and
> did you find his/her services worthwhile?

I may be biased, my mom is a midwife. :)

To clarify, doulas and midwives are two different things. A doula is
like a birth coach, she (usually it's a woman) is there primarily to
help the individual mother. (As opposed to the hospital staff, who are
handling multiple mothers and are worried primarily about physical
rather than mental wellbeing.) Doulas are in addition to the regular
obstetrician.

A midwife generally replaces an obstetrician. They generally handle
low-risk births. They are generally willing to do home births if there
are no complications, they have hospital admitting privileges, can
prescribe medications, and they generally spend more time on each
individual patient than an obstetrician does. The wikipedia article on
midwifery is fairly good.

As for expense, it's going to vary by area. I have no idea what the
going rate for a midwife is.

Chris

Swingman wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I have no idea what it would take to fix any of it. Personally, I
>> don't believe it can be fixed. I think it's too far gone.
>
> Last time it worked in this country was when doctors lived in the
> neighborhood and there were no insurance companies, or government,
> involved ... way back when there was no concept of a "right" to medical
> care and the inevitabilities of life were gracefully accepted.
>
> ... I was there, and lived it.
>
> Ironic, these "rights" we have been boondoggled, in ignorance, into
> cherishing as inalienable, eh?
>
> There is little doubt that history will prove the "right" of every
> citizen to vote in this country will be at the very root of its downfall
> .. it certainly wasn't set up that way.
>
A Canadian snowbird friend explained another "string" in the CHS. He
must not only remain in Canada, but in his home province for at least 6
months of the year or lose his CHS benefits. Being retired and wanting
to travel not only around the world but in Canada, he doesn't care for
this part of the system.

"FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Depending upon the answer, they do have a Lee Valley in Saskatoon, so
> you could move there.
>
> Just to put it back on topic.

I actually considered moving to Saskatchewan at one point. All that flat
land and me hating hills so much. Now I'm glad I didn't. The land would be
flat, but I'd have been washed away in the floods. :)

On May 13, 2:29 pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> But it's too
> complicated question to answer outright. There's always going to be
> exceptions to every argument and there's always a host of variables to
> consider when answering it.

Well said. And I think those two succinct sentences cover all methods
and attempts at subsidized health care.

I am and have been very actively involved in the care of my elderly,
sickly parents. I was astonished that Medicare/Medicaid does not
cover glasses for the elderly. You gotta be kidding me... no glasses
for those old, weak eyes? Nor does it cover hearing aids.

In fact, when my Mom PASSED (as in totally gone) out at her birthday
party at her favorite restaurant, my parents just got bill that
Medicare/Medicaid refused to pay. It wasn't the resultant hospital
bill, it was the >transport< bill to get a 79 year old woman with type
III diabetes and high blood pressure to the hospital. Even though she
could not stand up and had to be wheeled to transit, M/M determined
that someone could have taken her to the hospital.

It goes on and on. The system is inconsistent, out of touch, and
filled with more levels of bureaucracy than can be imagined.

But, on the other hand, last year my folks paid about $2500 for a
pacemaker and defibrillator to be installed. This included 8 days in
the hospital, the surgeries and all fees, and a month in rehab with
physical therapy. The hospital and the M/M team responded immediately
and Mom was in the hospital and scheduled for surgery the day she went
in for a "dizzy spell".

So good work there. They saved her life. And the resultant bills
were somewhere along the $140,000 range with the rehab and follow up
visits for the next 6 months.

In discussing these matters with a visiting friend from Montreal, he
was able to shine a light on the health care system in his part of the
world.

We in the USA all KNOW that everywhere else in the world that the
health care systems of all other countries (including Cuba!) is all
sunshine and lollipops. Everyone gets whatever they want, whenever
they need it, and all aspects of their health and well being are
covered immediately and paid in full by the state.

According to my Canadian friend, not so.

Here is life in Canada according to his report, not mine, I am simply
sharing what he told me:

- if you have a terrible cough or cold, the wait to see is doctor is
so long that you will be well by the time they give you your appt.
(a little humor there, he is sure they do this on purpose)

- if you have an emergency like broken bones, a terrible bleeding cut,
or something that requires immediate treatment, you are treated well.
He would know, he makes commercial institutional furniture so those
things happen

- if you have something that can "wait" like an unidentified pain
somewhere, it will indeed wait. Sometimes for months

- re-hab and after care are a little thin. He cites his broken leg
that was broken in 2-3 places when he was mountain biking (must be
something in the CA water - he's 54) to his favorite fly fishing
area. After they took the cast off, his rehab was a printout of
exercises, and they told him to stay off of it until he felt more
comfortable. He said it was the same when his wife was hurt in a non
life threatening car wreck

- according to him, there are a lot of questions about the quality of
care as well. Again, physicians are told to be mindful that there is
only so much money in the system (see the aftercare comments) and not
to spend the dough all in one or two places. He said there is a lot
of "take two of these and call the office in the morning"

- wondering about the quality of care ties in to the fact that CA
doctors seem to make about 1/3 or less the dough American doctors
make. If you could make 2/3 more money for doing the same thing, it
would be a powerful incentive to move somewhere else

- in the CA system, psychiatric help is almost non existent. He has
a partner that has physician diagnosed bouts of chronic, severe
depression. Yet, all he gets is pills. He said that to see his
shrink, the guy calls, and it is 6 weeks to 2 months to get to see
"his" doctor

- According to him, changing doctors is almost impossible. If you
don't like the care you are getting, then you should go away. He
cited many examples of this, and I was surprised until he explained.
He told me that at one time you could change doctors, but that so many
people went from one doctor to another (no charge, right?) until they
finally found one to tell them what they wanted to hear that they
system was too clogged

He told me that the CA system shines in two areas. First, it IS
actually open to everyone, regardless of any conditions as long as
they are Canadian. Second, if you have medium grade illness where you
can take the time to schedule treatment, or an absolute screaming
emergency the system works.

He has had two corrective surgeries that were non life threatening,
and while he waited two+ months to get them, it went off well and had
no problems (or a bill!).

He has never had problems when taking an employee to the emergency
room with injuries from work. No 3 hour wait while they verify
insurance, the company information, etc. Just take them in and they
are treated. Try THAT here, construction guys!

Overall, he sees the CA model not being nearly as good as it was, and
no improvement on the horizon. He expects it to get worse before it
gets better due to the fact that small taxes to subsidize the system
are extremely unpopular.

And like here, the conversation is never far away about what to do
with the failing national health care system.

For me it was an enlightening discussion. And we both agreed, that
both systems don't totally suck, but that both could be much better.

But where to start? How to do it?

Decades of appointing committees, making commitments, making health
care a "priority" and all the other drivel from politicians has gone
absolutely nowhere.

> Personally, I have a host of medical
> difficulties. I'm not going to go into details, but for the problems I've
> had and currently have, I feel I have a great deal of experience with the
> Ontario healthcare system. Does that make me an expert? I wouldn't think so,
> but for the average person walking around, I think my experiences eclipse
> most of what the general public has experienced. Anyways, that's the way I
> feel whether it's factually true or not.

You have shared just a bit of your challenges here. And I am not
being sarcastic... but just being able to understand the amount of
paperwork and levels of people to be dealt with in your situation make
you an expert in my opinion.

The health care system is a monster unto itself, no matter where you
are. At this point, I know more about M/M than I ever thought there
was to know. In the end, we still have to go to our extended care
provider for counseling on what to do to make sure the folks care is
covered. BUT... they cannot >tell< us what to do. They can only lay
out options. If the are caught coaching or counseling us, they can
lose the right to do business with M/M.

I have no idea what it would take to fix any of it. Personally, I
don't believe it can be fixed. I think it's too far gone.

Obviously, this is something that has been on my mind...

Robert

"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Health care is locally governed, so there are going to be regional
> differences. For reference, I'm in my 30s, and live in Saskatoon,
> Saskatchewan, Canada, a city of a bit over 200000 people.

What's the physician availability like there Chris? Is there a doctor
shortage. Ok, stupid question, I'm hearing more and more about shortages
everywhere. Let me rephrase. Do people seeking a personal physican have to
wait very long before they find one, as far as you know?

> My wife and I just had our first child. No significant delays,
> generally good care. We did pay for a doula to help us through the
> process, but midwives are covered in some areas and that might be an
> option for next time.

I've got a friend who is considering hiring a midwife. Was it expensive and
did you find his/her services worthwhile?

"Norvin" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Rusty wrote:
> >> procedure for the time they are in LA. The Canadian health care
> >> system pays for it and they get it done in a timely manner. I should
think
> >> this speaks for itself.

Don't know who told you this, but it's common knowledge that the Canadian
medical industry fights tooth and nail to have all paid for medical
treatment done here in Canada.

> > I have heard of no-one doing that as Canadian healthcare will not pay
for it
> > unless it is an emergency.

There may be some exception to the rule in effect here, but it's notoriously
difficult to get Canadian authorized medical treatments out of country. It
makes sense too, since the Canadian medical industry profits are zero with
such treatments. Not that it never happens, just that it' very uncommon. I
believe the closest one might come to such a service is if it's considered a
dire medical necessity and covered under travel insurance.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
> Overall, he sees the CA model not being nearly as good as it was, and
> no improvement on the horizon. He expects it to get worse before it
> gets better due to the fact that small taxes to subsidize the system
> are extremely unpopular.

That I certainly agree with. 30 years ago at the age of 16, I had plastic
surgery done on a burn on my arm to make it less noticeable. Entirely a
cosmetic procedure. A referral from the family doctor to the plastic
surgeon, two weeks later the surgery was done and not a hint of a bill. That
kind of cosmetic service would never be funded these days. It seems there
was more money available for that kind of stuff then, maybe fewer patients
or less demand. Probably a combination of all three. Now, I think the first
criteria that is considered is it medically necessary coupled with cost.

> I have no idea what it would take to fix any of it. Personally, I
> don't believe it can be fixed. I think it's too far gone.

I'm sure you're right. There's just too much demand and too little money
available.

"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I think they both went to their systems later than Britain and Canada,
> so they are benefitting from seeing what didn't work there. It might
> also be worth considering that culturally they are farther removed
> from us than are Britain and Canada

I agree with that assessment. And, it might possibly be that if those newer
systems have any faults in them, they haven't been in operation long enough
to show. The British and Canadian systems have been in operation for a long
time. While they've remained pretty static in their operation, their
populations have changed over time and the existing systems haven't exactly
kept pace.

On 5/13/2009 9:31 AM Cooniedog spake thus:

> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.
>
> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>
> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
> countries when it comes to health care.

Good questions. I suggest renting a copy of Michael Moore's "Sicko" for
a good comparative look at health-care systems across the world.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 5/13/2009 12:34 PM evodawg spake thus:

> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2009 9:31 AM Cooniedog spake thus:
>>
>>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
>>> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some
>>> illnesses.
>>>
>>> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
>>> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>>>
>>> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
>>> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
>>> countries when it comes to health care.
>>
>> Good questions. I suggest renting a copy of Michael Moore's "Sicko" for
>> a good comparative look at health-care systems across the world.
>>
> That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard! He's about as accurate as Tim
> Geithner on his Income Taxes.

So please treat us to a short analysis of where, exactly, Moore is wrong
about the badness of the U.S. health-care system as compared to other
countries. I look forward to this.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 5/13/2009 12:49 PM evodawg spake thus:

> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2009 12:34 PM evodawg spake thus:
>>
>>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2009 9:31 AM Cooniedog spake thus:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>>>>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>>>>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
>>>>> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some
>>>>> illnesses.
>>>>>
>>>>> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
>>>>> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
>>>>> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
>>>>> countries when it comes to health care.
>>>>
>>>> Good questions. I suggest renting a copy of Michael Moore's "Sicko" for
>>>> a good comparative look at health-care systems across the world.
>>>>
>>> That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard! He's about as accurate as
>>> Tim Geithner on his Income Taxes.
>>
>> So please treat us to a short analysis of where, exactly, Moore is wrong
>> about the badness of the U.S. health-care system as compared to other
>> countries. I look forward to this.
>
> Won't even waste my time. Just keep watching another one of the made for
> profit docudrama and claim its FACT! Moore is a buffoon!

I see you've chosen the Hannity/Limbaugh, et al, method of assertion by
bellowing--"it's true because I SAY IT IS and you're just a liberal idiot".

Thanks for playing.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:29:04 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Cooniedog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
>> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some
>illnesses.
>
>I'll answer your question the best I can, but it's definitely not a
>woodworking question. It's also a difficult question to answer. It's true,
>that in some cases, there's an extremely large waiting list for treatment.
>It's not an outright refusal of healthcare, just a fact that someone may
>have to wait years for treatment. Some might argue that it's another way to
>refuse help. Many Canadians who can afford it, choose to go to the USA and
>pay for treatment they might have to wait years for in Canada. That part is
>certainly true.
>
>There are certain cases where some individuals have been denied healthcare
>primarily on the basis that there's only so much money to go around and that
>it's considered more prudent to direct funds where the greatest number of
>individuals can be treated. A simple example of this (and many of these
>cases are in the courts) is funding for special education for autistic
>children. I believe the Ontario courts ruled that funding ends for those
>children six years or older even though it's agreed that they'd still
>benefit from this education. I'm not prepared to argue for or against the
>morality of any of this.
>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/07/07/autism-ontario.html
>
>Another example and something I consider to be health care is dentistry.
>It's not covered by general healthcare anywhere that I'm aware of in Canada,
>yet it's agreed that poor dental care can result in a host of diseases ~
>diabetes for example. So, yes simple example would confirm that some types
>of healthcare are not funded.
>
>So, maybe the answer to your question is yes to both questions. But it's too
>complicated question to answer outright. There's always going to be
>exceptions to every argument and there's always a host of variables to
>consider when answering it. Personally, I have a host of medical
>difficulties. I'm not going to go into details, but for the problems I've
>had and currently have, I feel I have a great deal of experience with the
>Ontario healthcare system. Does that make me an expert? I wouldn't think so,
>but for the average person walking around, I think my experiences eclipse
>most of what the general public has experienced. Anyways, that's the way I
>feel whether it's factually true or not.
>
From Manitoba that runs health care a shade differently than Ontario,
every sentence is more or less true. I'll add that for life
threatening issues you get bumped forward but not in front of someone
who is dieing faster than you. Unless you seem to be important like
a weasel politician and his family or a sports player: then you go to
front of the line and spare no expense. I have noticed that people
with money go to the US, Mexico, or Europe because for cash up front,
no one has to wait. And there are some procedues that have long
lists because of resource allocations. And there are some things not
covered because of extreme high costs. Getting bitten by a mountain
(north slope) jumping spider from Peru comes to mind ): My doctor
came up with that one.

Dental, eye glasses, hearing aids, and most drugs are not covered
unless your in prison or on welfare where most all of it is covered.
Lets face it - if you get sent to prison for life (8 yrs) we want you
healthy enuff to do the time.

I once asked a dermatologist why it took so long and cost so much. He
said the admin costs ran at about 85% and that doctors got the
remaining 15%. I assume the 85 included hospital costs and that he
wasn't slinging me a line.

If I sound a tad cynical over this it is because the system has
inequities. We hire nurses part time and burn them out working
double shifts. Somehow paying parttime overtime is cheaper that
paying benefits. We don't allow private services to open shop because
that would jeapardize publice health care and all the doctors would
flock over to the dark side. When a small community raises money for
an MRI machine we don't let it get hooked up because it wasn't
budgeted for, it's in the wrong community, and we want things
centralized. The list goes on.

Yes, there is a whole lot more to this and it gets complicated and
it's not nessessarily about how much money, but more like who gets to
touch the money first and dole it out.

Canadians want pay what the market will bear (if you can). Americans
want pay what's fair (if you can get it). Seems we both want what the
other has.

P

On 5/13/2009 3:40 PM Cooniedog spake thus:

> It would seem that the U.S. is definitely headed toward some kind of
> nationalized health care and all the doctor organizations, insurance and
> pharmaceutical companies are dead set against it.

True what you said except for the doctors part: many doctors, probably a
plurality, are actually strongly in favor of a single-payer system or
something close to it. (Their organizations, like the AMA, of course are
probably trailing this opinion by quite a bit.)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 5/14/2009 1:31 PM LD spake thus:

> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:
>>
>>> And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
>>> Cancer patients down to Six Months.
>>
>> Cite please.
>
> My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some cancers
> you're dead in 62 days.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm

Slightly misleading. First of all, we were talking about England, I
thought, and this refers to Scotland.

In any case, it isn't a "62-day waiting period": the article says "The
target, set in 2000, requires that 95% of patients begin treatment
within 62 days of being urgently referred." This means, I'm assuming,
that there is a *maximum* allowable time of 62 days until the patient is
treated. Presumably, those with more urgent cancers may be treated sooner.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 5/14/2009 2:08 PM HeyBub spake thus:

> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>> Now there we agree. Because qualifying to vote was misused against
>> minorities, we threw out the baby with the bathwater. In Washington
>> we now vote entirely by mail and if you're breathing you qualify to
>> vote. Of course in some states even breathing isn't a prerequisite
>> :-).
>>
>> The dumber the voter is, the easier he/she can be manipulated. The
>> politicians love the uninformed voter.
>
> That's why we need "special interests" and "lobbyists" and "Washington
> insiders." They act as a counterfoil to the masses.

No, that's why we need better education, so that Usenet posters
recognize (and avoid) that logical fallacy known as the "red herring".


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

"Upscale" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I think you've got us confused with Manitoba. :) Not much flooding in
>> Saskatchewan this spring.
>
>That's possible and it might be my lack of province knowledge showing. :)
>All I remember seeing on the news were rivers flooding to historical highs
>and they were out west somewhere.

That would be the red river heading from Nodak to winnipeg. Winnipeg is
in Manitoba. I'm not sure how bad the flooding was in Canada compared
with Nodak.

scott

"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I see you've chosen the Hannity/Limbaugh, et al, method of assertion by
> bellowing--"it's true because I SAY IT IS and you're just a liberal
idiot".
>
> Thanks for playing.

Is this another argument brewing? Can I play? Mike Marlow says he won't play
with me anymore so I need a new fight. :)

Just to keep this argument on woodworking, let's all carve toothpicks and
start poking each other. Hey Mike, you can play too if you promise not to
poke me too hard.

:)

On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:44:43 -0700, mr fuxit wrote:

> On 13 May, 17:31, Cooniedog <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
>> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some
>> illnesses.
>>
>> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
>> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>>
>> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
>> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
>> countries when it comes to health care.
>>
>> Cooniedawg
>
> I will admit that the system of medical care in the UK is far from
> perfect(especially since
> the Thatcher administration's interference), but it seems to be many,
> many times better
> than the US model for those who cannot afford private health care.

Every time this subject comes up, Britain and Canada are used as
examples. I watched a show some time back on the subject and they
covered Germany and Japan as well. Seemed like single payer was working
quite a bit better there.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:

> And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
> Cancer patients down to Six Months.

Cite please.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:47:08 -0500, dpb wrote:

> As Upscale noted, there's a lot of rationing for lack of better
> nomenclature I've observed in talking w/ business acquaintances where
> I've done onsite support work and gotten to know them quite well.
> They're quite close to US border so it is routine for them to simply
> forego the Canadian system and drive to Minot, ND or other border towns
> for routine care, paying out of pocket rather than wait. That's for the
> kids have ear ache, etc. The parents mostly just tough it out has been
> my observation.

We live close enough to Canada that we vacation there quite often. We
usually stay in B&Bs and health care is one of the subjects that always
comes up. Most Canadians I've spoken to seem to like their system
although they do admit that sometimes there are long waits for elective
items and occasionally for critical ones.

But I think we have to balance that against two other things. There are
a lot of uninsured people in the US who don't get routine care at all or
who get charity care which is often given at a lower standard just
because of lack of funding. And of course, nobody in Canada ever went
bankrupt from medical bills.

So I suspect the percentage of unserved/underserved patients may be close
to the same in the US and Canada.

And as another poster pointed out, a doctor can make a better living in
the US - so can a drug company :-). But I've known too many doctors who
treat medicine as a calling to care much about the ones for whom it is
only a business.



--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:00:38 -0500, Swingman wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I have no idea what it would take to fix any of it. Personally, I
>> don't believe it can be fixed. I think it's too far gone.
>
> Last time it worked in this country was when doctors lived in the
> neighborhood and there were no insurance companies, or government,
> involved ... way back when there was no concept of a "right" to medical
> care and the inevitabilities of life were gracefully accepted.
>
> ... I was there, and lived it.
>

I was there too, and was thinking much the same thing. But the doctor
and his little black bag often treated people for free if they had no
money. One doctor I knew often got paid in chickens, corn (sometimes
distilled), etc..

> Ironic, these "rights" we have been boondoggled, in ignorance, into
> cherishing as inalienable, eh?
>

You don't consider life, as in "life, liberty, and the pursuit..." to
include health? I guess we disagree there.

> There is little doubt that history will prove the "right" of every
> citizen to vote in this country will be at the very root of its downfall
> .. it certainly wasn't set up that way.

Now there we agree. Because qualifying to vote was misused against
minorities, we threw out the baby with the bathwater. In Washington we
now vote entirely by mail and if you're breathing you qualify to vote.
Of course in some states even breathing isn't a prerequisite :-).

The dumber the voter is, the easier he/she can be manipulated. The
politicians love the uninformed voter.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

HeyBub wrote:
> * Abortions are free in Canada, but there is an eleven-month waiting list
> (It's a JOKE, son.).

http://www.rosswalker.co.uk/tv_sounds/sounds_files_20081223_9801173/looney_toons/foghorn_thats_a_joke_x.wav

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:
>
>> And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
>> Cancer patients down to Six Months.
>
> Cite please.
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw


My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some cancers
you're dead in 62 days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 5/13/2009 12:49 PM evodawg spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2009 12:34 PM evodawg spake thus:
>>>
>>>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2009 9:31 AM Cooniedog spake thus:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>>>>>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>>>>>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have
>>>>>> months
>>>>>> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some
>>>>>> illnesses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
>>>>>> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
>>>>>> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
>>>>>> countries when it comes to health care.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good questions. I suggest renting a copy of Michael Moore's "Sicko"
>>>>> for
>>>>> a good comparative look at health-care systems across the world.
>>>>>
>>>> That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard! He's about as
>>>> accurate as
>>>> Tim Geithner on his Income Taxes.
>>>
>>> So please treat us to a short analysis of where, exactly, Moore is wrong
>>> about the badness of the U.S. health-care system as compared to other
>>> countries. I look forward to this.
>>
>> Won't even waste my time. Just keep watching another one of the made for
>> profit docudrama and claim its FACT! Moore is a buffoon!
>
> I see you've chosen the Hannity/Limbaugh, et al, method of assertion by
> bellowing--"it's true because I SAY IT IS and you're just a liberal idiot".
>
> Thanks for playing.
>
>
Several years ago the Prime Minister ( or Premier, I'm not sure which
title is correct) very proudly made an announcement that the waiting
list for coronary bypass surgery was down to ONLY 400 patients.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
> If you have big brother provided health care and big brother assigned
> physicians (any warm body is equivalent to any other warm body), how
> do you work around incompetence?

Doctors aren't assigned in Canada, unless you're referring to the doctor on
duty in an emergency room. A person is always free to request or seek
another physician. And as to formal complaints of incompetence, I believe
they're all looked into, however the College of Physicians has the
unfortunate reputation of being pretty lenient on many of their members.
But, sometimes they do take actions as confirmed by the resulting case of
Dr. Charles Smith, former chief forensic pathologist for the Province of
Ontario. Many, many lawsuits pending because of this guy's incompetence.

Of course, another doctor might not be available in the middle of the night
in an emergency room. In that case assuming the emergency isn't dire, one
can walk across the street to another hospital, which is something I've done
after four hours of waiting. Triage is a bitch sometimes. Going to another
hospital is easier to do in a place like Toronto, but relatively difficult
when you live up north where another doctor or hospital might be many hours
away.

And family doctors are getting increasingly hard to find in Canada. The USA
keeps thieving our doctors by offering better pay and few working hours.
Guess I can't blame them for that, but I think doctors graduated in Canada
should be required to commit a specified period of service in Canada before
they move lock stock and barrel to sell their Canadian acquired skills
elsewhere.

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Norvin" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Upscale??Rusty didn't wrote

>> Rusty wrote:
" procedure for the time they are in LA. The Canadian health care
>> >> system pays for it and they get it done in a timely manner. I should
> think
>> >> this speaks for itself.
>
> Don't know who told you this, but it's common knowledge that the Canadian
> medical industry fights tooth and nail to have all paid for medical
> treatment done here in Canada."


Rusty did write this lol more careful editing please


>> > I have heard of no-one doing that as Canadian healthcare will not pay
> for it
>> > unless it is an emergency.



> There may be some exception to the rule in effect here, but it's
> notoriously
> difficult to get Canadian authorized medical treatments out of country. It
> makes sense too, since the Canadian medical industry profits are zero with
> such treatments. Not that it never happens, just that it' very uncommon. I
> believe the closest one might come to such a service is if it's considered
> a
> dire medical necessity and covered under travel insurance.
>
>

LD wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:
>>
>>> And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
>>> Cancer patients down to Six Months.
>>
>>
>> Cite please.
>>
>> --
>> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>
>
>
> My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some cancers
> you're dead in 62 days.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm
>

If you've got a type of cancer that's going to kill you in less than 62
days most likely any treatment you'd received during that time wouldn't
help.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> Now there we agree. Because qualifying to vote was misused against
> minorities, we threw out the baby with the bathwater. In Washington
> we now vote entirely by mail and if you're breathing you qualify to
> vote. Of course in some states even breathing isn't a prerequisite
> :-).
>
> The dumber the voter is, the easier he/she can be manipulated. The
> politicians love the uninformed voter.

That's why we need "special interests" and "lobbyists" and "Washington
insiders." They act as a counterfoil to the masses.

LD wrote:
> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 5/14/2009 1:31 PM LD spake thus:
>>
>>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
>>>>> Cancer patients down to Six Months.
>>>>
>>>> Cite please.
>>>
>>> My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some
>>> cancers you're dead in 62 days.
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm
>>
>> Slightly misleading. First of all, we were talking about England, I
>> thought, and this refers to Scotland.
>
> *UK* What part of *UK* is Scotland?
>
>>
>> In any case, it isn't a "62-day waiting period": the article says "The
>> target, set in 2000, requires that 95% of patients begin treatment
>> within 62 days of being urgently referred." This means, I'm assuming,
>> that there is a *maximum* allowable time of 62 days until the patient
>> is treated. Presumably, those with more urgent cancers may be treated
>> sooner.
>
> Or MAY NOT.
>
> And, lest you trot into malformed uninformed notions ...
>
> 1. My sister lives in England.
> 2. I have 2 cousins living in England.
> 3. I have 2 cousins living in Scotland.
> 4. I have nieces and nephews living in England.
> 5. I have second cousins all over the UK.
> 6. I communicate with these people.
> 7. Their biggest gripe is the NHS.
> 8. My sister and her family lived in the US for five years.
> 9. I was Born in the UK.
> 10. I spent six months in a National Health Hospital.

Likewise ... married to a British subject at the time, I spent 18 months
under NHS.

My oldest daughter is a British subject and lives in Sheffield with SIL
and two small children, both of whom have been ill lately. She is NOT
happy with the care her children are receiving under NHS (and
"Collaborative GP", whatever the hell that is) and wondering why the
hell we would want to follow suit.

Her continuing caution, having lived under both (US/UK) systems: "Do not
change your health care system to one like ours, you will be sorry!"

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Cooniedog wrote:
> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have
> months and even years of delays before they receive treatments for
> some illnesses.
> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>
> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
> countries when it comes to health care.
>
> Cooniedawg

Two observations:

* My GE rep tells me there are more MRI machines in Seattle than there are
in all of Canada - and Seattle is not known to be the MRI capitol of the
hemisphere. I shudder to think how many MRI machines there are in my town,
Houston, what with 28 hospitals and two medical schools on just one medical
center campus.

* My internist tells the story of a lab tech at his residency hospital in
Chicago. Her mother, a Canadian, suddenly went blind. Inital tests revealed
a tumor on the optic nerve. The CHS denied any further treatment, but would
pay for a nursing home. In other words, they looked at a chart: 79-year old
woman, brain cancer. Nope. No-can-do.

The tech told that story to a Neurologist on staff and he said that malady
is fairly common, that the tumor is probably benign, and that removing it
was a 30-minute procedure (they do it laproscopically through the nasal
passage). Further, he said if momma could get to Chicago, he'd do the
procedure for free.

The tech fetched mom to Chicago, and the tumor was removed on an out-patient
basis. Mom could see again and the total bill was about $5,000 for the
hospital facilities.

Point is, in the CHS they have benefit-to-cost ratio charts that deterine,
in many cases, the course of treatment.

Couple of other observations:

* We hear that medicines are cheaper in Canada. That's generally true with
two exceptions: 1) While brand names may be cheaper (Plavix, Zantax, etc.),
generics are often more expensive. 2) Some medicines are NOT in the Canadian
formulary. The government refuses to dispense them because of cost when
alternatives are available even though the alternatives are not quite as
effective.

* Abortions are free in Canada, but there is an eleven-month waiting list
(It's a JOKE, son.).

* The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for example)
is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.

I've seen "Sicko" that's what got me to thinking about our rotten health
care here in the U. S. of A.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 5/13/2009 9:31 AM Cooniedog spake thus:
>
>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have
>> months and even years of delays before they receive treatments for
>> some illnesses.
>>
>> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
>> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>>
>> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
>> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
>> countries when it comes to health care.
>
> Good questions. I suggest renting a copy of Michael Moore's "Sicko" for
> a good comparative look at health-care systems across the world.
>
>

It would seem that the U.S. is definitely headed toward some kind of
nationalized health care and all the doctor organizations, insurance and
pharmaceutical companies are dead set against it.

To my way of thinking anything that those entities listed above are
against I'm for since they have done nothing but increase our costs of
health care and more and more Americans can't seem to afford any health
care at all.

This thinking then begged the question, "How do the Canadians and Brits
feel about their nationalized health care plans."

Upscale wrote:
> "Cooniedog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
>> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some
> illnesses.
>
> I'll answer your question the best I can, but it's definitely not a
> woodworking question. It's also a difficult question to answer. It's true,
> that in some cases, there's an extremely large waiting list for treatment.
> It's not an outright refusal of healthcare, just a fact that someone may
> have to wait years for treatment. Some might argue that it's another way to
> refuse help. Many Canadians who can afford it, choose to go to the USA and
> pay for treatment they might have to wait years for in Canada. That part is
> certainly true.
>
> There are certain cases where some individuals have been denied healthcare
> primarily on the basis that there's only so much money to go around and that
> it's considered more prudent to direct funds where the greatest number of
> individuals can be treated. A simple example of this (and many of these
> cases are in the courts) is funding for special education for autistic
> children. I believe the Ontario courts ruled that funding ends for those
> children six years or older even though it's agreed that they'd still
> benefit from this education. I'm not prepared to argue for or against the
> morality of any of this.
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/07/07/autism-ontario.html
>
> Another example and something I consider to be health care is dentistry.
> It's not covered by general healthcare anywhere that I'm aware of in Canada,
> yet it's agreed that poor dental care can result in a host of diseases ~
> diabetes for example. So, yes simple example would confirm that some types
> of healthcare are not funded.
>
> So, maybe the answer to your question is yes to both questions. But it's too
> complicated question to answer outright. There's always going to be
> exceptions to every argument and there's always a host of variables to
> consider when answering it. Personally, I have a host of medical
> difficulties. I'm not going to go into details, but for the problems I've
> had and currently have, I feel I have a great deal of experience with the
> Ontario healthcare system. Does that make me an expert? I wouldn't think so,
> but for the average person walking around, I think my experiences eclipse
> most of what the general public has experienced. Anyways, that's the way I
> feel whether it's factually true or not.
>
> Why the question?
>
>

Leon wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Snip
>
>> You have shared just a bit of your challenges here. And I am not
>> being sarcastic... but just being able to understand the amount of
>> paperwork and levels of people to be dealt with in your situation make
>> you an expert in my opinion.
>>
>> The health care system is a monster unto itself, no matter where you
>> are. At this point, I know more about M/M than I ever thought there
>> was to know. In the end, we still have to go to our extended care
>> provider for counseling on what to do to make sure the folks care is
>> covered. BUT... they cannot >tell< us what to do. They can only lay
>> out options. If the are caught coaching or counseling us, they can
>> lose the right to do business with M/M.
>>
>> I have no idea what it would take to fix any of it. Personally, I
>> don't believe it can be fixed. I think it's too far gone.
>>
>> Obviously, this is something that has been on my mind...
>>
>> Robert
>
>
> Robert, I think the answer is to eliminate the insurance industry from the
> medical industry. Perhaps in San Antonio certainly in Houston there are TV
> commercials paid for by particular "medical groups". These groups are most
> often made up of select doctors, select clinics, select pharmacies, and
> select hospitals. These groups DO NOT accept insurance and require you to
> become a member of their group.
>
> I never paid much attention to these commercials as they sounded like the
> typical ambulance chaser attorney ad. Anyway 6 or 7 years ago I was
> listening to a talk radio program that was focused on health care. A doctor
> from one of these groups was the guest and they were taking listener phone
> calls. The basic theme of the program that day was how to control and
> afford health care. INSURANCE to the health care industry is similar to
> the Labor Union and the Automobile business, they both costs through the
> roof. Anyway you join the group for about $50-$75 per month for you whole
> family and when you get sick you simply go to this "group". There is no
> deductible or co-pay, you pay the full bill at the time of the procedure.
> BUT the typical office visit is $15-$20, prescription drugs are a fraction
> of the normal cost that you would normally pay if you did not have
> insurance. Basically you pay a little more than an insurance co-pay but the
> cost is till quite reasonable.
>
> A listener phoned in to attest to how well these groups work out for his
> family. His daughter was an up and coming tennis player, apparently she was
> quite good. She injured her knee and had a persistent pain that would not
> go away. They took her to their medical group and were told the bad news,
> surgery would be needed, arthroscopic surgery. Long story short, $2800
> later she was good to go. He indicated that he shopped around to get
> competing prices from other doctors and hospitals for the same procedure and
> with out insurance. IIRC the cost was going to be well in excess of
> $18000.
>
> Apparently these medical groups are doing well as I see more and more of
> them in different fields, dentistry, family practice, eye care, etc,
> advertising on TV more and more. From what the doctor indicated on the
> radio show eliminating the insurance companies from the equation saves
> everyone money. The doctors office does not need as many people to work the
> paperwork to collect from insurance companies. Insurance claims are not
> turned down because there are no insurance claims. Insurance rejections on
> certain procedures are not turned down because there are no insurance
> claims. There are no reductions of the amount paid for particular
> procedures because there are no insurance claims. Cash flow is much better
> as there is no longer a 2 -4 month wait for claims to be paid because there
> is no insurance claim. These benefits all repeats themselves for the
> pharmacies, and hospitals.
> When the medical industry has to write off and spend billions to simply
> deal with the insurance industry medical costs naturally go sky high.
> With these medical groups you don't get treatment if you have no money so
> non paying illegals crossing the border to have babies for free no longer
> inflate the cost for medical care for the rest of us.
>
> It used to work in the distant past, why not now? I suppose that the
> typical citizen/ person working in the U.S. has come to expect to pay
> nothing except a nothing or a small co-pay and let his employer foot the
> bill for the insurance costs.

You've hit the nail on the head. Anyone that thinks everyone is going
to get medical care for less than what it costs to provide it hasn't
thought it through. I do think Insurance has a place to cover
catastrophic issues.

British health care is a bit of a joke in Britain.

I twisted my knee skiing and was having problems walking back in March.

My Doctor, part of our National Health Service, has made an appointment for
me to be 'assessed' for physio-therapy. Still waiting to find out when they
will decide if I need physio or not!!

My physio-therapist, charging £36 a visit and having seen me now 6 times,
thinks I need two more visits for treatment as long as I keep up with the
exercise regime he has laid down.

Having paid into the National Health Service all my working life (over 40
years) my first point of call when I need any treatment is the private
sector, be it chiropractor, physio, dentist, or even Traditional Chinese
Medicine. So I pay twice for all my medical needs.

Latest scam by our illustrious government is to get people to call into
their local chemist shop (I believe you call them pharmacies) where trained
staff can deal with them, thus keeping them away from a very overstretched
Health Service.

If you are over here don't get ill, or if you do go to Europe for a couple
of days and get some really efficient service.

--
Alan
Retired
...so yes I do have all day!
"Cooniedog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great Britain.
> They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying that Canadians
> and Brits are refused certain health care or have months and even years of
> delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.
>
> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>
> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of the
> sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective countries
> when it comes to health care.
>
> Cooniedawg

Upscale wrote:


> So, maybe the answer to your question is yes to both questions. But it's too
> complicated question to answer outright. There's always going to be
> exceptions to every argument and there's always a host of variables to
> consider when answering it. Personally, I have a host of medical
> difficulties. I'm not going to go into details, but for the problems I've
> had and currently have, I feel I have a great deal of experience with the
> Ontario healthcare system. Does that make me an expert? I wouldn't think so,
> but for the average person walking around, I think my experiences eclipse
> most of what the general public has experienced. Anyways, that's the way I
> feel whether it's factually true or not.

Thanks for taking the time to attempt an answer to, as you say, a very
difficult question.

Your response is, IMO, erudite, and, since it is based on personal
experience, its value is therefore increased.



--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Rusty wrote:
> "Norvin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Cooniedog wrote:
>>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great Britain.
>>> They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying that
>>> Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months and
>>> even years of delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.
>>>
>>> Cooniedawg
>> I know of several Canadians that are snow birds that travel from Canada to
>> the LA area for the winter. They also scheduled any operations, medical
>> procedure for the time they are in LA. The Canadian health care
>> system pays for it and they get it done in a timely manner. I should think
>> this speaks for itself.
>
> I have heard of no-one doing that as Canadian healthcare will not pay for it
> unless it is an emergency.
> I would conceder that an outright lie lol. Keep throwing stuff out there
> some of it might stick. If it was true woot woot
> still better than being denied medical treatment cause your CEO wants a
> bigger boat.
>
>
Well, now you have heard, so it must be true!!!!!!!!!!

LD wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:e14957e9-610b-46bc-a899-467b89b88b93@g31g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On May 13, 2:44 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> * The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for
>> example)
>> is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.
>
>
> Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
> indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
> indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
> other countries’. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
> comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
> countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.
> ===========================================================
>
> Including the Insured in the US?

Health care improvement in Cuba was the number one project of Castro
during the cold war and was subsidized by the USSR. Under Castro Cuba's
medical system became world class. Since the demise of the USSR, and
the loss of it's funding, Cuba still has top notch medical care but it
has become a two tier system of those wealthy enough to afford treatment
and those that are not.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

"PDQ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > Snip
> >
>
> You've hit the nail on the head. Anyone that thinks everyone is going
> to get medical care for less than what it costs to provide it hasn't
> thought it through. I do think Insurance has a place to cover
> catastrophic issues.

Having spent a lifetime working for an insurance company, let me add this:
:o)

No "Insurance Company" is in business to lose money.
They all cry broke and take for ever to pay claims.
They only pay claims they cannot weasel out.
They can find a "pre-existing" condition for almost any ailment.
If they pay, they find some way to reduce the payment.

Having been in the automotive insudtry for many years I absolutely forbid
any of my employees and or customers to allow an insurance company to enter
into the repair procedure. Our customers always wanted insurance to pay for
the repair and I always said that is fine. Let them pay you back for what I
am going to charge you for the repair but if you want us to repair your car
you will be totally responsible for paying the bill before we release your
car back to you.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LD wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:e14957e9-610b-46bc-a899-467b89b88b93@g31g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 13, 2:44 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> * The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for
>>> example) is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.
>>
>> Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
>> indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
>> indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
>> other countries’. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
>> comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
>> countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.
>
> Be careful with statistics like those--some countries count an infant that
> dies within an hour of birth as a stillbirth for example, that doesn't
> count
> against either life expectancy or infant mortality, while the US counts
> such
> deaths as infant mortality.
>


Be careful with attribution ...

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


> There is little doubt that history will prove the "right"
> of every citizen to vote in this country will be at the
> very root of its downfall .. it certainly wasn't set up
> that way.
>

You are absolutely correct. It started last November...

Larry

[email protected] wrote:

> I have no idea what it would take to fix any of it. Personally, I
> don't believe it can be fixed. I think it's too far gone.

Last time it worked in this country was when doctors lived in the
neighborhood and there were no insurance companies, or government,
involved ... way back when there was no concept of a "right" to medical
care and the inevitabilities of life were gracefully accepted.

... I was there, and lived it.

Ironic, these "rights" we have been boondoggled, in ignorance, into
cherishing as inalienable, eh?

There is little doubt that history will prove the "right" of every
citizen to vote in this country will be at the very root of its downfall
.. it certainly wasn't set up that way.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I think you've got us confused with Manitoba. :) Not much flooding in
> Saskatchewan this spring.

That's possible and it might be my lack of province knowledge showing. :)
All I remember seeing on the news were rivers flooding to historical highs
and they were out west somewhere.

On May 13, 8:57=A0pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote innews:YL6dnQ6izOy5wpbXnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@=
giganews.com:
>
> > There is little doubt that history will prove the "right"
> > of every citizen to vote in this country will be at the
> > very root of its downfall .. it certainly wasn't set up
> > that way.
>
> You are absolutely correct. It started last November...
>
> Larry

You need a history lesson.

"Cooniedog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some
illnesses.

I'll answer your question the best I can, but it's definitely not a
woodworking question. It's also a difficult question to answer. It's true,
that in some cases, there's an extremely large waiting list for treatment.
It's not an outright refusal of healthcare, just a fact that someone may
have to wait years for treatment. Some might argue that it's another way to
refuse help. Many Canadians who can afford it, choose to go to the USA and
pay for treatment they might have to wait years for in Canada. That part is
certainly true.

There are certain cases where some individuals have been denied healthcare
primarily on the basis that there's only so much money to go around and that
it's considered more prudent to direct funds where the greatest number of
individuals can be treated. A simple example of this (and many of these
cases are in the courts) is funding for special education for autistic
children. I believe the Ontario courts ruled that funding ends for those
children six years or older even though it's agreed that they'd still
benefit from this education. I'm not prepared to argue for or against the
morality of any of this.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/07/07/autism-ontario.html

Another example and something I consider to be health care is dentistry.
It's not covered by general healthcare anywhere that I'm aware of in Canada,
yet it's agreed that poor dental care can result in a host of diseases ~
diabetes for example. So, yes simple example would confirm that some types
of healthcare are not funded.

So, maybe the answer to your question is yes to both questions. But it's too
complicated question to answer outright. There's always going to be
exceptions to every argument and there's always a host of variables to
consider when answering it. Personally, I have a host of medical
difficulties. I'm not going to go into details, but for the problems I've
had and currently have, I feel I have a great deal of experience with the
Ontario healthcare system. Does that make me an expert? I wouldn't think so,
but for the average person walking around, I think my experiences eclipse
most of what the general public has experienced. Anyways, that's the way I
feel whether it's factually true or not.

Why the question?

On 13 May, 17:31, Cooniedog <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.
>
> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>
> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
> countries when it comes to health care.
>
> Cooniedawg

I will admit that the system of medical care in the UK is far from
perfect(especially since
the Thatcher administration's interference), but it seems to be many,
many times better
than the US model for those who cannot afford private health care.

On May 16, 5:39=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> LD wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:e14957e9-610b-46bc-a899-467b89b88b93@g31g2000pra.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On May 13, 2:44 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> * The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for
> >> example) is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.
>
> > Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
> > indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
> > indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
> > other countries=92. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
> > comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
> > countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.
>
> Be careful with statistics like those--some countries count an infant tha=
t
> dies within an hour of birth as a stillbirth for example, that doesn't co=
unt
> against either life expectancy or infant mortality, while the US counts s=
uch
> deaths as infant mortality.

You are quite correct in pointing out that we have to be careful with
the source of statistics. In this case, the WHO has fairly strict
definitions about what they mean and how countries should collect and
measure them. See: http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/compendium/2008/en/
for the details on all the indicators.

In the case of infant mortality, the definition is quite clear:
>Live birth refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother =
of a
>product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, whic=
h, after
>such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life - e.g. beati=
ng of the
>heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary m=
uscles -
>whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached=
. Each
>product of such a birth is considered live born.

So if countries follow the WHO guidelines, then the definition is the
same as in the US.

"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LD wrote:
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:
>>>
>>>> And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
>>>> Cancer patients down to Six Months.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cite please.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>>
>>
>>
>> My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some cancers
>> you're dead in 62 days.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm
>>
>
> If you've got a type of cancer that's going to kill you in less than 62
> days most likely any treatment you'd received during that time wouldn't
> help.

Really?

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Cooniedog wrote:
>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great Britain.
>> They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying that
>> Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months and
>> even years of delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.
>>
>> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
>> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>>
>> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of the
>> sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective countries
>> when it comes to health care.
>
> As Upscale noted, there's a lot of rationing for lack of better
> nomenclature I've observed in talking w/ business acquaintances where I've
> done onsite support work and gotten to know them quite well. They're quite
> close to US border so it is routine for them to simply forego the Canadian
> system and drive to Minot, ND or other border towns for routine care,
> paying out of pocket rather than wait. That's for the kids have ear ache,
> etc. The parents mostly just tough it out has been my observation.
>
> That doesn't address the problem that although it's been a few years now
> since I retired so there may have been some improvement but the last time
> I was on site they were in a plant outage so had fair amount of overtime
> pay in his packet. That period the total witholding was over 50% of his
> gross.
>
> The other thing I have observed over the last 20 years or so is that in
> rural US, the primary place from which we can recruit physicians to come
> to small, under-served areas that are not popular places for US-educated
> doctors other than SE Asia and the South American locations is Canada. In
> the local health care system in this relative to other places within
> 100-200 miles but still small by city standards place almost one-quarter
> of the doctors are expatriate Canadians. They come despite the seeming
> lack of cultural amenities and non-idyllic climate primarily because they
> have simply become fed up w/ "The System". When one contemplates that
> these folks are packing up and moving permanently from their birthplace
> because the burdens of practicing medicine in the US are so much lighter
> on them, that's pretty telling in my book to follow the direction from
> which these folks have come isn't a really good idea.
>
> --


One of the most rational responses I've seen on this issue so, of course,
everyone will ignore it.

On May 14, 8:23=A0pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I think they both went to their systems later than Britain and Canada,
> > so they are benefitting from seeing what didn't work there. It might
> > also be worth considering that culturally they are farther removed
> > from us than are Britain and Canada
>
> I agree with that assessment. And, it might possibly be that if those new=
er
> systems have any faults in them, they haven't been in operation long enou=
gh
> to show. The British and Canadian systems have been in operation for a lo=
ng
> time. While they've remained pretty static in their operation, their
> populations have changed over time and the existing systems haven't exact=
ly
> kept pace.

It is hard to stay out of this discussion. Opinions and facts get all
mixed up when people outside of Canada offer their opinions of OUR
system. :-) (Unlike MY opinion on their politics..LOL.. at least I do
my homework.)

Angela is deeply entrenched in the healthcare system as her
profession. Her involvement deals with all facets, from emergency
admissions (heart & stroke) to MRI bookings and rehab.
It could be that our city is small ( about 70,000) but she has access
to that MRI 24/7. Seldom a wait more than minutes.... usually waiting
for stand-by staff to get there.
At least in Heart & Stroke, there ain't no time to wait. Ever.
Healthcare at its best.

You want a replacement knee? Not so much.
You want to see an orthopaedic surgeon because your thumb feels icky?
You wait a loooong time.

You remove half your face on the asphalt after a motorcycle accident?
You're on the table in minutes.
I think they have their priorities figured out pretty well.

If I had it MY way, the 2-pack-a-day lung-cancer patient would be at
the end of the line; if he/she doesn't give a shit about their health,
why should anybody else?

On May 13, 2:44=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

> * The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for example=
)
> is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.

Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
other countries=92. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.

If you want to see actual data on a number of indicators, you can go
to the World Health Organization=92s web site where they have data on
most countries and look at how the US compares to other countries.

http://apps.who.int/whosis/data/Search.jsp?countries=3D[Location].Members

The figures for the =93CONCORD=94 study show that the US had the second
best breast cancer survival rate in the world in the late 80s-early
90s and Canada was number 3, but they were pretty close. However,
blacks in the US had considerably lower survival rates. What some
people don't like to point out is that the No. 1 country in terms of
breast cancer survival rates is that pesky commie island to the south
of Florida. Yup, Cuba.

For a news story, see:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statist=
ics_080716?hub=3DMSNHome

For a copy of the original =93CONCORD=94 study
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/CONCORD.pdf

A more recent study comparing Ontario & California in the late 90s
early 21st Century, high and middle income Americans seems to be below
Canada, although not statistically significant. However, lower income
Americans had much lower survival rates. You can see this paper at:

http://www.uwindsor.ca/users/g/gorey/KevinGorey.nsf/831fc2c71873e46285256d6=
e006c367a/84830734438db38b852572c20063b93c/$FILE/AnnEpidemiol2009.pdf

So as long as they=92re not black and/or poor, American women with
breast cancers live about the same time as Canadian women.

Luigi

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Your response is, IMO, erudite, and, since it is based on personal
> experience, its value is therefore increased.

Thanks Karl. Now, how much you want to bet that one of my other
"discussions" is going produce the comment that my illnesses have made me
hate the world and I'm out to get everybody? :)

BTW, this summer I've been commissioned to produce benches for the trestle
picnic table I built last summer. No money involved, but I'll get invited
over to a good half dozen outdoor parties. They will be pretty close to half
size copies of the table itself. I figure with such a nice looking design,
why play with perfection. :) I'll post them when they're made.

Cooniedog wrote:
> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.

> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
> countries when it comes to health care.

One problem that I see is that everyone wants the latest and greatest
treatment, which generally translates to much more expensive. If a
treatment is 5% better, but 10x the price, should we as a population go
for it? It's easy to say no, until the patient is someone you know.

Health care is locally governed, so there are going to be regional
differences. For reference, I'm in my 30s, and live in Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada, a city of a bit over 200000 people.

Wait times have been an issue in the past and continue to be an issue
for certain types of treatment--generally expensive/complicated things
like MRI, cancer, heart, hip/knee replacement, cataract surgery, etc.
My father-in-law had hip surgery and did need to wait a bit. I've heard
anecdotally that these times are coming down around here though.

Usually it takes a few days to a week if I want to book an appointment
with my family doctor, but for more urgent things I can go to a clinic
or to the Emergency ward at the hospital.

I broke two fingers while traveling, and received both physiotherapy and
occupational therapy to help get mobility and strength back in those
fingers. No delays in getting treatment. Similarly, getting in to see
a chiropractor is easy.

My wife and I just had our first child. No significant delays,
generally good care. We did pay for a doula to help us through the
process, but midwives are covered in some areas and that might be an
option for next time.

Chris

On Thu, 14 May 2009 11:41:28 -0500, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Every time this subject comes up, Britain and Canada are used as
>examples. I watched a show some time back on the subject and they
>covered Germany and Japan as well. Seemed like single payer was working
>quite a bit better there.

I think they both went to their systems later than Britain and Canada,
so they are benefitting from seeing what didn't work there. It might
also be worth considering that culturally they are farther removed
from us than are Britain and Canada - although I'm not sure how
relevant that really is.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Cooniedog wrote:
> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.
>
> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>
> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
> countries when it comes to health care.

As Upscale noted, there's a lot of rationing for lack of better
nomenclature I've observed in talking w/ business acquaintances where
I've done onsite support work and gotten to know them quite well.
They're quite close to US border so it is routine for them to simply
forego the Canadian system and drive to Minot, ND or other border towns
for routine care, paying out of pocket rather than wait. That's for the
kids have ear ache, etc. The parents mostly just tough it out has been
my observation.

That doesn't address the problem that although it's been a few years now
since I retired so there may have been some improvement but the last
time I was on site they were in a plant outage so had fair amount of
overtime pay in his packet. That period the total witholding was over
50% of his gross.

The other thing I have observed over the last 20 years or so is that in
rural US, the primary place from which we can recruit physicians to come
to small, under-served areas that are not popular places for US-educated
doctors other than SE Asia and the South American locations is Canada.
In the local health care system in this relative to other places within
100-200 miles but still small by city standards place almost one-quarter
of the doctors are expatriate Canadians. They come despite the seeming
lack of cultural amenities and non-idyllic climate primarily because
they have simply become fed up w/ "The System". When one contemplates
that these folks are packing up and moving permanently from their
birthplace because the burdens of practicing medicine in the US are so
much lighter on them, that's pretty telling in my book to follow the
direction from which these folks have come isn't a really good idea.

--

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 5/13/2009 9:31 AM Cooniedog spake thus:
>
>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have
>> months and even years of delays before they receive treatments for
>> some illnesses.
>>
>> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
>> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>>
>> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
>> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
>> countries when it comes to health care.
>
> Good questions. I suggest renting a copy of Michael Moore's "Sicko"
> for a good comparative look at health-care systems across the world.

I suggest that if you rent it you do so for a good example of propaganda.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

> On 5/13/2009 9:31 AM Cooniedog spake thus:
>
>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
>> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some
>> illnesses.
>>
>> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
>> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>>
>> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
>> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
>> countries when it comes to health care.
>
> Good questions. I suggest renting a copy of Michael Moore's "Sicko" for
> a good comparative look at health-care systems across the world.
>
>
That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard! He's about as accurate as Tim
Geithner on his Income Taxes.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

David Nebenzahl wrote:

> On 5/13/2009 12:34 PM evodawg spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2009 9:31 AM Cooniedog spake thus:
>>>
>>>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>>>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>>>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
>>>> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some
>>>> illnesses.
>>>>
>>>> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
>>>> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
>>>> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
>>>> countries when it comes to health care.
>>>
>>> Good questions. I suggest renting a copy of Michael Moore's "Sicko" for
>>> a good comparative look at health-care systems across the world.
>>>
>> That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard! He's about as accurate as
>> Tim Geithner on his Income Taxes.
>
> So please treat us to a short analysis of where, exactly, Moore is wrong
> about the badness of the U.S. health-care system as compared to other
> countries. I look forward to this.
>
>
Won't even waste my time. Just keep watching another one of the made for
profit docudrama and claim its FACT! Moore is a buffoon!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

David Nebenzahl wrote:

> On 5/13/2009 12:49 PM evodawg spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2009 12:34 PM evodawg spake thus:
>>>
>>>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2009 9:31 AM Cooniedog spake thus:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>>>>>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>>>>>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have
>>>>>> months and even years of delays before they receive treatments for
>>>>>> some illnesses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
>>>>>> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
>>>>>> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
>>>>>> countries when it comes to health care.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good questions. I suggest renting a copy of Michael Moore's "Sicko"
>>>>> for a good comparative look at health-care systems across the world.
>>>>>
>>>> That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard! He's about as accurate
>>>> as Tim Geithner on his Income Taxes.
>>>
>>> So please treat us to a short analysis of where, exactly, Moore is wrong
>>> about the badness of the U.S. health-care system as compared to other
>>> countries. I look forward to this.
>>
>> Won't even waste my time. Just keep watching another one of the made for
>> profit docudrama and claim its FACT! Moore is a buffoon!
>
> I see you've chosen the Hannity/Limbaugh, et al, method of assertion by
> bellowing--"it's true because I SAY IT IS and you're just a liberal
> idiot".
>
> Thanks for playing.
>
>
If you say so then it must be true!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

[email protected] wrote:

> On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:29:04 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Cooniedog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
>>> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some
>>illnesses.
>>
>>I'll answer your question the best I can, but it's definitely not a
>>woodworking question. It's also a difficult question to answer. It's true,
>>that in some cases, there's an extremely large waiting list for treatment.
>>It's not an outright refusal of healthcare, just a fact that someone may
>>have to wait years for treatment. Some might argue that it's another way
>>to
>>refuse help. Many Canadians who can afford it, choose to go to the USA
>>and pay for treatment they might have to wait years for in Canada. That
>>part is certainly true.
>>
>>There are certain cases where some individuals have been denied healthcare
>>primarily on the basis that there's only so much money to go around and
>>that
>>it's considered more prudent to direct funds where the greatest number of
>>individuals can be treated. A simple example of this (and many of these
>>cases are in the courts) is funding for special education for autistic
>>children. I believe the Ontario courts ruled that funding ends for those
>>children six years or older even though it's agreed that they'd still
>>benefit from this education. I'm not prepared to argue for or against the
>>morality of any of this.
>>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/07/07/autism-ontario.html
>>
>>Another example and something I consider to be health care is dentistry.
>>It's not covered by general healthcare anywhere that I'm aware of in
>>Canada, yet it's agreed that poor dental care can result in a host of
>>diseases ~ diabetes for example. So, yes simple example would confirm that
>>some types of healthcare are not funded.
>>
>>So, maybe the answer to your question is yes to both questions. But it's
>>too complicated question to answer outright. There's always going to be
>>exceptions to every argument and there's always a host of variables to
>>consider when answering it. Personally, I have a host of medical
>>difficulties. I'm not going to go into details, but for the problems I've
>>had and currently have, I feel I have a great deal of experience with the
>>Ontario healthcare system. Does that make me an expert? I wouldn't think
>>so, but for the average person walking around, I think my experiences
>>eclipse most of what the general public has experienced. Anyways, that's
>>the way I feel whether it's factually true or not.
>>
> From Manitoba that runs health care a shade differently than Ontario,
> every sentence is more or less true. I'll add that for life
> threatening issues you get bumped forward but not in front of someone
> who is dieing faster than you. Unless you seem to be important like
> a weasel politician and his family or a sports player: then you go to
> front of the line and spare no expense. I have noticed that people
> with money go to the US, Mexico, or Europe because for cash up front,
> no one has to wait. And there are some procedues that have long
> lists because of resource allocations. And there are some things not
> covered because of extreme high costs. Getting bitten by a mountain
> (north slope) jumping spider from Peru comes to mind ): My doctor
> came up with that one.
>
> Dental, eye glasses, hearing aids, and most drugs are not covered
> unless your in prison or on welfare where most all of it is covered.
> Lets face it - if you get sent to prison for life (8 yrs) we want you
> healthy enuff to do the time.
>
> I once asked a dermatologist why it took so long and cost so much. He
> said the admin costs ran at about 85% and that doctors got the
> remaining 15%. I assume the 85 included hospital costs and that he
> wasn't slinging me a line.
>
> If I sound a tad cynical over this it is because the system has
> inequities. We hire nurses part time and burn them out working
> double shifts. Somehow paying parttime overtime is cheaper that
> paying benefits. We don't allow private services to open shop because
> that would jeapardize publice health care and all the doctors would
> flock over to the dark side. When a small community raises money for
> an MRI machine we don't let it get hooked up because it wasn't
> budgeted for, it's in the wrong community, and we want things
> centralized. The list goes on.
>
> Yes, there is a whole lot more to this and it gets complicated and
> it's not nessessarily about how much money, but more like who gets to
> touch the money first and dole it out.
>
> Canadians want pay what the market will bear (if you can). Americans
> want pay what's fair (if you can get it). Seems we both want what the
> other has.
>
> P
sounds to me like a big political scam. The same will happen in the US or
worse. The White House says restore all benefits and pay and rehire all
fired union workers or lose the Stimulate Package. Have a funny feeling
that only union workers will benefit by this Health Care Crap.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message=20
> > =
news:[email protected]...
> > Snip
> >=20
>=20
> You've hit the nail on the head. Anyone that thinks everyone is going
> to get medical care for less than what it costs to provide it hasn't
> thought it through. I do think Insurance has a place to cover
> catastrophic issues.

Having spent a lifetime working for an insurance company, let me add =
this: :o)

No "Insurance Company" is in business to lose money.=20
They all cry broke and take for ever to pay claims.
They only pay claims they cannot weasel out.
They can find a "pre-existing" condition for almost any ailment.
If they pay, they find some way to reduce the payment.

LD wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:e14957e9-610b-46bc-a899-467b89b88b93@g31g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On May 13, 2:44 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> * The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for
>> example) is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.
>
> Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
> indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
> indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
> other countries’. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
> comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
> countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.

Be careful with statistics like those--some countries count an infant that
dies within an hour of birth as a stillbirth for example, that doesn't count
against either life expectancy or infant mortality, while the US counts such
deaths as infant mortality.

Cooniedog wrote:
> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.
>
> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>
> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
> countries when it comes to health care.
>
> Cooniedawg
I know of several Canadians that are snow birds that travel from Canada
to the LA area for the winter. They also scheduled any operations,
medical procedure for the time they are in LA. The Canadian health care
system pays for it and they get it done in a timely manner. I should
think this speaks for itself.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:31:47 -0500, Cooniedog <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
>and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.
>
>I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
>Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>
>I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
>the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
>countries when it comes to health care.
>
>Cooniedawg

The best argument for private health care is the ability to change
doctors when proper care isn't given.
Example: my daughter and her husband were visiting in California when
their 2 year old daughter became ill. They took her to the closest
emergency room and were seen in a reasonable time. However, although
penicillin was listed in the "medical allergies" section of the chart,
the attending physician wanted to treat the child with amoxicillin (a
penicillin equvalent) and ignored the parents' warnings that the child
was allergic to peniciillin. One of the nurses suggested that they go
to another hospital - where they did receive proper care.

If you have big brother provided health care and big brother assigned
physicians (any warm body is equivalent to any other warm body), how
do you work around incompetence?

John

"Norvin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Cooniedog wrote:
>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great Britain.
>> They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying that
>> Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months and
>> even years of delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.
>>
>> Cooniedawg
> I know of several Canadians that are snow birds that travel from Canada to
> the LA area for the winter. They also scheduled any operations, medical
> procedure for the time they are in LA. The Canadian health care
> system pays for it and they get it done in a timely manner. I should think
> this speaks for itself.

I have heard of no-one doing that as Canadian healthcare will not pay for it
unless it is an emergency.
I would conceder that an outright lie lol. Keep throwing stuff out there
some of it might stick. If it was true woot woot
still better than being denied medical treatment cause your CEO wants a
bigger boat.

Nova wrote:
>
> If you've got a type of cancer that's going to kill you in less than
> 62 days most likely any treatment you'd received during that time
> wouldn't help.

What if you've got the kind of cancer that kills you in 63 days but you have
to wait 62 days to start treatment?

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e14957e9-610b-46bc-a899-467b89b88b93@g31g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On May 13, 2:44 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

> * The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for example)
> is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.

Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
other countries’. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.
===========================================================

Including the Insured in the US?

On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:27:10 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>

>And family doctors are getting increasingly hard to find in Canada. The USA
>keeps thieving our doctors by offering better pay and few working hours.
>Guess I can't blame them for that, but I think doctors graduated in Canada
>should be required to commit a specified period of service in Canada before
>they move lock stock and barrel to sell their Canadian acquired skills
>elsewhere.
>
>

Some areas of the US will "forgive" college loans in return for a
specified number of years serving in an area with insufficient
doctors.

Maybe that's something you can steal from us? ;-)

John

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip

>
> You have shared just a bit of your challenges here. And I am not
> being sarcastic... but just being able to understand the amount of
> paperwork and levels of people to be dealt with in your situation make
> you an expert in my opinion.
>
> The health care system is a monster unto itself, no matter where you
> are. At this point, I know more about M/M than I ever thought there
> was to know. In the end, we still have to go to our extended care
> provider for counseling on what to do to make sure the folks care is
> covered. BUT... they cannot >tell< us what to do. They can only lay
> out options. If the are caught coaching or counseling us, they can
> lose the right to do business with M/M.
>
> I have no idea what it would take to fix any of it. Personally, I
> don't believe it can be fixed. I think it's too far gone.
>
> Obviously, this is something that has been on my mind...
>
> Robert


Robert, I think the answer is to eliminate the insurance industry from the
medical industry. Perhaps in San Antonio certainly in Houston there are TV
commercials paid for by particular "medical groups". These groups are most
often made up of select doctors, select clinics, select pharmacies, and
select hospitals. These groups DO NOT accept insurance and require you to
become a member of their group.

I never paid much attention to these commercials as they sounded like the
typical ambulance chaser attorney ad. Anyway 6 or 7 years ago I was
listening to a talk radio program that was focused on health care. A doctor
from one of these groups was the guest and they were taking listener phone
calls. The basic theme of the program that day was how to control and
afford health care. INSURANCE to the health care industry is similar to
the Labor Union and the Automobile business, they both costs through the
roof. Anyway you join the group for about $50-$75 per month for you whole
family and when you get sick you simply go to this "group". There is no
deductible or co-pay, you pay the full bill at the time of the procedure.
BUT the typical office visit is $15-$20, prescription drugs are a fraction
of the normal cost that you would normally pay if you did not have
insurance. Basically you pay a little more than an insurance co-pay but the
cost is till quite reasonable.

A listener phoned in to attest to how well these groups work out for his
family. His daughter was an up and coming tennis player, apparently she was
quite good. She injured her knee and had a persistent pain that would not
go away. They took her to their medical group and were told the bad news,
surgery would be needed, arthroscopic surgery. Long story short, $2800
later she was good to go. He indicated that he shopped around to get
competing prices from other doctors and hospitals for the same procedure and
with out insurance. IIRC the cost was going to be well in excess of
$18000.

Apparently these medical groups are doing well as I see more and more of
them in different fields, dentistry, family practice, eye care, etc,
advertising on TV more and more. From what the doctor indicated on the
radio show eliminating the insurance companies from the equation saves
everyone money. The doctors office does not need as many people to work the
paperwork to collect from insurance companies. Insurance claims are not
turned down because there are no insurance claims. Insurance rejections on
certain procedures are not turned down because there are no insurance
claims. There are no reductions of the amount paid for particular
procedures because there are no insurance claims. Cash flow is much better
as there is no longer a 2 -4 month wait for claims to be paid because there
is no insurance claim. These benefits all repeats themselves for the
pharmacies, and hospitals.
When the medical industry has to write off and spend billions to simply
deal with the insurance industry medical costs naturally go sky high.
With these medical groups you don't get treatment if you have no money so
non paying illegals crossing the border to have babies for free no longer
inflate the cost for medical care for the rest of us.

It used to work in the distant past, why not now? I suppose that the
typical citizen/ person working in the U.S. has come to expect to pay
nothing except a nothing or a small co-pay and let his employer foot the
bill for the insurance costs.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:00:38 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> I have no idea what it would take to fix any of it. Personally, I
>> don't believe it can be fixed. I think it's too far gone.
>
>Last time it worked in this country was when doctors lived in the
>neighborhood and there were no insurance companies, or government,
>involved ... way back when there was no concept of a "right" to medical
>care and the inevitabilities of life were gracefully accepted.
>
>... I was there, and lived it.
>
>Ironic, these "rights" we have been boondoggled, in ignorance, into
>cherishing as inalienable, eh?
>
>There is little doubt that history will prove the "right" of every
>citizen to vote in this country will be at the very root of its downfall
>.. it certainly wasn't set up that way.


Just received this email:


Good afternoon,

You are receiving this email because you signed up at WhiteHouse.gov.
My staff and I plan to use these messages as a way to directly
communicate about important issues and opportunities, and today I have
some encouraging updates about health care reform.

The Vice President and I just met with leaders from the House of
Representatives and received their commitment to pass a comprehensive
health care reform bill by July 31.

We also have an unprecedented commitment from health care industry
leaders, many of whom opposed health reform in the past. Monday, I met
with some of these health care stakeholders, and they pledged to do
their part to reduce the health care spending growth rate, saving more
than two trillion dollars over the next ten years -- around $2,500 for
each American family. Then on Tuesday, leaders from some of America's
top companies came to the White House to showcase innovative ways to
reduce health care costs by improving the health of their workers.

Now the House and Senate are beginning a critical debate that will
determine the health of our nation's economy and its families. This
process should be transparent and inclusive and its product must drive
down costs, assure quality and affordable health care for everyone,
and guarantee all of us a choice of doctors and plans.

Reforming health care should also involve you. Think of other people
who may want to stay up to date on health care reform and other
national issues and tell them to join us here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/EmailUpdates

Health care reform can't come soon enough. We spend more on health
care than any country, but families continue to struggle with
skyrocketing premiums and nearly 46 million are without insurance
entirely. It is a priority for the American people and a pillar of the
new foundation we are seeking to build for our economy.

We'll continue to keep you posted about this and other important
issues.

Thank you,
Barack Obama

P.S. If you'd like to get more in-depth information about health
reform and how you can participate, be sure to visit
http://www.HealthReform.gov.








This email was sent to [email protected]
Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy

The White House · 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW · Washington, DC 20500 ·
202-456-1111

Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LD wrote:
>> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 5/14/2009 1:31 PM LD spake thus:
>>>
>>>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> >
>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of
>>>>>> Critical
>>>>>> Cancer patients down to Six Months.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite please.
>>>>
>>>> My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some
>>>> cancers you're dead in 62 days.
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm
>>>
>>> Slightly misleading. First of all, we were talking about England, I
>>> thought, and this refers to Scotland.
>>
>> *UK* What part of *UK* is Scotland?
>>
>>>
>>> In any case, it isn't a "62-day waiting period": the article says "The
>>> target, set in 2000, requires that 95% of patients begin treatment
>>> within 62 days of being urgently referred." This means, I'm assuming,
>>> that there is a *maximum* allowable time of 62 days until the patient is
>>> treated. Presumably, those with more urgent cancers may be treated
>>> sooner.
>>
>> Or MAY NOT.
>>
>> And, lest you trot into malformed uninformed notions ...
>>
>> 1. My sister lives in England.
>> 2. I have 2 cousins living in England.
>> 3. I have 2 cousins living in Scotland.
>> 4. I have nieces and nephews living in England.
>> 5. I have second cousins all over the UK.
>> 6. I communicate with these people.
>> 7. Their biggest gripe is the NHS.
>> 8. My sister and her family lived in the US for five years.
>> 9. I was Born in the UK.
>> 10. I spent six months in a National Health Hospital.
>
> Likewise ... married to a British subject at the time, I spent 18 months
> under NHS.
>
> My oldest daughter is a British subject and lives in Sheffield with SIL
> and two small children, both of whom have been ill lately. She is NOT
> happy with the care her children are receiving under NHS (and
> "Collaborative GP", whatever the hell that is) and wondering why the hell
> we would want to follow suit.
>
> Her continuing caution, having lived under both (US/UK) systems: "Do not
> change your health care system to one like ours, you will be sorry!"

Precisely my sister's words! But you don't need the relatives or first hand
experience, just look at the BBC news. Every day there is something about
the NHS failing or struggling. Yesterday it was police in Wales complaining
that they are doing far too many 'ambulance' runs in squad cars and they
think it is just a matter of time before somebody dies on them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Here's one from today:

[Long wait for mental health help

Some people seeking mental health services in Scotland are kept waiting for
more than a year, the public spending watchdog has revealed.

Audit Scotland said there was a lack of information on national waiting
times.

But "very long waits" in some areas may reflect a wider trend, its Overview
of Mental Health Services report concluded.

It found waits of between 58 and 77 weeks for psychological therapies in two
areas covered by NHS Highland.

In Tayside, 40% of older people referred to psychology services were waiting
longer than 18 weeks. ]

And they say the wait has "improved".

"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 5/14/2009 1:31 PM LD spake thus:
>
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
> >
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:
>>>
>>>> And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
>>>> Cancer patients down to Six Months.
>>>
>>> Cite please.
>>
>> My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some cancers
>> you're dead in 62 days.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm
>
> Slightly misleading. First of all, we were talking about England, I
> thought, and this refers to Scotland.

*UK* What part of *UK* is Scotland?

>
> In any case, it isn't a "62-day waiting period": the article says "The
> target, set in 2000, requires that 95% of patients begin treatment within
> 62 days of being urgently referred." This means, I'm assuming, that there
> is a *maximum* allowable time of 62 days until the patient is treated.
> Presumably, those with more urgent cancers may be treated sooner.

Or MAY NOT.

And, lest you trot into malformed uninformed notions ...

1. My sister lives in England.
2. I have 2 cousins living in England.
3. I have 2 cousins living in Scotland.
4. I have nieces and nephews living in England.
5. I have second cousins all over the UK.
6. I communicate with these people.
7. Their biggest gripe is the NHS.
8. My sister and her family lived in the US for five years.
9. I was Born in the UK.
10. I spent six months in a National Health Hospital.

[email protected] wrote:
> On May 13, 2:44 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> * The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for
>> example) is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.
>
> Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
> indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
> indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
> other countries’. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
> comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
> countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.
>

Here's a ranking chart:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html


Much of the discrepancy depends on how you count. When a VERY premature baby
is born in the US, enormous efforts are undertake to keep it alive.
Tragically, many of these efforts fail and the resulting death is counted as
"infant mortality."

In some countries, the one-kilo baby is discarded and tabulated as
"stillbirth."

Another point is this, the US is an extremely diverse country. Very many
races, educational and income levels, ethnic communities, varied languages,
differing traditions and associations, disparities in incomes, weather, and
support facilities. A problem of enormous impact in one community (say
gang-warfare in black ghettos) affects the average for the entire country.

If you take the health-care statistics for a homogeneous country - like
Germany or Haiti - and obtain the statistics for a similar
ethnic/income/education group in the U.S., I predict the results will favor
the U.S.

"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8kNOl.16753$%[email protected]...
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> On 5/13/2009 12:49 PM evodawg spake thus:
>>
>>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2009 12:34 PM evodawg spake thus:
>>>>
>>>>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2009 9:31 AM Cooniedog spake thus:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
>>>>>>> Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
>>>>>>> that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have
>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>> and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some
>>>>>>> illnesses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
>>>>>>> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
>>>>>>> countries when it comes to health care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good questions. I suggest renting a copy of Michael Moore's "Sicko"
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> a good comparative look at health-care systems across the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard! He's about as accurate
>>>>> as
>>>>> Tim Geithner on his Income Taxes.
>>>>
>>>> So please treat us to a short analysis of where, exactly, Moore is
>>>> wrong
>>>> about the badness of the U.S. health-care system as compared to other
>>>> countries. I look forward to this.
>>>
>>> Won't even waste my time. Just keep watching another one of the made for
>>> profit docudrama and claim its FACT! Moore is a buffoon!
>>
>> I see you've chosen the Hannity/Limbaugh, et al, method of assertion by
>> bellowing--"it's true because I SAY IT IS and you're just a liberal
>> idiot".
>>
>> Thanks for playing.
>>
>>
> Several years ago the Prime Minister ( or Premier, I'm not sure which
> title is correct) very proudly made an announcement that the waiting list
> for coronary bypass surgery was down to ONLY 400 patients.


And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
Cancer patients down to Six Months.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:34:05 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Health care is locally governed, so there are going to be regional
>> differences. For reference, I'm in my 30s, and live in Saskatoon,
>> Saskatchewan, Canada, a city of a bit over 200000 people.
>
>What's the physician availability like there Chris? Is there a doctor
>shortage. Ok, stupid question, I'm hearing more and more about shortages
>everywhere. Let me rephrase. Do people seeking a personal physican have to
>wait very long before they find one, as far as you know?
>
>> My wife and I just had our first child. No significant delays,
>> generally good care. We did pay for a doula to help us through the
>> process, but midwives are covered in some areas and that might be an
>> option for next time.
>
>I've got a friend who is considering hiring a midwife. Was it expensive and
>did you find his/her services worthwhile?
>

Depending upon the answer, they do have a Lee Valley in Saskatoon, so
you could move there.

Just to put it back on topic.
;-)

--
Froz....

I have rarely heard of long waiting lists in Canada except when Americans
tell the story.If you have aggressive cancer or some other deadly illness
your in the hospital right now.Only reason I can see causing waiting lists
is lobbyists from the States trying to get some in power in our Gov. to take
payoffs and force us towards private care. Not going to happen. Would be a
great thing if it happens in America But Republican taking payoffs from
health care lobbyists and some of the not well informed buying there talking
points"Long line ups" "Can't chose your own Dr." "be afraid" "Iraq has
nuclear weapons". If your American just don't get sick or hurt, Me I'll just
rely on the great Canadian healthcare system.


"Cooniedog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great Britain.
> They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying that Canadians
> and Brits are refused certain health care or have months and even years of
> delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.
>
> I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
> Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.
>
> I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of the
> sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective countries
> when it comes to health care.
>
> Cooniedawg