cleared, then busted

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:39:36 +0000, David CL Francis wrote:

The hybrid systems In Germany, France and Scandinavia seem to work
better.

a hybrid system in Germany? what'd you mean by that?

for the rest of your 'knowledgeable' post on national health ca yeah!
you sure know how it works in Europe. :-))

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

Happy Dog wrote:


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, Bob Noel
said:
In article , (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:
They can't do a worse job than the beancounters are doing now. Says
the
guy who had two doctor ordered treatments turned down by ****ing
insurance
companies.

I don't want to bet your health or life on it. Says the guy working
in the acquisition of systems for the government.

I bet the first 35 years of my life on the Canadian system, and it worked
pretty damn well.

You ever need dialysis? Ever wonder what you would do if medical
attention was available (for the person of your choice) and that you could
afford, but
not allowed? Examples of this situation abound. Try to get a
non-emergency
MRI in Toronto within a year. Try to get dialysis (even just for fun).
What did you bet on? What was your ante?

le moo

While perhaps interesting for comparison purposes, the availability of
dialysis "just for fun", or any other elective medical procedure isn't
really relavent. I don't care how long one has to wait for that nose job.
What's important is what happens when one is sick/broken and not wealthy.

I've never been treated in Canada but from what I gather the Canadians have
a good system that accomodates most everyone in a humane way. Contrast that
to the US system where if you are middle class or below and get sick you
risk extra trouble from the stress of (real or potential) denial which
could lead to financial ruin. If you're unemployed you may be denied
followup treatment altogether.

I am fully aware that "free" health care promotes abuse. People should have
a stake in their own treatment's cost when they are able to pay. But the
notion that just about everyone in the US is one major illness away from
financial ruin is what's wrong here.

Getting sick is bad enough, but adding to the suffering so drug companies
and HMO's can make big profits is wrong. Add the fact that these same
entities more or less wrote the laws by buying off the Congress and it
becomes downright immoral.

Again, don't get me wrong - I don't begrudge any legitimate business a
profit, but the drug companies are out of control. Their profits are
obscene and way beyond what they need to recover research costs. Their
manipulation of the various patent laws topped off with their misleading
advertising costs all of us.
--
Frank....H

In a previous article, Frank said:
I am fully aware that "free" health care promotes abuse. People should have
a stake in their own treatment's cost when they are able to pay. But the
notion that just about everyone in the US is one major illness away from
financial ruin is what's wrong here.

A good friend of mine has cancer. She's been living and working in the US
for several years, and bought a house here. She's unable to work because
of the cancer, and her COBRA is just about to run out. The hospital she
is currently confined to plans to chuck her out on the street because they
don't take Medicare patients. So add to the stress of being bedridden
with probably terminal cancer, she has to arrange to sell her house and
move back to Canada because it's the only way to get decent cancer
treatment.

The US system ****ing sucks.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I didn't know it was impossible when I did it."

Solution: We all move to Canada, Paul, and the bankrupt Canadian welfare
system will make us all healthy and beautiful....

Denny

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in The US system ****ing sucks.

In a previous article, "Dennis O'Connor" said:
Solution: We all move to Canada, Paul, and the bankrupt Canadian welfare
system will make us all healthy and beautiful....

Or you could stay in a country that condems people to die because they're
not wealthy.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Deciding to precipitate the disaster, I have donned my copper armour,
filled a fire bucket, and wired myself to all the important swervers.
-- A fatalistic BOFH

"Frank" wrote in message
...
I am fully aware that "free" health care promotes abuse.

The experience of countries where it is "free" is that it doesn't.

Note for Steve McNicholl - yes I know it's not free. Can we just agree to
call it "free" in the same way as you get highways and a police service for
"free".

It's possible that the lack of abuse is because of the different attitudes
in other countries. In the US, there is more of a tendency to the belief
that people should get what they can pay for, and choice should drive the
design of the systems. In other English-speaking countries, health care in
particular is held as a common good, and you are more likely to hear Joe
Public concerned about "the old people, the poor people" than themselves.
I'm talking about the center of gravity here; of course there are individual
exceptions. As usual, there are these unexamined deep differences that make
the more superficial arguments sound like shouting past each other.

It's also possible that British and Canadian hospitals are so ghastly that
nobody in their right mind would want to spend an unnecessary moment in
them, while Americans are all hypochondriacs who love to spend time reading
magazine in their local hospitotel, and want a fistful of pills every time
they find a speck of wax in their ears or lint in their bellybuttons.

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

Note for Steve McNicholl - yes I know it's not free.


Do you also know it costs more where it's "free"?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

Note for Steve McNicholl - yes I know it's not free.


Do you also know it costs more where it's "free"?

Please share. I have never ever ever seen a factual economic-based
comparison between the US, Canadian and British systems, from any side of
the argument, where that is true. The overhead involved in keeping all those
insurance company droids and doctors' billing agents employed far outweighs
any inefficiencies of single-payer. The British system also throws in a
well-integrated system of paramedicals (health visitors, nurse
practitioners) and outreach (like the 200-lb District Nurse battering your
door down to give your baby a wellness check) for "free".

-- David Brooks

Happy Dog wrote:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Happy Dog" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
I bet the first 35 years of my life on the Canadian system, and
it
worked
pretty damn well.

You ever need dialysis? Ever wonder what you would do if medical
attention
was available (for the person of your choice) and that you could
afford,
but
not allowed? Examples of this situation abound. Try to get a
non-emergency
MRI in Toronto within a year. Try to get dialysis (even just for
fun).
What did you bet on? What was your ante?

My father had a heart attack a few years ago, near Toronto.

That's hardly a non-emergency condition.

He got MRIs,
CAT scans, and surgery, all within a few hours. He was operated on
by a
world famous cardiac surgeon who has been profiled on the US
science show
"NOVA". Now he gets drugs that would cost thousands of dollars a
week.

Surgery within hours, eh? And drugs costing thousands per week? For
years?
Can you give us some more details on his condition?

So I anted my father's life, and won.

Compare and contrast with the US system, where my doctor has twice
referred me to chronic pain specialists only to have the insurance
company
turn me down. I've switched insurance companies, but they're all
in
collusion to treat chronic pain sufferers as nothing but whiners.
Oh, and
they wouldn't pay to treat the depression caused by the chronic
pain,
either. They're all a bunch of ****ing *******s, and they have the
entire
US political system in their pockets because politics runs on
money, and
they've made plenty by denying proper medical care even to those
lucky
enough to supposedly have coverage.

Got news for you. You wouldn't fare much better in Canada.
hd



Based on, exactly, what? Do you work for Transport Canada, Nav Canada?
Let's
hear it big mouth...

Zee