The average wait time in Canada to see a Specialist is 9 weeks and 20 weeks in New Brunswick!! How many people die before they see the Specialist??

The Supreme Court of Canada two years ago struck down Canadian law and allowed a Canadian citizen to buy Health Care on his own.The person who brought suit was forced to wait nearly a year with severe pain to get a hip replacement.
Chief Justices McLachlin and Major wrote in their decision...." The evidence shows that delays in the public health system are widespread and that,in some serious cases patients DIE a result of "WAITING LISTS" for Public Health care".

is either unaffordable or unavailable to 50 million citizens is better? And what of the untold cases where our "healthcare for profit" industry arbitrarily denies treatment to a paying subscriber for any one of a THOUSAND reasons?

 Lets get SERIOUS!!. The reason the Righties hold such contempt for ANY solution for healthcare other than the "for profit", inhumane, cost prohibitive one we have is that there would be a notable “readjustment” in the stock market.
It seems anytime ANYTHING is brought up, recommended, or considered that is not based solely in “profit” within the context of Capitalism; the bogyman persona of Socialism and “re-distribution of wealth” is dragged out and propagandized ad-nauseum by the corporatist Right.

The U.S. public education system is SOCIALIST
The Police & various LE agencies are SOCIALIST
The Fire departments are all a SOCIALIST entity.

If the pool of future genius dries up, or big business cannot operate due to grassroots lawlessness, or entire cities burn to the ground because a small kitchen fire spread unfettered; the lives and fortunes of the elite and their corporations are at peril.
A common individual’s life being cut short 5 to 30 years because they cannot afford medical care, or because care is denied due to cost reduction “profit” precepts is of no concern to the religion of “Keep it in the black”.

Capitalism seems to be thriving in America despite socialized education, law enforcement and firefighting. Why would taking away the universal fear of probable need and unaffordable expense for healthcare from the vast majority of Americans utterly destroy the very fundamentals of capitalism and lead us down the slippery slope of Socialism and worse yet Communism.  


-- Modified on 7/22/2007 9:56:05 AM

1) Emergency healthcare is available to everyone.

2) The reason I don't want socialized medicine is that it will result in the reduction of my access to healthcare.

3) The 50 million number is a red herring. Find a way to help pay for it for those that truly can't themselves.

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&SearchType=1&Author=rightwing&DayFrom=30&DayTo=0&MessageID=48543&frmSearch=1

Another reason I failed to mention in the linked thread was due to those that change jobs and are without for a couple of months. They are added to the total as well.

"1) Emergency healthcare is available to everyone."
(Ans.) Shure; but what about NON-emergency problems that are ignored or simply "lived with" that later advance into the catastrophic for reasons of no early or prophylactic treatment?
What of the astronomical costs of emergency room care and the credit destroying, bankruptcy inducing after effects?

"2) The reason I don't want socialized medicine is that it will result in the reduction of my access to healthcare."
(Ans.) How will it do that? It sounds to me you're merely worried about and protecting the elitist "I got mine; how'd you make out" philosophy.  

"3) The 50 million number is a red herring. Find a way to help pay for it for those that truly can't themselves."
(Ans.) Whether it is 25 million or 50 million it is an obscene number of people to have to do without in a society as purportedly "GREAT" as ours.

 Instead of borrowing trillions of dollars from Communist China to finance the BushCo/Haliburton Oil War that is growing more terrorists than it will ever stop; perhaps investing in the health and happiness of the United States citizen would reap much better long term rewards.

 

How about posting a link to a reputable souce to support your crazy claims. I sereiously doubt that it takes 9 weeks to see a specialist.  It depends upon what kind of specialist you are talking about.  If someone has a infectious disease, I doubt it's 9 week wait.  If you are waiting to see a top cosmetic surgeon, it very well can be a 9 week wait.   This is not unusual because there so many fewer cosmetic surgeons.  In Los Angeles, it can be several months to see a cosmetic surgeon.

You are no different than Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and all the other jackbooted political Nazi tyrants who have no shame in lying or misleading.

What kind of specialist are you talking

1) You are the one that said healthCARE was unavailable. Not true.

2) Because the government will ration it much more than the private sector does today. Somewhere close to 90% of private sector insured are happy with their services.

3) Why do numbers need to be lied about? The correct ones should be used. Some sizable percentage of the uninsured choose to be.

-- Modified on 7/22/2007 1:43:26 PM

In 1991, I came down HARD with kidney stones. I was taken by my family to the ER at Cedar's-Sinai Medical Center... one of the pre-eminent hospital campuses in Los Angeles. I arrived at about 8:15am, was put on a gurney and given morphine and demerol.
The next 10 hourswere spent in agony and stupor, lying on a hospital gurney in the hallway while they tried to find me a bed in a county facility because they did not want to treat me because my health insurance was no longer accepted by them, and I was unable to pay for treatment in cash right then and there.
At the end of the day, when they were informed there were no county beds available, they made my mother sign a document essentially putting up her house as collateral for payment.
THEN they piled on the bills and treatments and examinations and after 36 hours, had racked up a bill of $27,500 PLUS the $8500 per day for a private room they put me in.

It was another 10 months before I was finally able to arrange for a lythotripsy operation, of which I eventually required 3. All paid in cash because I was ineligible for any kind of emergency medical help.

I doubt the system has improved since then.

We have prematurely reached the end of the thread.

I'm sorry for your experience. There are private hopitals that will refuse treatment to those not in life threatening situations. If you had gone directly to the "county" faciltiy, I wonder what your relief would have been.

People dying prematurely is no problem because we have uncontrolled illegal immigration. For every person without access to health care who dies, at least ten illegal aliens sneak into the country.  In case you haven’t noticed, this country is entering another gilded age of the haves and have nots.  Get rich now before it’s too late.

I am not exaggerating that.  It adds up from several prestigious studies.  See the breakdown below.

So would you call that genocidal?  

BTW, why don't you look to find out how many people die per year in Canada?  As I've heard, the most serious cases get in first.  Don't you think Canada has a press that reports such things?

Fact is Quad, the US medical system is a one of "The Great Blunders of the World." Other countries can see the US health care "system" in action. Do you know how many imitate it or even suggest adopting it?  NONE!!  It isn't even considered anywhere.

I'm really shocked and disappointed Quad that you would even attempt that argument without doing just some checking. It is just dumb.  Your credibility is now down to toenail level.

The fact that we do it through blundering and inefficiency notwithstanding.

Jack Daniels, your comments are perhaps the most offensively racist and ignorant that I have ever read on this discussion board.  

Men pay for sex with an escort because they want variety or don't want the emotional entaglements of a relationship.  It's probably safe to assume you pay for sex because no woman (or man), whether drunk or sober, could stomach being physically intimate with someone like you.

Get some therapy.

The vast majority of those numbers are atribuatal to TWO factors

1) Nursing home care. While loosely under the health care umbrella, not exactly what most people consider when they think of their INSURED medicine.

2) Old and poor patient care insured by Medicare and Medicaid funded progrmas. The EXACT type of GOVERNMENT funding that we are railing against.

Let's see some numbers based on patients in PRIVATELY funded programs.

While your at it look at the very similar numbers from socialist countries...

"Deaths in England Due to Medical Errors up 500%" pver the past 10 years.

"Doctors Help Kill One in 10 Belgians" That's TEN PERCENT ! ! !

"Drugs and Medical Errors Killing 1 of Every 5 Australians" That's TWENTY PERCENT ! ! !




-- Modified on 7/22/2007 7:45:35 PM

Switzerland's model is the one we must use!!!  Switzerland's is awesome AND SWITZERLAND'S IS PRIVATE MARKET!!! YES YES YES!!

What they do is mandate that every Swiss citizen must have health insurance!!  Private heatlh insurance.

If the citizen is destitute on the public dole,THEY GIVE THE BUM MONEY EARMARKED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE BUM TO BUY A HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN.

Private sector innovation is the wonder of the Laissezfaire free market.  There are dozens of different insurance plans for an individual to choose.  Individuals pick the one that will best serve their needs.

You lefty socialistS can argue till you're blue in the face.  You cannot win.  The data does not support your position. Socialized medicine SUCKS!

The care is terrible under socialized med.There is no incentive to improve, no incentive to even give quality care.  

The morale of British MD's is low and 50% of the MDs in Britain are 3rd world borne and trained!!!!

That's one of them.  No I'm not making that up.  Just look at his products page. (Though it doesn't translate like that).

This wouldn't be too bad, except 90 percent of the links he gives with the headlines you quoted lead to DIFFERENT PAGES ON HIS OWN SITE.  The very few that I find that give references outside his site either lead to a subscription page (JAMA), or absolutely don't support what he says.  

For example: the one in the British Medical Journal, he paraphrases it saying "Researchers found that almost 11% of patients had suffered some sort of adverse event - some more than one."

When I tracked the article down, this isn't what it said.  It said:  ". . . in TWO ACUTE  HOSPITALS, Vincent et al found that almost 11% of patients experienced an adverse event, over half of which were deemed preventable judged by ordinary standards of care."  [EMPHASIS MINE]

Acute Hospitals. Two of them. Were they chosen because they were especially bad? The article doesn't say. In other words: your source lied.

(In case you want the lead in, it starts "Finally, we now have some British data from London based on retrospective record review. In their study of over 1000 records"-- so that's based on 1000 records.)

Support your claim that it comes from Medicare and Medicaid.  

Here's one quote from my source about hospitals:

"Simply entering a hospital could result in the following:

   * In 16.4 million people, a 2.1% chance (affecting 186,000) of a serious adverse drug reaction(1)
   * In 16.4 million people, a 5-6% chance (affecting 489,500) of acquiring a nosocomial infection(9)
   * In16.4 million people, a 4-36% chance (affecting 1.78 million) of having an iatrogenic injury (medical error and adverse drug reactions).(16)
   * In 16.4 million people, a 17% chance (affecting 1.3 million) of a procedure error.(40)"

Note that all of those are attributed and footnoted.  

Unfortunately, it doesn't say anything about medicare and medicaid.  I'll do some research on that later.

I'll note one thing: my source is selling something too, but it gives sources professionally, and doesn't seem to to be misquoting them, and doesn't depend so much on internal references.  


-- Modified on 7/22/2007 10:40:08 PM

I ask again...

Let's see some numbers based on patients in PRIVATELY funded programs.


-- Modified on 7/22/2007 10:48:16 PM

. . .work to prove your point and find a reputable site that gives you the numbers on Medicare and Medicaid.

you'll see that a very large percentage of Doctors there are from "third world nations" also.

You believe it because you believed it before you found that site.  The site was just garbage.  Give me the evidence that convinced you that single-payer isn't the way to go.

Heh... howe do you think I got the lythotripsy operations? In order to qualify, I had to go through the system. The County System. TEN MONTHS!!!

Health Care For All should be the worlds greatest altruistic effort.

Instead, it is just another for-profit business.

Just a bunch of greedy bastards who don't give a shit about anything unless there's something in it for them. It's the profession where you get paid to experiment on human beings. By the victims being experimented on.

The money given by the Swiss government to pay for health care for the indigent comes from.....
wait for it.... TAXES! Would you be so supportive of the same program here in the US if it meant your taxes would increase?
Come on Geezer, get real. You're a *NIMBY. You and the rest of the Republican conservatives are too selfish and greedy to ever consider something like that.

*NIMBY = Not In My BackYard

The links I posted do NOT support my two bullited points. They were based on my common sense and some of the things I read from the studies YOUR link cited. My point was, that most of the people that died under the studies of your citation were probably receiving care either A) in a nursing home (not a main stream medical facility) and/or were on medicare or medicaid (a single payer, but more importantly a government payer system)

My link was intended to show that unneccessary deaths ALSO occur in high numbers outside the U.S.
Credibiltiy of my link aside, I still beieve it's true.

BTW, MY link also linked to YOUR link. Does that invalidate YOUR link as well?

-- Modified on 7/23/2007 3:29:27 PM

for elective surgeries, not emergency procedures. And the reason there is no wait time in the U.S. is because if you don't have any insurance, they don't put you on a list. They just tell you to fuck off.

Most likely our taxes would be lower.  Also, I give around half a grand to the Salvation Army every year.  So I'm not a NIMBY.

That's what you have to support with links.  I've looked for something that might indicate that.  

As for the site, I'm sorry, that was a pretty poor way to try to make that point.  As I showed, it doesn't matter where it links if it simply misquotes and lies.  For facts, it was like looking at the National Enquirer.  

The truth is, no country wants to follow our lead on medical care.  None.

What is the waiting time in the USA? No one knows because it is not measured for everyone. The measures that do exist are only for the insusred.

Ignoring that problem, in many parts of the USA the waiting time for insured patients some specialists are just as long as in some parts of Canada or England.