posted on November 28, 2006 08:10:14 AM new"ALL in American have HEALTH CARE - "NO BODY goes without any care at all" - another ignorant statement. We already have many entitlement programs that PAY for the health care of those who CAN'T afford it.
Linda, What a FALSE misrepresentation of the truth! Most bankruptcys in this country are caused by unaffordable medical expense. People in this country go without insurance and drugs and medical care because they cannot afford insurance. They cannot afford drugs and they cannot afford medical care. Free health care is NOT available for MILLIONS of people in this country...most of whom are hard working people in the middle income class.
No one pays for me, dingbat. I am fortunate to have funds to pay for myself. Anything over the amount that I can pay is insured.
You are so uninformed that reasonable conversation with you is impossible.
posted on November 28, 2006 08:16:13 AM new
You can keep googling forever by using selective words such as 'crisis' and finding isolated incidents or the worst propaganda about any system, Linda but one thing you're sadly missing is that no one is claiming that any other country's system is best because they all have some faults. Your time would be better spent if you checked the stats on CIA Factbook, World Health Organization or Nationmaster to get a better overall picture of world health from legitimate reports.
Most Canadians would have no problem paying more for health care if our system was more like one in the Scandinavian countries or France. Right now Canada's system is not the best but it's working better than many other countries and most of the population is cared for and benefiting from it by being in good health.
I would be interested in knowing why the US has the highest child maltreatment deaths in the entire world.
posted on November 28, 2006 08:32:40 AM newSome just want everything for "free". Guess what....NOTHING is free.....we ALL will be paying MUCH higher taxes to pay for the helen's in America who don't want to pay for themselves....even when they can.
You're really out of line on that one, Linda. In fact you were stating over on OTWA how your OWN relatives who could well afford to pay for their health care managed to find a way to get the taxpayers to pay for it so they didn't have to.
posted on November 28, 2006 09:17:41 AM new
Myths Debunked
Americans Have the Best Health Care in the World
Chicago Tribune
Health care in France gets top marks Quality praised, even as some lament costs
Chicago Tribune; Chicago, Ill.; Jul 8, 2001; Ray Moseley, Tribune foreign correspondent
The World Health Organization in Geneva rates national health systems by a variety of criteria, and on all scales France is among the world's leaders.
U.S. ranks 37th
In overall performance--relating achievement to expenditure-- France ranks No. 1 in the world, the U.S. 37th. All 15 nations of the European Union, with similar systems, fare better than the U.S. in the WHO ratings--even Britain, whose underfunded system is widely criticized in Europe.
All are based on the premise that every resident is guaranteed the same quality of health care, by contrast with the U.S., where 40 million people have no health insurance.
This represents a major philosophical and cultural difference between Europe and the U.S., and whether Americans would ever accept such a concept is open to debate. A bill expanding the rights of patients in dealing with their health insurers recently passed the Senate but faces an uncertain future in the House. Former President Bill Clinton's ambitious universal health-care plan died in Congress in 1994."""
posted on November 28, 2006 09:23:33 AM new
I've worked in the health care field for over 30 years, Linda. You are delusional if you think decent health care is available to any American. Of course, wealthy people have the best of care. At the other end of the scale, there is assistance for poor people, but the level of care is far from great. However, it is the vast middle class that has a good chance of going bankrupt should they have a serious illness in the family, whether they have medical insurance or not. It is a leading cause of bankruptcy in this country. Many insurance policies have caps on the coverage. Even when the illness is covered for its duration, at the usual 80%/20%, 20% of thousands and thousands of dollars adds up to a lot of money. Throw in the deductible, costs arbitrarily not covered by the insurance company, and voila---you are bankrupt!
posted on November 28, 2006 09:59:01 AM new
LOL....No, coincoach I am NOT delusionsal. lol
I KNOW the facts....which it appears many here don't know.
I also worked in the medical field for years and KNOW EXACTLY where we sent patients who came to us who had no med. ins....we sent them to the county hospitals...where they are given FREE medical care...or their fees are based on their ability to pay.
So...you're not fooling me.
==========
Yes, let's take a look at the healthcare system in France. Where 15,000 french citizens DIED because of a simple HEAT WAVE and their med. system couldn't DEAL WITH IT. Oh, yea....I want that system RIGHT NOW.
================
ALL the countries that have socialized medicine ARE having to live with RATIONED health care. ALL have long waits....canada being the worst.
=========
There's a 2006 report from the New England Journal of Medicine that speaks to the issue of the CRISIS in Germany's health care delivery system. For God's sake...the doctors even went on STRIKE to bring attention to the poor MEDICAL care their patients were getting.
In Germany ALL are required to pay 14% out of they pay checks for medical care. FORCED to pay it...as are their EMPLOYERS....FORCED to pay it. That's 28% right there...and they STILL don't have enough money to be able to STOP rationing their health care.
None of you read or hear about that one?
Nope...because it appears you've got your head buried in the sand and can't FACE the reality that while those socialized health plans cost a fortune....they AREN'T doing/can't handle what they thought they'd be able to.
You've got your hands out....give me ...give me...give me....I DESERVE it...I'm entitled....I shouldn't have to WORK or EARN it myself....the big brother gov. OWES it to me...just because I was born.
NONSENSE....stop growing gov....stop becoming more and more DEPENDENT on BIG BROTHER...and grow up...take care of yourselves....earn your own way.
And ANY research on their medical budget problems will enlighten those who are ignorant of the FACTS.
That's why most are starting to COPY OUR SYSTEM of medical care....because they NOW see their's ISN'T working.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Dr. David Himmelstein, the lead author of a study by Harvard Medical and Law schools and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard commented: "Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick."
Insurance offers little protection during a serious illness. The study found that uncovered expenses averaged $13,460 for those with insurance and for insured people with cancer the average debt was $35,878.
So...insurance is not the answer, it's the problem. For the money that we waste on insurance bureaucracy and profits we could provide health coverage to all Americans.
posted on November 28, 2006 10:10:14 AM new
Maybe any of those here who support socialized medicine here in the US....might answer THIS question.
Why if the other nations where they socialized medicine is having to RATION medical care.....are they then turning to OUR system and away from their 'single payer' system?
If ours is so bad....why are they CHOOSING to start using ours?????
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on November 28, 2006 10:15:44 AM new
Any one here want to have to file a legal suit against our gov. for NOT giving us proper breast cancer treatment?????
10,000 Canadian women had to do just that.
Many cancer patients get their cancer surgery but have to wait MONTHS for chemo/radiation. You want that for yourself when you've be diagnosed with breast cancer? I sure don't.
And it's not only occurring in Canada....but in many of these countries who have socialized, RATIONED medical care. Their citizens cancers are GROWING because they have to wait so long ...
to get in to see the doctors in the first place
...then they don't have enough [per capita] diagnostic equipment....so you wait then again
....and after you wait for your surgery then you can wait some more for ANY treatment to prevent it from reoccurring.
NOT the type of medical care I'm looking for.
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 28, 2006 10:18 AM ]
posted on November 28, 2006 11:28:21 AM new
Linda, I said in my post that low income people have medical care available, albeit not the best. I would not like to be in their shoes with a catastrophic illness. The middle class, as I pointed out in my previous post, is the group which is in trouble. Medical insurance premiums are out of sight and, in the case of serious or prolonged illness, medical costs are likely to bankrupt the families. Medical care in this country is in crisis and needs a major overhaul. I am talking about U.S. medical care, not Canada, Germany, France, etc.I cannot tell you how many hours a day I spend talking to insurance companies, trying to get them to cover tests or treatments for seriously ill patients (in an HIV practice)and they will give you a million reasons why they don't want to cover it, very few of them medically valid. Something is wrong with the system.
posted on November 28, 2006 11:51:32 AM new
coincoach....I have NEVER said we couldn't use some changes in how the people of America get better medical coverage. I don't believe we have to go the route of socialized med. care...because we can see it only means RATIONED care. I don't want my health care RATIONED. I don't want our Nation making it ILLEGAL for me to purchase my OWN medical insurance as canada has made law. Nope.....I want CHOICE.
While you appear to support socialized medicine here in the US...I'm telling you that IF you think things are BAD now.....they're going to go from 'bad' to 'MUCH WORSE' if we take that route.
Anyone can already see how much fraud, mismanagement there already is in MOST if not all our government entitlement programs - how poorly they are run/managed - how they are grossly underfunded. And NOW how the dems are talking about CUTTING medicare benefits when they take power.
To add another HUGE, HUGE monstrosity that will ALSO allow our medical care...quality...etc...be dictated by POLITICIANS....is nothing more than crazy thinking imo.
I NEVER want my health care in the hands of some big brother bureaucracy - because I can SEE how willing politicans are to spend our tax dollars on what THEY want them spent on.....NOT what WE need or want.
Just take a look at how most politicians AREN'T willing to fund these socialized medicine programs FULLY. Nope, they're RATIONING care.
posted on November 28, 2006 01:03:08 PM new
"Yes, let's take a look at the healthcare system in France. Where 15,000 french citizens DIED because of a simple HEAT WAVE and their med. system couldn't DEAL WITH IT. Oh, yea....I want that system RIGHT NOW."
The mean avg. life expectancy of a French citizen is rising faster than anywhere in the world.
posted on November 28, 2006 01:37:52 PM new Linda posted..."Yes, let's take a look at the healthcare system in France. Where 15,000 french citizens DIED because of a simple HEAT WAVE and their med. system couldn't DEAL WITH IT. Oh, yea....I want that system RIGHT NOW."
The infant mortality rate for France
total: 4.21 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 4.71 deaths/1,000 live births
The infant mortality rate for the United States
total: 6.43 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 7.09 deaths/1,000 live births
Life Expectancy for France
total population: 79.73 years
male: 76.1 years
female: 83.54 years (2006 est.)
Life Expectancy for U.S.
total population: 77.85 years
male: 75.02 years
female: 80.82 years (2006 est.)
As you can see, your information is wrong. France has a longer life expectance that the U.S. and a lower infant mortality.
The problem with the unexpected heat wave was due to a lack of disaster coordination, which has been addressed. The failure there was similar to our failure here in dealing with Katrina.
posted on November 28, 2006 02:03:22 PM new
Linda--I don't know if Socialization is the answer, but something has to be done. Health insurance is out of hand, medical facilities and physicians are being forced to practice medicine according to some paper pusher's idea of health care and greedy pharmaceutical companies want to make a killing on every new drug. Doctors are not blameless either. They have contributed their share to these problems, such as allowing themselves to be bribed by pharmaceutical reps who take them out for expensive dinners, send them on trips, and give endless gifts in return for using the newest outrageously expensive "miracle drug." Usually, I am not in favor of government interference, but IMHO this situation seems to call for it.
posted on November 28, 2006 03:41:10 PM new
Poor linduh, fails to see that right now the Health INSURANCE COMPANIES decide what her health care will be NOT the doctors......
posted on November 28, 2006 10:11:48 PM new
Linda, that's corny - bringing up that Quebec breast cancer suit again. Why is it so difficult for you to see that Kiara is right? While every system has faults, ours is pretty good considering how far apart the population is spread ~ which is what Kiara has been saying all along. I'm sure there are just as many negatives with a paying system, don't you think?
posted on November 29, 2006 07:42:29 AM new
I have AGAIN noticed that none of those who come to the defense of socialized medicine have answered MY question.
Can't ANY of you answer a simple question.
IF socialized medicine is the ANSWER....then why are some Nations, like Cananda, turning to using OUR system....private care?
Appears to me they wouldn't be doing that IF those systems were 'working' as they were meant to be.
=====================
coincoach: ...."medical facilities and physicians are being forced to practice medicine according to some paper pusher's idea of health care...."
I agree....and that's only going to get MUCH worse is any kind of a socialized health care system. Then it won't be JUST 'some paper puser's idea'....it will be politicians......and you know how most American's se THEM as a group. lol lol
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on November 29, 2006 07:47:03 AM new
And as I've pointed out HUNDREDS of times....when the hellen's of our board post these stats.....they aren't correct.
Why aren't they? Because while it APPEARS our infant mortality rate [etc] is higher than some...it's because the 'stats' AREN'T equal....they're NOT alike when taken...different Nations count different groups than the US does.
There's NO UNIFORMITY in the way the numbers are used.
So, of course theirs would 'look' lower than ours....they're aren't counting ALL of theirs....while WE do.
I've also posted links, repeatedly, about how each Nation has DIFFERENT ways they accumulate their numbers - which they take/use and which they don't.
Obvious to no avail...as SOME can't GRASP that at all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 29, 2006 08:01 AM ]
posted on November 29, 2006 07:54:36 AM new
hillbillymo -
You said: "The mean avg. life expectancy of a French citizen is rising faster than anywhere in the world."
So are you ASSUMING that's because of their socialized health care?
If not...then PROVE it's not because they eat more healthy foods....get more excersise than most American's....the drink more red wine....etc...etc...etc.
Because they live longer than we do doesn't mean that's BECAUSE of their health are system....it can be because of hundreds of lifestyle differences.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
linduh, the insurance company determines health care, NOT doctors.
"""In overall performance--relating achievement to expenditure-- France ranks No. 1 in the world, the U.S. 37th. All 15 nations of the European Union, with similar systems, fare better than the U.S. in the WHO ratings--even Britain, whose underfunded system is widely criticized in Europe.
All are based on the premise that every resident is guaranteed the same quality of health care, by contrast with the U.S., where 40 million people have no health insurance.""""
posted on November 29, 2006 08:18:44 AM new
Hi Kraft!
IF socialized medicine is the ANSWER....then why are some Nations, like Cananda, turning to using OUR system....private care?
Linda, as you've been told here for several years but FAIL to grasp, it is because Canada does not have a perfect system and parts of it need attention. It's a huge country with a small population and each province manages its own health care under the national health act.
Priority areas for improvement are being addressed. In B.C. times for cancer radiation treatments are less than a week. MRI equipment is being added at a steady rate since 2001. Wait times for heart surgeries have dropped significantly since 2004. Wait times for hip and knee surgeries have dropped drastically in the last year but improvements still have to be made because of the increasing demand for these surgeries.
In turn I could ask you why Americans are coming to Canada for their health care.
edited for grammar
[ edited by kiara on Nov 29, 2006 08:22 AM ]
posted on November 29, 2006 09:06:55 AM new
The ONLY reason things have JUST NOW begun to change is because the VOTERS let the politicians KNOW they were going to/and did take action to get the health care they'd been PROMISED...and weren't getting.
So...now after having to 'fight' for what was 'rightfully' theirs....the politicians did FINALLY provide more funding towards the CRISIS areas.
We don't know, at this point in time IF it will be enough. But it will mean these funds will have to come from/at the expense of other items/areas.
One Supreme Court decision may have done more to change health care in Canada than three major reports and a first ministers conference that ended with a $41-billion infusion into the system.
On June 9, 2005, the high court struck down a Quebec law that prohibited people from buying private health insurance to cover procedures already offered by the public system.
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," two of the justices wrote in their decision.
The Quebec and federal governments asked the high court to suspend its ruling for 18 months. Less than two months after its initial ruling, the court agreed to suspend its decision for 12 months, retroactive to June 9, 2005.
In the provincial government's response in February 2006, Premier Jean Cherest said the private sector could play a role in health care in Quebec, but said he remained committed to public health care. He also said Quebec will introduce guaranteed wait times for procedures including some radiation treatments and cardiac surgery, as well as knee and hip replacements and cataract operations.
The ruling has impact only on Quebec, but it could eventually lead to some of the biggest changes since former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas was credited with fathering medicare.
Most Canadians take government-funded health care for granted today, but when it was first introduced in Saskatchewan in 1962, most of the province's doctors responded by going on strike to protest against "creeping socialism."
The strike lasted three weeks - public support for the doctors had collapsed, persuading the doctors to accept a deal with the government. Within five years, government-funded health care spread across the country.
While most Canadians - 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada - are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery.
Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive.
A long wait for hip replacement surgery was what prompted the Quebec case that wound up before the Supreme Court.
George Zeliotis argued his yearlong wait for surgery was unreasonable, endangered his life, and infringed on the charter's guarantee of the right to life, liberty and security.
The second plaintiff, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, wanted the court to overturn a Quebec provision preventing doctors who don't operate within the medicare plan from charging for services in public hospitals.
Once upon a time, there were few complaints about lengthy waits for treatment. It was a time when the federal government provided about a third of the money the provinces spent on health care.
But as government belts tightened to deal with record budget deficits in the early 1990s, complaints about access to health care increased.
The federal government drastically cut the amount of money it transferred to the provinces to cover health-care costs.
By the time another former Saskatchewan premier - Roy Romanow - released his landmark report on fixing medicare in 2002, Ottawa had slashed its share to about 16 per cent of the total.
Romanow recommended an immediate infusion of federal dollars, to bring Ottawa's share up to 25 per cent.
With Romanow's landmark report under their belts, the nation's first ministers gathered in Ottawa in February 2003 for a meeting that was described as the most important session on health care since Canada adopted medicare.
The prime minister, premiers and territorial leaders got together to try to turn some of Romanow's recommendations into action.
In the end, they agreed on several improvements:
$16-billion, five-year Health Reform Fund for primary care, home care and catastrophic drug coverage
$13.5 billion in new federal funding to the provinces over three years
$2.5 billion cash infusion for 2003
$600 million for information technology
$500 million for research
The premiers said they were signing on reluctantly and that much of the money had already been promised. In the end, they said, they were getting about half of what Romanow recommended. The territorial leaders, on the other hand, didn't even sign the agreement. They argued that Ottawa was being inflexible - the north would be receiving the same amount of money per capita as the rest of the country, despite the much higher costs of delivering health care in Canada's most remote regions.
To a large degree, the 2004 federal election turned into a debate about the future of health care in Canada. The Liberals accused the newly united Conservatives of plotting to turn medicare into a two-tiered system where those who could afford to pay more would be able to buy speedier access to the system.
In 2004, the federal government and the premiers agreed to a $41-billion infusion into the system over 10 years.
Among the key parts of the agreement:
Ensuring stable, predictable long-term funding.
Implementing a National Waiting Times Reduction.
Creating a National Home Care Program.
Developing a national strategy for prescription drug care.
Respecting the Canada Health Act.
Less than two months after the election, Prime Minister Martin convened a first ministers conference on health care. It was to last three days.
Alberta Premier Ralph Klein stuck around for only the first day.
In the end, the conference lasted longer than planned, with most of the work done behind closed doors. There was a deal that provided for a $41-billion infusion into the system over 10 years.
Among the key parts of the agreement:
$3.5 billion over two years in additional transfers to the provinces and territories.
An "escalator clause" that automatically boosts transfers by six per cent a year to keep up with rising health costs.
$4.5 billion over six years for a special fund to reduce waiting times for treatment.
In addition, a National Wait Times Strategy was developed for five priority areas:
cancer care,
cardiac treatment,
diagnostic tests such as MRIs,
joint replacements and
cataract surgeries.
There may have been smiles and handshakes around the table, but the deal may not have been enough to persuade the Supreme Court that the health-care system was off the critical list.
In response in 2006, the federal government said it was moving toward what it called "patient wait-time guarantees" by 2008.
If maximum acceptable wait times aren't met, patients would have "recourse," or another way of getting that medical care, such as going to another facility or province, federal Health Minister Tony Clement told the Canadian Medical Association's annual meeting in Charlottetown.
Funds for the recourse could come from the remaining $1 billion not yet allocated from the $5.5 billion pledged for reducing wait times in 2004, the CMA proposed.
===================
"funds pledged for reducing wait times in 2004"....obviously not spent for just that. So now in 2006 they've had to make ANOTHER promise.
========
No, thank you. For all these years....the 1990's to present..patients have DIED..suffered...and were forced to FIGHT for what they were promised.
I'll deal with my own insurance company rather than going through all that BS....and hopefully before I'd die trying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 29, 2006 09:24 AM ]
posted on November 29, 2006 09:29:50 AM new
"""The ONLY reason things have JUST NOW begun to change is because the VOTERS let the politicians KNOW they were going to/and did take action to get the health care they'd been PROMISED...and weren't getting.
So...now after having to 'fight' for what was 'rightfully' theirs....the politicians did FINALLY provide more funding towards the CRISIS areas.
We don't know, at this point in time IF it will be enough. But it will mean these funds will have to come from/at the expense of other items/areas"""
Sounds just like the good ol' U. S. of A. !!!!
NOW maybe things will change....for the better...if we follow CANADA'S lead
posted on November 29, 2006 09:34:12 AM new
As I said a few years ago and again a couple of days ago, we all do our part to make the system more efficient. Part of that is by voting or by attending meetings that address health care issues in our own locales but most of us are bright enough to realize that it will never happen overnight. We are pleased that our voices are being heard and that more improvements are being made to a system that was already quite good.
Primary concerns are being addressed and 80% of the population is satisfied according to stats. Most of the population receives good care and are in good health. Even though we each purchase our own health insurance we don't live in fear that we will lose our homes and be out on the street because we can't pay our medical bills.
I have agreed from the start that our system isn't perfect but it's almost as if you want to fight about it, Linda.
You didn't answer why Americans still come to Canada for their health care.
posted on November 29, 2006 09:41:48 AM new
Another canadian article that I read recently gives me MORE concern about the 'gov' making medical decisons.
Here they have citizens who are on HUGE waiting list for imagining tests [cat scans, MRI's, ect] and rather than keeping those diagnostic machines running 24/7 SINCE it may be a matter of life and death to these patients...
...what are they using them for? PETS - animals..rather than citizens.
On this link there is a link to the original article....these are comments from other Canadians that weren't too happy about THIS being done either.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on November 29, 2006 09:54:44 AM new
Kiara, I have a naughty idea....why don't we agree with linduh on the health care in Canada.
Then she will explode in a hot ball of gas, frustrated with her rather sick obsession to argue about the health care system of another country that doesn't affect her in any way. Waco or wacko....it's NUTS!
What does she win IF Canada has worse health care....a new car?????
