Talk about oxymorons - State run Healthcare - if the state ran it, it would be more like "State run organization for high payed hacks who don't do shit!"
Now there is a serious bureaucracy waiting to grow - I can see all of those hacks licking their chops over this one!
The wise guys have this one right - fagetaboudit!
Now there is a serious bureaucracy waiting to grow - I can see all of those hacks licking their chops over this one!
The wise guys have this one right - fagetaboudit!
SS just got pushed back to age 67 & Medicaid is projected to bankrupt in 15 years ...
afterall, they lost over a trillion $1,000,000,000,000.00+ in tax money from the +200K crowd with the tax cuts
that dumb fuk in the White House has half the lemmings of America, like Out, thinking that these tax cuts are something other than a diluted advance on their retirement & health needs.
afterall, they lost over a trillion $1,000,000,000,000.00+ in tax money from the +200K crowd with the tax cuts
that dumb fuk in the White House has half the lemmings of America, like Out, thinking that these tax cuts are something other than a diluted advance on their retirement & health needs.
I saw enough then to scare the hell out of me...I had mercury poisoning as it turned out, and after about 15 doctor appts, various doctors, one who told me to 'keep doing my own research' lol...I swear he told me that!
I cannot imagine what it must be like for the elderly...its an assembly line at these places...workers moving cattle thru the different testing stations, then you check out, they run your card (if you have one) and your off til next visit...its an absolute joke!
Not only am I considering how I will become a millionaire in the next 10 years , I may have to become a doctor! LOL, I don`t trust the system one bit!
I know already I will never see SS by the time I get there, it (the benefit age) will be 80 yrs old...So I will do what I have to ,to make sure I am set, and that includes cutting corners on my own taxes! I have no faith in my government
I cannot imagine what it must be like for the elderly...its an assembly line at these places...workers moving cattle thru the different testing stations, then you check out, they run your card (if you have one) and your off til next visit...its an absolute joke!
Not only am I considering how I will become a millionaire in the next 10 years , I may have to become a doctor! LOL, I don`t trust the system one bit!
I know already I will never see SS by the time I get there, it (the benefit age) will be 80 yrs old...So I will do what I have to ,to make sure I am set, and that includes cutting corners on my own taxes! I have no faith in my government
I'm for a national health plan...I'm also for national blood and urine test to see who is eligable...if you have booze,drugs,nicotine,are obese you are not eligable. As a tax payer that has to pay for somebodys elses insurance they are to lead a spartan lifstyle or no insurance...just like in the real world of the private sector.
Speaking of "FREE" insurance by the Canadian health plan...The state of Arizona has more MRI machines than the country of Canada...which also means plenty of canadians pay cash to come down to get US care.
one thing about socialism there are never any worry about poverty and shortages there is plenty for EVERYONE.
Speaking of "FREE" insurance by the Canadian health plan...The state of Arizona has more MRI machines than the country of Canada...which also means plenty of canadians pay cash to come down to get US care.
one thing about socialism there are never any worry about poverty and shortages there is plenty for EVERYONE.
We have healthcare in the USA...it is called insurance. If you are too damn cheap or stupid to buy it yourself, then why should your neighbor do it for you?
I pay a couple of hundred a month for catastrophic health care for my son and myself. Those that can't get it (past health problems) may need help from the government, but the vast majority of people CHOOSE to go without. You can't protect people from themselves.
I pay a couple of hundred a month for catastrophic health care for my son and myself. Those that can't get it (past health problems) may need help from the government, but the vast majority of people CHOOSE to go without. You can't protect people from themselves.
If your neighbor's house was on fire, would you help put it out?
Or would you stand and jeer at them for being too STUPID and leaving the stove on?
An enlightened society would make sure that no one need ever fear not having food, adequate housing or access to needed health care.
That leaves unlimited opportunities for ambitious people to learn and grow and create beyond the baseline. Many would choose to not take advantage of those opportunities and would subsist on only the basics. But they would not have to fear dying in the street of hunger, exposure or from treatable afflictions of any kind.
No country on Earth that I'm aware of has found the way to make that happen as described above, though each country has legitimate stories of success and failure trying different approaches.
But the foundation vision must remain intact if we are to love our neighbor as we do ourselves.
Or would you stand and jeer at them for being too STUPID and leaving the stove on?
An enlightened society would make sure that no one need ever fear not having food, adequate housing or access to needed health care.
That leaves unlimited opportunities for ambitious people to learn and grow and create beyond the baseline. Many would choose to not take advantage of those opportunities and would subsist on only the basics. But they would not have to fear dying in the street of hunger, exposure or from treatable afflictions of any kind.
No country on Earth that I'm aware of has found the way to make that happen as described above, though each country has legitimate stories of success and failure trying different approaches.
But the foundation vision must remain intact if we are to love our neighbor as we do ourselves.
Glad to see your definition of an 'enlightened society'. So who will pay for this easy life of free food, free housing, and free health care? Do you really believe that hard working people will joyfully work their asses off so the lazy and incompentent can live a comfortable life watching Springer on TV?
Life, and people, doesn't work that way. Something for nothing is not'progressive' and is not 'loving your neighbor'. Giving the lazy or unambitious the fruits of their neighbors labor encourages the lazy and unambitious behavior. Is this what you wish to do?
Life, and people, doesn't work that way. Something for nothing is not'progressive' and is not 'loving your neighbor'. Giving the lazy or unambitious the fruits of their neighbors labor encourages the lazy and unambitious behavior. Is this what you wish to do?
Ah, yes - the motto of the left: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Of course, the left feels that it is up to them to define abilities and needs; higher taxes and more governemtn programs - and of course, the leftists will make sure it is them and their who run the bureaucracies that will run these government organizations.
I personally believe that the Democrats should change the name of their party to the Gimmee's.
Of course, the left feels that it is up to them to define abilities and needs; higher taxes and more governemtn programs - and of course, the leftists will make sure it is them and their who run the bureaucracies that will run these government organizations.
I personally believe that the Democrats should change the name of their party to the Gimmee's.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
I'm for a national health plan...I'm also for national blood and urine test to see who is eligable...if you have booze,drugs,nicotine,are obese you are not eligable. As a tax payer that has to pay for somebodys elses insurance they are to lead a spartan lifstyle or no insurance...just like in the real world of the private sector.
Speaking of "FREE" insurance by the Canadian health plan...The state of Arizona has more MRI machines than the country of Canada...which also means plenty of canadians pay cash to come down to get US care.
one thing about socialism there are never any worry about poverty and shortages there is plenty for EVERYONE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My sister's baby recently underwent surgery for a dislocated hip that required her to get an MRI. The waiting period was 6 business days. Her doctor mentioned that in the US, more tests are run on patients more often due to the (significantly) higher proportion of patients who sue for medical malpractice -- in other words, fearful doctors inflate demand. Maybe that is why we have fewer MRI machines?
Frankly, the complaints I have had regarding the Canadian healthcare system are the same complaints I've heard about the US system. You guys have it so that you pay out of pocket every month, we just lump it into our taxes. I'm guessing the total monthly bill is roughly the same.
Unless and until each of us has a handful of experiences with the other's health care system, it would be difficult to make a full judgement.
I'm for a national health plan...I'm also for national blood and urine test to see who is eligable...if you have booze,drugs,nicotine,are obese you are not eligable. As a tax payer that has to pay for somebodys elses insurance they are to lead a spartan lifstyle or no insurance...just like in the real world of the private sector.
Speaking of "FREE" insurance by the Canadian health plan...The state of Arizona has more MRI machines than the country of Canada...which also means plenty of canadians pay cash to come down to get US care.
one thing about socialism there are never any worry about poverty and shortages there is plenty for EVERYONE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My sister's baby recently underwent surgery for a dislocated hip that required her to get an MRI. The waiting period was 6 business days. Her doctor mentioned that in the US, more tests are run on patients more often due to the (significantly) higher proportion of patients who sue for medical malpractice -- in other words, fearful doctors inflate demand. Maybe that is why we have fewer MRI machines?
Frankly, the complaints I have had regarding the Canadian healthcare system are the same complaints I've heard about the US system. You guys have it so that you pay out of pocket every month, we just lump it into our taxes. I'm guessing the total monthly bill is roughly the same.
Unless and until each of us has a handful of experiences with the other's health care system, it would be difficult to make a full judgement.
from the August 28, 2002 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0828/p01s04-wogi.html
Canadian model of healthcare ails
Report ranks Canada's state-funded system near the bottom among industrial nations.
By Eric Beaudan | Special to The Christian Science Monitor
TORONTO - When Bill Clinton attempted to reform US healthcare in 1994, his administration often touted Canada's publicly funded, universal access system as a model to be emulated. As it turns out, the Canadian system may be crumbling under its own weight.
Despite spending nearly C$100 billion (US$64 billion) per year on healthcare – the most per capita among countries that run a similar system – a study released last week by the Fraser Institute, a public-policy think tank in Vancouver, shows that Canada ranks only slightly higher than Hungary, Poland, and Turkey in the quality of service its citizens receive.
Canada is the last industrialized nation to rely solely on government funds for its core healthcare system. There's an emerging view that it, too, may abandon a system that has long been a symbol of its national identity.
"We are no longer the model," says Michael Walker, executive director of the Fraser Institute. "When you consider that equal access in a country as spread out as Canada would require a greater number of physicians and diagnostic equipment, we're clearly headed in the wrong direction."
Two issues in particular plague the Canadian system, which forbids any form of user payment or private care for core services: the number of doctors and access to high technology.
Canada fields 1.8 doctors per 1,000 inhabitants, which places it 17th on a list of 20 countries with universal access (the list does not include the US). To leap into first place, Canada would need to add 48,000 doctors to its current roster of 57,000.
Canada lags even further behind in access to high-tech equipment, including machines used for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed axial tomography (CAT) scans. This shortage affects wait time for diagnostic assessments, which in provinces such as Saskatchewan can run well over three months.
According to Dr. Walker, hospitals absorb 55 percent of the total annual healthcare budget. The Fraser study found that nonmedical staff – including painters, electricians, and cooks – tend to be paid 50 percent higher than their counterparts in nonmedical industries. "We are not controlling our costs," he says.
Exacerbating Canada's poor performance among industrialized countries is its proximity to the US, notes Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt. "Since Canada is part of the American job market, Canadian nurses and doctors must be compensated at levels that compete against US jobs," he says. "That means that even with the same level of care, Canadians will pay more than Europeans for core services."
Another survey, released last week by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), shows growing dissatisfaction with the current system. The findings reveal that six in 10 Canadians expect the quality of healthcare to worsen over the next five years. And with 58 percent of respondents acknowledging that their confidence in the system is falling, versus 51 percent in 2000, Canadians are seriously contemplating a user-pay system. While 56 percent of survey respondents say they would pay more in taxes to maintain current service levels, 49 percent say they would welcome an approach that blends public and private care.
Canada's provincial leaders pledged C$1 billion (US$640 million) to purchase high-tech equipment starting this year. But any shortening of the typical two-month wait for patients to receive MRI tests and CAT scans isn't likely soon.
"It will take a decade to get speed of access and modern healthcare back in Canada," says Michael Decter, chair of the national board of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, and former deputy minister of health in Ontario.
Although Mr. Decter agrees that the system is shaken, he still says that modernized public healthcare is the solution.
"We do well on life expectancy and immunization of children compared to the US," he says, noting that the US spends about 40 percent more on healthcare in total than Canada. "But we see the drug ads on US television and worry that we're not as shiny and new as the Americans."
Fixing the deficiencies of the healthcare system is now the mandate of a royal commission, headed by former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow. Over the next few months, Mr. Romanow will head to London, Paris, and Washington to gather insights that could help remedy Canada's ailing system.
Solutions would likely include greater home care, user fees for patients who can afford them, and private or semiprivate hospitals, all of which top-ranked countries such as France, Sweden, and Australia feature.
The strains on the system are already forcing local shifts to alternative models. Some communities are allowing nurses to treat minor cases without referring patients to a doctor. Seventy-seven percent of nurses and 60 percent of doctors support this approach.
One of the CMA's recommendations is setting national standards for wait times.
"Canadians are divided over the establishment of user fees," says CMA president Dana Hanson. Although Dr. Hanson believes in a publicly funded system, he doesn't discount private-public partnerships. Some provinces already hire private labs, he points out.
Should Romanow's commission fail to deliver a workable solution, Canada's 10 provinces might be forced to take matters into their own hands.
"Some provinces could independently impose user fees or copayments," suggests Walker. Ontario and Alberta are the two provinces who, he says, might be able to give up federal Medicare aid in favor of a provincially run system. Both provinces are wealthier and less dependent on federal outlays to balance their medical costs.
But Mr. Reinhardt says introducing some features of the US healthcare system might be fraught with difficulties. "[The US] system has left 40 million people uninsured," he says, "and medical bills have become the second leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the US."
Canadian model of healthcare ails
Report ranks Canada's state-funded system near the bottom among industrial nations.
By Eric Beaudan | Special to The Christian Science Monitor
TORONTO - When Bill Clinton attempted to reform US healthcare in 1994, his administration often touted Canada's publicly funded, universal access system as a model to be emulated. As it turns out, the Canadian system may be crumbling under its own weight.
Despite spending nearly C$100 billion (US$64 billion) per year on healthcare – the most per capita among countries that run a similar system – a study released last week by the Fraser Institute, a public-policy think tank in Vancouver, shows that Canada ranks only slightly higher than Hungary, Poland, and Turkey in the quality of service its citizens receive.
Canada is the last industrialized nation to rely solely on government funds for its core healthcare system. There's an emerging view that it, too, may abandon a system that has long been a symbol of its national identity.
"We are no longer the model," says Michael Walker, executive director of the Fraser Institute. "When you consider that equal access in a country as spread out as Canada would require a greater number of physicians and diagnostic equipment, we're clearly headed in the wrong direction."
Two issues in particular plague the Canadian system, which forbids any form of user payment or private care for core services: the number of doctors and access to high technology.
Canada fields 1.8 doctors per 1,000 inhabitants, which places it 17th on a list of 20 countries with universal access (the list does not include the US). To leap into first place, Canada would need to add 48,000 doctors to its current roster of 57,000.
Canada lags even further behind in access to high-tech equipment, including machines used for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed axial tomography (CAT) scans. This shortage affects wait time for diagnostic assessments, which in provinces such as Saskatchewan can run well over three months.
According to Dr. Walker, hospitals absorb 55 percent of the total annual healthcare budget. The Fraser study found that nonmedical staff – including painters, electricians, and cooks – tend to be paid 50 percent higher than their counterparts in nonmedical industries. "We are not controlling our costs," he says.
Exacerbating Canada's poor performance among industrialized countries is its proximity to the US, notes Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt. "Since Canada is part of the American job market, Canadian nurses and doctors must be compensated at levels that compete against US jobs," he says. "That means that even with the same level of care, Canadians will pay more than Europeans for core services."
Another survey, released last week by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), shows growing dissatisfaction with the current system. The findings reveal that six in 10 Canadians expect the quality of healthcare to worsen over the next five years. And with 58 percent of respondents acknowledging that their confidence in the system is falling, versus 51 percent in 2000, Canadians are seriously contemplating a user-pay system. While 56 percent of survey respondents say they would pay more in taxes to maintain current service levels, 49 percent say they would welcome an approach that blends public and private care.
Canada's provincial leaders pledged C$1 billion (US$640 million) to purchase high-tech equipment starting this year. But any shortening of the typical two-month wait for patients to receive MRI tests and CAT scans isn't likely soon.
"It will take a decade to get speed of access and modern healthcare back in Canada," says Michael Decter, chair of the national board of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, and former deputy minister of health in Ontario.
Although Mr. Decter agrees that the system is shaken, he still says that modernized public healthcare is the solution.
"We do well on life expectancy and immunization of children compared to the US," he says, noting that the US spends about 40 percent more on healthcare in total than Canada. "But we see the drug ads on US television and worry that we're not as shiny and new as the Americans."
Fixing the deficiencies of the healthcare system is now the mandate of a royal commission, headed by former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow. Over the next few months, Mr. Romanow will head to London, Paris, and Washington to gather insights that could help remedy Canada's ailing system.
Solutions would likely include greater home care, user fees for patients who can afford them, and private or semiprivate hospitals, all of which top-ranked countries such as France, Sweden, and Australia feature.
The strains on the system are already forcing local shifts to alternative models. Some communities are allowing nurses to treat minor cases without referring patients to a doctor. Seventy-seven percent of nurses and 60 percent of doctors support this approach.
One of the CMA's recommendations is setting national standards for wait times.
"Canadians are divided over the establishment of user fees," says CMA president Dana Hanson. Although Dr. Hanson believes in a publicly funded system, he doesn't discount private-public partnerships. Some provinces already hire private labs, he points out.
Should Romanow's commission fail to deliver a workable solution, Canada's 10 provinces might be forced to take matters into their own hands.
"Some provinces could independently impose user fees or copayments," suggests Walker. Ontario and Alberta are the two provinces who, he says, might be able to give up federal Medicare aid in favor of a provincially run system. Both provinces are wealthier and less dependent on federal outlays to balance their medical costs.
But Mr. Reinhardt says introducing some features of the US healthcare system might be fraught with difficulties. "[The US] system has left 40 million people uninsured," he says, "and medical bills have become the second leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the US."
Provinces spend millions on U.S. care for patients
LISA PRIEST
Saturday, October 5, 2002
Tens of millions of dollars are being spent by provincial governments each year to quietly send patients to the United States for medical treatment because the care is unavailable in Canada or the waits are too long.
Documents obtained under the freedom of information law reveal that Ontario alone spent $67.4-million on preapproved U.S. medical treatment, including hospital and physician costs, from 1999 to 2002.
Other provinces reveal high figures as well. Quebec spent $25-million on radiation and cancer treatment from late 1999 to January of 2002; British Columbia spent $21.2-million from 1999 to 2002 in physician and hospital fees for preapproved, out-of-country treatments.
In addition, a growing number of Canadians are choosing to fund their own treatment in the U.S. when doctors have written them off or they are offered inferior care.
The main purpose of trips to the United States for an estimated 17,000 Canadians in 1998 was for medical treatment, according to Statistics Canada's most recent figures. That, according to Canadian Medical Association president Dana Hanson, is a "symptom that our system isn't addressing the needs of the population."
Some examples:
In Toronto, a surgeon opened, then closed 69-year-old Ian Abrams, saying the colon cancer that had spread to his liver was too advanced for surgery. Mr. Abrams went to M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Tex., and after paying more than $100,000 (U.S.) for an operation, is cancer free.
Robert Massicotte of Oakville, Ont., was told his death from prostate cancer was a certainty, but radiation and hormone treatment -- which would leave him impotent and with a bleeding rectum -- would buy him more time. Instead, he went to William Beaumont Hospital in Michigan for an innovative treatment with no side effects, paying some $40,000 (U.S.). Three years later, the 61-year-old is alive and had most of the money reimbursed.
The province would pay for an operation to remove a tumour from Allison Corbett's lung in Toronto, but it would leave the child a paraplegic with a permanent breathing tube. Instead, her parents took her to Long Island College Hospital in Brooklyn, N.Y., for a different surgery that left her able to run and walk like other children. The cost: $200,000 (U.S.) -- reimbursed after an appeal.
Toronto lawyer Richard Shekter is representing Mr. Abrams, the man who was essentially written off, before the Health Services Appeal and Review Board in an attempt to have him reimbursed.
"They will pay for your palliative care leading to inevitable death but they view life-saving procedures as inappropriate under our legislation," Mr. Shekter said. "There's a problem in funding that is truly epidemic."
Even Senator Michael Kirby, chairman of the Senate standing committee on social affairs, science and technology, recommended in an interim report that if patients can't get timely treatment in Canada, they should be sent to the United States.
Interviews with officials in every province and territory reveal that virtually all spend money on preapproved, out-of-country treatment, although they calculate their figures slightly differently.
To get such funding, the patient has to prove that the treatment is a valid one not available in Canada or, if it is, that a wait would cause death or irreversible damage.
Saskatchewan spent $1.1-million in preapproved out-of-country costs in 2001-2002, while Alberta shelled out $2.6-million during the same period. Nova Scotia spent $612,093 in 2001-2002 in hospital costs in the United States.
New Brunswick paid $239,616 (U.S.) on out-of-country medical treatment in 2001-2002; Nunavut spent $140,000 (U.S.) last year, while the Northwest Territories had no referrals outside of Canada.
Despite repeated requests, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Manitoba did not call back to provide figures.
The numbers do not include the cost of emergencies -- those cases where patients are on holiday on the United States and have a car accident or break a leg skiing.
In fact, if the emergencies are factored in, in addition to medical treatment funded through private insurance such as that obtained by snowbirds who spend the winter in the U.S. -- the number of Canadians receiving health care there jumps dramatically.
An estimated 166,000 Canadians received health services in the U.S. in 1998, Stats Canada says.
In Mr. Massicotte's case, he went to Michigan for brachytherapy, an advanced cancer treatment that involves putting radioactive seeds in or near the prostate tumour, after he was written off by Canadian doctors.
Many other patients, not content with Canadian treatment, research their cases on the Internet, where new treatments, names of top doctors and success rates are posted on U.S. hospital Web sites.
The CMA's Dr. Hanson said a commission is needed to track the wait times and availability of medical and diagnostic procedures to ensure patients get timely care.
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNews/gttech/TGAM/20021005/UCAREN5
LISA PRIEST
Saturday, October 5, 2002
Tens of millions of dollars are being spent by provincial governments each year to quietly send patients to the United States for medical treatment because the care is unavailable in Canada or the waits are too long.
Documents obtained under the freedom of information law reveal that Ontario alone spent $67.4-million on preapproved U.S. medical treatment, including hospital and physician costs, from 1999 to 2002.
Other provinces reveal high figures as well. Quebec spent $25-million on radiation and cancer treatment from late 1999 to January of 2002; British Columbia spent $21.2-million from 1999 to 2002 in physician and hospital fees for preapproved, out-of-country treatments.
In addition, a growing number of Canadians are choosing to fund their own treatment in the U.S. when doctors have written them off or they are offered inferior care.
The main purpose of trips to the United States for an estimated 17,000 Canadians in 1998 was for medical treatment, according to Statistics Canada's most recent figures. That, according to Canadian Medical Association president Dana Hanson, is a "symptom that our system isn't addressing the needs of the population."
Some examples:
In Toronto, a surgeon opened, then closed 69-year-old Ian Abrams, saying the colon cancer that had spread to his liver was too advanced for surgery. Mr. Abrams went to M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Tex., and after paying more than $100,000 (U.S.) for an operation, is cancer free.
Robert Massicotte of Oakville, Ont., was told his death from prostate cancer was a certainty, but radiation and hormone treatment -- which would leave him impotent and with a bleeding rectum -- would buy him more time. Instead, he went to William Beaumont Hospital in Michigan for an innovative treatment with no side effects, paying some $40,000 (U.S.). Three years later, the 61-year-old is alive and had most of the money reimbursed.
The province would pay for an operation to remove a tumour from Allison Corbett's lung in Toronto, but it would leave the child a paraplegic with a permanent breathing tube. Instead, her parents took her to Long Island College Hospital in Brooklyn, N.Y., for a different surgery that left her able to run and walk like other children. The cost: $200,000 (U.S.) -- reimbursed after an appeal.
Toronto lawyer Richard Shekter is representing Mr. Abrams, the man who was essentially written off, before the Health Services Appeal and Review Board in an attempt to have him reimbursed.
"They will pay for your palliative care leading to inevitable death but they view life-saving procedures as inappropriate under our legislation," Mr. Shekter said. "There's a problem in funding that is truly epidemic."
Even Senator Michael Kirby, chairman of the Senate standing committee on social affairs, science and technology, recommended in an interim report that if patients can't get timely treatment in Canada, they should be sent to the United States.
Interviews with officials in every province and territory reveal that virtually all spend money on preapproved, out-of-country treatment, although they calculate their figures slightly differently.
To get such funding, the patient has to prove that the treatment is a valid one not available in Canada or, if it is, that a wait would cause death or irreversible damage.
Saskatchewan spent $1.1-million in preapproved out-of-country costs in 2001-2002, while Alberta shelled out $2.6-million during the same period. Nova Scotia spent $612,093 in 2001-2002 in hospital costs in the United States.
New Brunswick paid $239,616 (U.S.) on out-of-country medical treatment in 2001-2002; Nunavut spent $140,000 (U.S.) last year, while the Northwest Territories had no referrals outside of Canada.
Despite repeated requests, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Manitoba did not call back to provide figures.
The numbers do not include the cost of emergencies -- those cases where patients are on holiday on the United States and have a car accident or break a leg skiing.
In fact, if the emergencies are factored in, in addition to medical treatment funded through private insurance such as that obtained by snowbirds who spend the winter in the U.S. -- the number of Canadians receiving health care there jumps dramatically.
An estimated 166,000 Canadians received health services in the U.S. in 1998, Stats Canada says.
In Mr. Massicotte's case, he went to Michigan for brachytherapy, an advanced cancer treatment that involves putting radioactive seeds in or near the prostate tumour, after he was written off by Canadian doctors.
Many other patients, not content with Canadian treatment, research their cases on the Internet, where new treatments, names of top doctors and success rates are posted on U.S. hospital Web sites.
The CMA's Dr. Hanson said a commission is needed to track the wait times and availability of medical and diagnostic procedures to ensure patients get timely care.
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNews/gttech/TGAM/20021005/UCAREN5
The typical response to that up here, Floyd, is that if people choose to cross the border for health care then that only decreases the burdens and the waiting periods for the rest of the population.
By the way, your figures amount to roughly 95¢ per person per year in US healthcare. The fact still remains, that although the procedure being treated across the border wasn't likely available here (can occur because of the rarity of the illness -- laws of supply and demand still exist in socialist institutions) doesn't change the fact that we are still willing to pay for it.
Maybe I can better explain my position on this issue as such -- I have had a total of four doctor's visits in the past five years. One included a broken arm, and the other three were routine. Obviously, I'm not exactly getting my money's worth at this point. If healthcare were privatised, I could easily afford it (no dependents.) However, the five year old kid on my street who is both diabetic and suffering from down's syndrome needs medical attention routinely. If his mother couldn't afford it, it would be one thing to say she should not receive any care, but I am completely loathe to suggest that the child should be denied the best care we have.
I understand the argument about personal responsibility, but state-supported health care does not automatically equate to a free ticket. It simply means that we all have access to the same quality of life.
(Pat: NFL schedules came out yesterday ... you, me, rematch on the season opener. Wager?)
By the way, your figures amount to roughly 95¢ per person per year in US healthcare. The fact still remains, that although the procedure being treated across the border wasn't likely available here (can occur because of the rarity of the illness -- laws of supply and demand still exist in socialist institutions) doesn't change the fact that we are still willing to pay for it.
Maybe I can better explain my position on this issue as such -- I have had a total of four doctor's visits in the past five years. One included a broken arm, and the other three were routine. Obviously, I'm not exactly getting my money's worth at this point. If healthcare were privatised, I could easily afford it (no dependents.) However, the five year old kid on my street who is both diabetic and suffering from down's syndrome needs medical attention routinely. If his mother couldn't afford it, it would be one thing to say she should not receive any care, but I am completely loathe to suggest that the child should be denied the best care we have.
I understand the argument about personal responsibility, but state-supported health care does not automatically equate to a free ticket. It simply means that we all have access to the same quality of life.
(Pat: NFL schedules came out yesterday ... you, me, rematch on the season opener. Wager?)
xpanda,
In the US, those children and elderly without insurance and below a certain income threshhold can have medicaire or medicaide. College students also get health insurance while they're in college.
It's a very small minority of indigents, bums, and able adults who choose not to do what they have to for medical insurance - and most if not all hospitals treat the un-insured - paying people get priority.
In the US, most of the un-insured comprise of a class of people who don't want to help themselves - and I see no reason why I should help them - I need my money for me and mine.
In the US, those children and elderly without insurance and below a certain income threshhold can have medicaire or medicaide. College students also get health insurance while they're in college.
It's a very small minority of indigents, bums, and able adults who choose not to do what they have to for medical insurance - and most if not all hospitals treat the un-insured - paying people get priority.
In the US, most of the un-insured comprise of a class of people who don't want to help themselves - and I see no reason why I should help them - I need my money for me and mine.
Sorry, my dear, I did not see the first article. Much better of the two, by the way.
First, let me say that I do not work in health care nor have I ever worked in health care. I do, however, know plenty of people who do, but most are 'grunts' so to speak, and only a couple of nurses. I don't know any doctors.
One of the chief problems we have in our system is the 'brain drain' to the US. There's little dispute that if you can make more money somewhere else (and make it in US dollars, to boot, when there are massive student loans to repay) is attractive to anyone, regardless of patriotism. That in mind, we lose doctors on a regular basis to the US.
Another point raised in the article discusses the land mass of Canada as compared to its population density. An issue that has arisen is trying to find doctors willing to work in places like Northern Ontario, where there's very little to do. I live very close to Toronto, so will make an assumption that some of the better doctors are located here, accounting for my maintained level of satisfaction with the system.
Another excellent point raised is the labour costs of our unionised employees. THIS is one that I will totally side with you guys on ... I am fairly anti-union (in industrialised nations with Labour Acts) and take issue with employees who make roughly $22.00 per hour to wash sheets.
I own a bar that is approximately three blocks away from one of my city's hospitals. I cannot even begin to count the number of times a hospital employee (not talking about medical staff) comes in during their lunch break, has a couple of pints, then doesn't bother to go back as they have their pager with them. The number of sick days they take is astronomical. A girlfriend of mine is in HR at this same hospital and the attitude of the employees is astounding. There is a rumour spreading that wages will be overhauled to meet the level of the 'regular joe.' I would wholeheartedly support this.
The Canadian system in large part suffers because of the for-profit version in the US. Not blaming, just being realistic. It will be a challenge for us to elevate our advancements etc to your levels, and maybe it will prove to be unreachable. I would wholeheartedly reject a two-tiered system, however. I tend to believe that you need to handle this situation with a firm 'one way or the other' mindset. Either healthcare is a socialist institution or its a capitalist one.
Sorry for the long-winded reply.
First, let me say that I do not work in health care nor have I ever worked in health care. I do, however, know plenty of people who do, but most are 'grunts' so to speak, and only a couple of nurses. I don't know any doctors.
One of the chief problems we have in our system is the 'brain drain' to the US. There's little dispute that if you can make more money somewhere else (and make it in US dollars, to boot, when there are massive student loans to repay) is attractive to anyone, regardless of patriotism. That in mind, we lose doctors on a regular basis to the US.
Another point raised in the article discusses the land mass of Canada as compared to its population density. An issue that has arisen is trying to find doctors willing to work in places like Northern Ontario, where there's very little to do. I live very close to Toronto, so will make an assumption that some of the better doctors are located here, accounting for my maintained level of satisfaction with the system.
Another excellent point raised is the labour costs of our unionised employees. THIS is one that I will totally side with you guys on ... I am fairly anti-union (in industrialised nations with Labour Acts) and take issue with employees who make roughly $22.00 per hour to wash sheets.
I own a bar that is approximately three blocks away from one of my city's hospitals. I cannot even begin to count the number of times a hospital employee (not talking about medical staff) comes in during their lunch break, has a couple of pints, then doesn't bother to go back as they have their pager with them. The number of sick days they take is astronomical. A girlfriend of mine is in HR at this same hospital and the attitude of the employees is astounding. There is a rumour spreading that wages will be overhauled to meet the level of the 'regular joe.' I would wholeheartedly support this.
The Canadian system in large part suffers because of the for-profit version in the US. Not blaming, just being realistic. It will be a challenge for us to elevate our advancements etc to your levels, and maybe it will prove to be unreachable. I would wholeheartedly reject a two-tiered system, however. I tend to believe that you need to handle this situation with a firm 'one way or the other' mindset. Either healthcare is a socialist institution or its a capitalist one.
Sorry for the long-winded reply.
Having health insurance does not make you one bit more healthy and life insurance does not allow you to live one day longer. It's more appropriately called disease insurance. Disease insurance not health insurance. Now go eat your carrots and run some sprints. If you allow yourself to become a pig - go screw yourself because I don't want to pick up your medical bills - sloth.
Do you have more faith in a knife or a spoonful of medicine than you have in the power that animated this world? Goofballs.
Do you have more faith in a knife or a spoonful of medicine than you have in the power that animated this world? Goofballs.
