Archive for Friday, January 8, 2010

Canadians tout health system during panel discussion in Lawrence

Three Canadians spoke Friday afternoon during a panel discussion on health care. The discussion was part of the Kansas Farmers Union annual convention at the Lawrence Holidome.

January 8, 2010

Advertisement

Canadians described their single-payer health care system as one that works.

“I love it. I wouldn’t change it for anything,” said Dale Kuyek, a licensed practical nurse in Saskatchewan.

Dale Kuyek

Dale Kuyek

Harry Van Mulligen

Harry Van Mulligen

When she broke her foot and had a plate and 11 screws put in, she didn’t have to worry about costs or quality care. She said she got both.

Everything that should have been done, was done,” Kuyek said. “It didn’t cost me anything. It was paid for through my tax dollars and I had wonderful care.”

She was one of three Canadians who spoke Friday afternoon during a panel discussion on health care. The discussion was part of the Kansas Farmers Union annual convention at the Lawrence Holidome.

Kuyek, who works in a hospital emergency room, said all hospital costs are covered. She said the wait for medical care is comparable to the United States.

But more importantly, everyone gets medical care. Kuyek said her parents are in their 80s. One recently had back surgery and another suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and they had no trouble getting care and didn’t have to worry about paying for it.

“There no discrimination,” she said. “Whoever comes in that door is seen and we as nurses have no idea what their income level is.”

Harry Van Mulligen, a retired legislator from Saskatchewan, said 90 percent of Canadians support their health care system.

He said the United States outspends every country in the world when it comes to health care because of the construction of its system. And then he offered this food for thought: Is the U.S. getting better outcomes? Are people living longer?

“That doesn’t appear to be the case,” he said.

Comments

Olympics 5 years, 6 months ago

How dare those polite neighbors to the north provide a better alternative to our system.

USA USA USA

situveux1 5 years, 6 months ago

Why then are so many Canadians coming to the US for health care they say they can't get in Canada?

Olympics 5 years, 6 months ago

Canadian health care survey (from Wikipedia): "it was reported that only 0.5% sought medical care in the U.S. in the previous year. Of these, less than a quarter had traveled to the U.S. expressly to get that care."

Stephen Roberts 5 years, 6 months ago

Because Canada sets the price for the drugs. Americans have ot pay for R & D to research more drugs because Canada sets the prices for drugs.

Tom McCune 5 years, 6 months ago

The Canadian system is probably the worst public health system among major countries in terms of waiting times and rationing of services, and they STILL like it better than ours. Our system stinks.

Sharon Aikins 5 years, 6 months ago

Personal experience with the health care system in Quebec, the poorest province in Canada, showed me that even though it is bad, it is no worse than what we have here. The only problem there is that the waiting times are often longer to be seen in ER's and for treatment. But you go in, they swipe your card and then you don't have to worry about how much it is going to cost you in spite of having insurance.

Corey Williams 5 years, 6 months ago

Healthcare_Moocher (Anonymous) says… "If it is so wonderful, consider moving there. It is that simple. It is not on you to determine what is correct for me or anyone else."

If I could, I would; and I have tried. Three different times. Do you have any idea how hard it is to move to a different country? The qualifications you have to meet? Well, except for the USA.

In 04, a Canadian residency visa wold have taken up to two years to be approved. A residency permit for the US took about five months.

And Commuter, it isn't just that "Americans have ot pay for R & D to research more drugs because Canada sets the prices for drugs.", it's also that Canadian companies have lower liability costs. And of course, Americans also have to pay for all that advertising.

BigPrune 5 years, 6 months ago

I know a guy who fell off a balcony inside a cabin while on a trip to Canada. He impaled himself on a chair and a wooden dowel was sticking out of one of his butt cheeks. It took him 5 hours waiting in the emergency room before the medical staff could treat him. As he layed on his stomach on a gurney in the hallway for all those excrutiating hours with a 2' stick jammed in his butt, he wished he was in the United States in one our hospitals.

Just some food for thought.

seriouscat 5 years, 6 months ago

Because people in the U.S. with non-lethal injuries never, ever have to wait in the ER for five hours. Great argument.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

BigPrune-- I had a serious injury several years ago (requiring 18 stitches to repair) and sat bleeding in the ER waiting room at LMH for nearly two hours before I got any treatment.

seriouscat 5 years, 6 months ago

The real difference is that in the U.S. the guy would be harassed by some guy in the ambulance who is there solely to check his insurance card, and if he doesn't have one he would receive a bill for $10,000 from the hospital which he can't pay so the rest of us would pick up the bill in higher costs.

Rah rah rah USA USA!!!

leedavid 5 years, 6 months ago

Hmmm! Not every Canadian agrees with these three...

"Canadians' satisfaction with health care declining: CMA Access to specialists and diagnostic tests given failing grades"

(Quotes from the article)

"Canadians reported a decline in the quality of health care they're receiving, finds a Canadian Medical Association survey released Monday, though regional pockets of satisfaction do exist."

"Access to specialists and diagnostic tests were two categories that generated poor scores. Twenty-one per cent of Canadians surveyed gave access to medical specialists an F, and 19 per cent gave the same grade for access to modern diagnostic equipment, such as MRI or CT scans.

Twenty-one per cent awarded an F for access to health-care services on evenings and weekends and 16 per cent awarded an F for access to mental health-care services.

'Wait times are really a symptom of lack of capacity and the chief lack of capacity that we have is human and professional.'

—Colin McMillanThe percentage of Canadians who are happy with the federal government's action on health care has also declined, with 33 per cent giving it an A (29 per cent) or B (42 per cent), down from 39 per cent in 2006."

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/08/20/cma-healthcare.html

Michael Throop 5 years, 6 months ago

From an op-ed in the (evil,I know) Wall Street Journal(it's ALWAYS "evil" when you don't want to hear the truth..) --

The comparative ranking system that most critics cite comes from the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO). The ranking most often quoted is Overall Performance, where the U.S. is rated No. 37. The Overall Performance Index, however, is adjusted to reflect how well WHO officials believe that a country could have done in relation to its resources. The scale is heavily subjective: The WHO believes that we could have done better because we do not have universal coverage. What apparently does not matter is that our population has universal access because most physicians treat indigent patients without charge and accept Medicare and Medicaid payments, which do not even cover overhead expenses. The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for "responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient." Isn't responsiveness what health care is all about? Data assembled by Dr. Ronald Wenger and published recently in the Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons indicates that cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S. The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies. The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world. And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

BigPrune 5 years, 6 months ago

The British National Health Service recently made the pathetic promise to reduce wait times for hospital care to four months. The wait to see dentists is so long that some Brits pull their own teeth. Dental tools: pliers and vodka. One hospital tried to save money by not changing bed sheets every day. British papers report that instead of washing them, nurses were encouraged to just turn them over.

Government rationing of health care in Canada is why when Karen Jepp was about to give birth to quadruplets last month, she was told that all the neonatal units she could go to in Canada were too crowded. She flew to Montana to have the babies.

"People line up for care; some of them die. That's what happens," Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of The Cure. Gratzer thought the Canadian system was great until he started treating patients. "The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting. ... You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! You just have to wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! You just gotta wait six months."

Michael Moore retorts that Canadians live longer than Americans.

But Canadians' longer lives are unrelated to heath care. Canadians are less likely to get into accidents or be murdered. Take those factors into account, not to mention obesity, and Americans live longer.

Corey Williams 5 years, 6 months ago

A good rebuttal Jack, but since the Tea party would rescind the minimum wage, food prices would soon return to the level they are today.

Imagine caravans of caucasians following the harvest throughout the country.

Michael Throop 5 years, 6 months ago

Since we obviously can't trust the Wall St. Journal, that evil capitalist tool, how about the mainstream media: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"Government rationing of health care in Canada is why when Karen Jepp was about to give birth to quadruplets last month, she was told that all the neonatal units she could go to in Canada were too crowded. She flew to Montana to have the babies."

Well, BigPrune, one itsy bitsy little detail you (willfully?) forgot to mention is that all the costs of this delivery were picked up by the Canadian Medicare--

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=41ccae74-8325-449a-b89f-e68957ca25ae&k=79546

"The CHR, meanwhile, will pick up the tab for transferring Jepp to Montana.

The flight alone is estimated at between $10,000 and $15,000. The hospital costs are as much as $8,000 a day per baby and about $2,500 a day for Jepp."

seriouscat 5 years, 6 months ago

Data assembled by Dr. Ronald Wenger and published recently in the Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons indicates that cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S.

  • the real grass roots of the vast majority of medical innovations in the US is NIH grants awarded to universities and research hospitals.

The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined.

-due largely to our taxpayer subsidized universities and research hospitals

Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies.

  • US only in name...where are the drugs produced? and as far as R&D goes...we can thank our taxpayer subsidized universities and research hospitals (again)

The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world.

  • ahhh but it's getting worse, not better at this point, early detection is why the rate is good and more and more people don't seek coverage and hope for the best because they are terrified of financial disaster

And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

  • nice cherry picking there...I can do that too (but I acknowledge the irrelevancy of stats like these when viewed as an argument for the status quo) how about mental illness treatment, infant mortality, bacterial infections...

very specious claims. 'Course no one expects any better from the Wall Street Journal. Wall street indeed, hows those stiumulus funds going up in there anyway? Oh yeah, socialism is fine when it's for bankers.

leedavid 5 years, 6 months ago

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

How can the so called conservatives even talk about healthcare funding until they work as hard against the money the government spends on things that create the issues. Why do the same conservatives seem to promote more roads and and all that comes from subsidized transportation?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Excuse me...but wasn't it Obama that said he was going to create jobs with the stimulus package by reparing or replacing roads with shovel ready jobs.....? Obama did not become a conservative did he?

Richard Heckler 5 years, 6 months ago

Single-Payer Healthcare

Stand up for your right to health

Support Healthcare-NOW!

The fight for real healthcare reform does not end this year. The health bills in Congress are deeply flawed legislation that amount to a massive bailout of the profit-making health industries.

Real reform is expanded and improved Medicare for All - a truly universal healthcare system.

Keep the single-payer movement going. Please donate today so we can continue to organize actions.

And don't forget to call Congress for single-payer.

What is Single Payer? Single-payer is a term used to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as administrator, or “payer.” In the case of healthcare, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all healthcare fees, and pay out all healthcare costs.

In a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other healthcare providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don’t have it.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/whats-single-payer/

Richard Heckler 5 years, 6 months ago

This is something to never forget. It is the private medical insurance industry that cancels YOUR medical insurance AFTER taking YOUR MONEY for years.

Single Payer Health Insurance for All will not only improve our quality of life but also our wallets. Yes we would have more expendable cash for birthdays,Christmas, vacations and investments.

Single Payer Health Insurance for All cannot be cancelled

Single Payer Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance based on the clients experience. This is my perception of competition.

Shouldn't taxpayers have the choice of Single Payer Insurance For All? Absolutely!

Single Payer Health Insurance would cover every person for all necessary medical care including: long term care such that cancer demands prescription drugs hospital surgical outpatient services primary and preventive care emergency services dental mental health home health physical therapy rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) vision care hearing services including hearing aids chiropractic durable medical equipment palliative care long term care.

Single Payer Insurance ends deductibles and co-payments. National Health Insurance would save hundreds of billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs.

Single Payer Health Insurance for All http://www.healthcare-now.org/

Doctors for Single Payer http://www.pnhp.org/

Why Single Payer? How much is the sick U.S. health care system costing you? http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html

Unions for Single Payer http://unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org/union_endorsers

Richard Heckler 5 years, 6 months ago

CIGNA health insurance giant CEO recently retired with the help of a $73 million bonus. Reckless use of your health insurance dollars.

texburgh 5 years, 6 months ago

They don't look at your income in providing service! My lord! That's the whole system in the U.S. You have a high income, you get care; if you're dumb enough to be poor, you don't deserve care.

And the saddest part? The tea baggers and fox addicts out protesting have convinced spineless legislators to do nothing - to protect the profits of insurance companies and to keep their bookkeepers between you and your doctor.

Every one of us with insurance in the U.S. is just one big claim away from losing our coverage.

And our Republicans (and a few of our Democrats) want to preserve this system.

mr_right_wing 5 years, 6 months ago

You know who has an even better healthcare system than Canada? China. We should model obamacare after China's highly effective and efficient healthcare system, including limits on family size.

Red healthcare, it can work for Amerika!

Corey Williams 5 years, 6 months ago

Now that's just plain silly.

According to the WHO, China ranks 144, where the US ranks 37th to Canada's 30th. Even the UK is 18.

Maybe we should let their wal-mart stores be modeled after those unionized stores in China.

Corey Williams 5 years, 6 months ago

Maybe we should let their wal-mart stores be modeled after those unionized stores in China.

Sorry, that should be:

Maybe we should let our wal-mart stores be modeled after those unionized stores in China.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Gee, a nurse and a legislator defending Canadian healthcare.

Be interesting to know who paid to have these fine, objective examples of Canadian healthcare consumers come and speak on this panel.

The nurse, however, is in the minority. According to surveys by the Canadian government, more than half of the Canadian people expect to be the victim of a serious medical error in a Canadian hospital - and an even bigger percentage of Canadian nurses agree with them. And this one thinks the Canadian system gives quality care?

I guess when they've been feeding you dog food your entire life, it's easy for them to convince you it's top sirloin.

"And then he offered this food for thought: Is the U.S. getting better outcomes? Are people living longer?"

Does anyone - well, anyone other than morons like poochie - believe that cr*p?

Hey, Mr. Van Mulligen, got a question for ya':

Does Canada have the same number of traffic fatalities per capita? How about gang-related deaths, drive-bys? How about asbestos, industrial accidents, toxic waste problems? The number of crack babies born similar, is it? Dietary, exercise, and lifestyle factors about equal?

Are the people of Canada really stupid enough to elect someone that could make a dishonest statement like that?


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"I had a serious injury several years ago (requiring 18 stitches to repair) and sat bleeding in the ER waiting room at LMH for nearly two hours before I got any treatment."

Why, gee, boohoohoohoozo, that's almost the same thing as laying face-down on a gurney for five hours with a wooden stake sticking out of you.

"Well, BigPrune, one itsy bitsy little detail you (willfully?) forgot to mention is that all the costs of this delivery were picked up by the Canadian Medicare—"

Why, what brilliant logic, Herr Klowne - their system is better because they'll pay for treatment - it's just that the treatment isn't available anywhere in the country.

Yep, that's much better.

Buffoon.


texburgh (Anonymous) says…

"And the saddest part? The tea baggers and fox addicts out protesting have convinced spineless legislators to do nothing - to protect the profits of insurance companies and to keep their bookkeepers between you and your doctor."

Psssst - hey, textie - since you don't seem to be keeping up with current events, the Republicans lost in the last election. Over a year ago. Surprised you haven't heard, it was in all the papers.

You have nobody to thank for the abortion that came out of the legislature to 'reform' healthcare except those fine folks you voted for. Again, since you're so incredibly ignorant, maybe someone should tell you not single Republican voted for the garbage Obama/Reid/Pelosi & company are foisting on us.

Congratulations on that hope & change thing, textie!

mr_right_wing 5 years, 6 months ago

So....Corey Williams, are you in management in medical insurance, or just a regular working stiff in the industry?

camper 5 years, 6 months ago

I was in an ER room once for an exciting accident I once had. Back in the day I thought I was Evil Kneivel and my slight miscalcualtion brought me to the ER. I was not hurt too bad, but the guy in front of me had a syphoning accident, and unfortunately swallowed some gasoline. Though, I was young at the time, I was struck by the way the nurses were trying to get him to fill out papers. I'm not sure what was on those sheets of paper, but the guy truly did his best to fill them out, though he seemed quite discolored. To my knowledge, that guy made it, though he surely had some severe stomache discomfort to overcome. Sadly, I cannot say the same for myself. My stitches healed, but the simple fact that I am here today posting such nonsense on these boards makes me wonder if something happended to me on the day my bike landed on my head.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"Why, gee, boohoohoohoozo, that's almost the same thing as laying face-down on a gurney for five hours with a wooden stake sticking out of you."

Mine wasn't a life-threatening injury, and it sounds like the other guy's wasn't either. While we weren't told what the reason for the delay in the Canadian case in question, the reason for my delay was merely the lack of sufficient staffing. (Which according to you, nota, only happens in Canada.)

"their system is better because they'll pay for treatment - it's just that the treatment isn't available anywhere in the country."

I know that ignorance of the facts is SOP for you, nota, but the proper treatment facilities are available in Canada. It just so happened that at the time there was significantly greater than normal demand for the very specialized treatment she required (google the frequency of pregnancies with multiple identical babies if you really want to know how unusual it is.)

The important point (to thinking people, not you, nota) is that she got the treatment she needed, at no additional cost to herself. When demand exceeds supply in the US, unless you have the best of the best in coverage, you'd likely just be SOL.

Corey Williams 5 years, 6 months ago

mr_right_wing (Anonymous) says… "So….Corey Williams, are you in management in medical insurance, or just a regular working stiff in the industry?"

Nothing to do with insurance. Just pointing out stupidity.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"Mine wasn't a life-threatening injury, and it sounds like the other guy's wasn't either."

But I'm sure you were in fear for your life, after mommy kissing your boo-boo didn't help.

Um, Herr Klowne? A foreign object protruding from a person's body is pretty much always life-threatening.

"While we weren't told what the reason for the delay in the Canadian case in question, the reason for my delay was merely the lack of sufficient staffing."

You waited 2 hours to have your boo-boo sewn up. He waited 5 hours to have a piece of wood sticking out of his body removed.And yes, boohoohoozo, in both cases it was a matter of demand exceeding capacity. That just happens much more often, by every objective measure, in Canada.

"I know that ignorance of the facts is SOP for you, nota, but the proper treatment facilities are available in Canada. It just so happened that at the time there was significantly greater than normal demand for the very specialized treatment she required (google the frequency of pregnancies with multiple identical babies if you really want to know how unusual it is.)"

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit through your adult diaper, clown. But then, that's where all of your facts come from, isn't it?

Now, I understand that your communist dogma - everyone living in equal squalor - extends to other areas besides healthcare. Like education, for instance. But those of us that WERE educated, Herr Klowne, pretty much understand that when demand for something exceeds the capacity to deliver that something, that something becomes unavailable.

Pretty much by definition.

While multiple births of that nature are rare, boohoohoozo, the need for neo-natal intensive care is not. And this is not the only time this has happened, by far. But hey, oh great purveyor of "facts", please regale us - how often does the demand for NIC exceed capacity in this country compared to Canada?

"The important point (to thinking people, not you, nota) is that she got the treatment she needed, at no additional cost to herself."

Seriously, boohoohooxo - if you are an example of a "thinking" person, believing as you do that having tax dollars pay for the service outweighs the fact that their system could not provide the service, then your definition of "thinking" must be synonymous with moron. Guess that makes you a really big thinker.

"When demand exceeds supply in the US, unless you have the best of the best in coverage, you'd likely just be SOL."

Why, my goodness, boohoohoozo - who would have believed from your posts that you're among this country's wealthy, privileged, elite class?

satie 5 years, 6 months ago

"notajayhawk (Anonymous) says… Gee, a nurse and a legislator defending Canadian healthcare.

Be interesting to know who paid to have these fine, objective examples of Canadian healthcare consumers come and speak on this panel."

I was thinking the very same thing! Want to know what it's really like in Canada? Here's a little story from a friend of mine, once a Canadian and now an American for a lot of reasons. If it doesn't send chills down your spine, you don't need to pick my pocket to pay for your health care... you're already dead.

"Hi there, Just wanted to send out an e-mail with some updates.   I was scheduled to fly to the UK this week, however, the night before my flight my Dad had a heart attack and was air lifted to Toronto for emergency surgery.  He flat lined twice and ended up having two stents and the other two arteries unblocked via angioplasty (or as my brother likes to call it, "roto rooting").  My trip to the UK is cancelled and I am outbound to Toronto as Dad is still not stable (he's in ICU with a heartrate of 170+).   Ironically, I was in the middle of writing a blog piece about the evils of socialized "universal" health care when this happened, and my Dad's experience is a nightmare -- but typical.   The local hospital where he lives has the equipment to take care of him, but has used up its allocated funding for the year. Therefore, they had to transfer him to Toronto.  (My parents live in a small lakeside town about 2 hrs north of Toronto). Instead of a hospital-to-hospital transfer via lifeflight helicopter, the Ministry of Health decided on a fixed wing transfer.  Remember, my Dad has flatlined and is critically ill -- which meant he was transferred from the ER to the local airport, loaded onto the air ambulance, flown to Toronto Island airport (YTZ), transferred from the flight to another ambulance, taken across the channel via ferry (he flatlined a second time on the ferry), and was diverted to the first hospital, because the EMT's said he wouldn't make it to the hospital where he was "directed" to go by the Ministry of Health.  These types of transfers are NOT supposed to be used for emergency/life threatening situations ! Dad had the emergency surgery, but then was told he couldn't stay at St. Mike's and had to be transferred AGAIN immediately after surgery to another hospital which had an ICU bed.  Which is the status of things as they stand today.   I am sharing this with you to educate my friends that socialized medicine is a nightmare!  I know from first-hand experience. We need health care reform, and better oversight over insurance companies, but "universal" government provided care is NOT the answer."

So..... any morons out there may comment but you'll only look dumber than, hmmmm.... usual.

diplomacy205 5 years, 6 months ago

I've never been asked for insurance or payment information while riding in an ambulance.

During the trip that I woke up in the hospital, no one asked a single insurance question until I left ICU.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 6 months ago

What would have happened to Canadian Karen Jepp if the horrible, inefficient American medical system hadn't had the correct facilities available when she needed them?

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"For one, this is not your “first hand experience”, it's that of your friend's. "

For one, since I did not see an end-quote, it appears the statement you refer to WAS his friend speaking.

"The key part was being in a rural area with no heart program."

And if you'd read satie's post, the key part was that the hospital his friend's father originally was brought to DID have the necessary equipment, but they had used up their allocated budget - THAT was the cause of the transfer.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

The main reason that the US has "adequate" facilities is because at any given time, and depending on the treatments required, somewhere between 1/6 and 1/3 of the population have no access to them at all.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"And if you'd read satie's post, the key part was that the hospital his friend's father originally was brought to DID have the necessary equipment, but they had used up their allocated budget - THAT was the cause of the transfer."

First of all, we have no idea whether the anecdote in satie's post has any basis in reality. (sounds like a purely political screed to me.)

Secondly, if such transfers are really made strictly as a matter of budgeting, causing problems as described, the Canadian people have it in their power to change such policies, since their elected representatives can change the how Canadian Medicare operates.

Try to change the policies of your health insurance company and see how far you get.

BTW, Canada doesn't have socialized medicine. It has a single-payer health insurance program. Most doctors and clinics are still independent businesses.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 6 months ago

"The main reason that the US has “adequate” facilities is because at any given time, and depending on the treatments required, somewhere between 1/6 and 1/3 of the population have no access to them at all." As far as emergency services are concerned, bozo's statement is a complete load of copswhallop. Hospitals are required by law to treat emergency cases. That is one reason so many hospitals in areas with high numbers of illegal aliens are running deep in the red. The illegals use the ER as a primary care resource and never think about paying. In Chicago, the First Klingon helped draw up a plan to make it easier for the University of Chicago to dump poor patients on other facilities.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"As far as emergency services are concerned, bozo's statement is a complete load of copswhallop."

I didn't say anything about emergency services, did I?

Yes, hospitals are required to provide emergency services-- but for people without access to healthcare, by the time it becomes an emergency, it's often too little, too late. And we all pick up the tab for this penny-wise, pound-foolish system.

"The illegals use the ER as a primary care resource and never think about paying."

Their employers don't give it much though, either.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"And are you calling satie a liar?"

No. I doubt it's veracity, but that's just my opinion. Are you here to corroborate the story, Pil?

Or do you believe it just because it supports your willfully ignorant worldview?

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"The main reason that the US has “adequate” facilities is because at any given time, and depending on the treatments required, somewhere between 1/6 and 1/3 of the population have no access to them at all."

Speaking of something that "sounds like a purely political screed", why do you keep perpetuating that lie? Oh, forgot - "you believe it just because it supports your willfully ignorant worldview".

"First of all, we have no idea whether the anecdote in satie's post has any basis in reality."

Yet we should believe yours. So I'll ask again (and you'll duck the question again, no doubt) - how about some objective numbers, boohoohoozo, comparing wait times in Canada and the United States?

"Secondly, if such transfers are really made strictly as a matter of budgeting, causing problems as described, the Canadian people have it in their power to change such policies, since their elected representatives can change the how Canadian Medicare operates."

The EMTALA laws are made by our own elected representatives, boohoohoozo. Not that I expected you to know that (or anything alse about healthcare).

"Try to change the policies of your health insurance company and see how far you get."

The majority of Americans are opposed to the way our elected representatives are making rules for healthcare, Herr Klowne. How far did we get changing THAT policy?

"I didn't say anything about emergency services, did I?"

Um - yes.


porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"I'm with just_another_bozo_on_this_bus on this one. Satie's story sounds too much like a political screed."

As I've told youy before, pooch, starting off your own posts with 'I'm with so-and-so' is not the same thing as getting someone - anyone - to agree with your posts.

But keep trying, there's always hope.

BTW, poochie, are we supposed to accept your story about the one case you know of "where a guy basically bisected the state during his “journey” to get health care"?

"Canada's outcomes are much better than ours and at lower cost."

Um, no, they're not. But I do understand how people of low intelligence, extreme gullibility, and very young age believe that. (And obviously, in your case, those descriptors are not mutually exclusive.)

Flap Doodle 5 years, 6 months ago

"I didn't say anything about emergency services, did I?" Bozootie, the ER is a type of medical service, isn't it? If a person has access to an ER then that person has access to a medical service. Game, set, match. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

Snap, in the post you were referring to, I said this, "depending on the treatments required," and I said that specifically because of the requirement for emergency rooms to treat everyone (although many hospitals find various ways to skirt that requirement.)

"Game, set, match"

You didn't even get a serve to clear the net.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with me. I don't know how you arrived at that interpretation unless it's just fantasy on your part.""

Right, poochie. 'Cause I'm sure your recent tendency to shamelessly debase yourself at the start of your posts, attempting to ingratiate yourself to other emmbers who wouldn't give you the time of day, just happened to start the day after I - and several others - pointed out that nobody on these message boards has ever agreed with your arguments.

"Along the same lines, I don't care if you “believe” me or not regarding the journey that this one fellow took across Kansas. Whether you believe me or not does nothing to change what really happened."

Whereas your belief changes what, exactly, about the events satie related? (By the way, have you figured out the difference between 1st person and 3rd person yet?)

"As far as outcomes, Canada comes in 23rd in infant mortality rate according to the United Nations Population Division and 36th according our own CIA. We come in at 33rd and 46th respectively in those rankings.

"As a person of low intelligence, extreme gullibility and very young age (I wish!), I somehow managed to do some research and have some hard data to back up my claims."

Well, pooch, as person of low intelligence, extreme gullibility and very young age (at the very least intellectually), you think you could Google the number one cause of infant mortality in this country?

Since you're lying anyway anyway - we've had this discussion before, you got spanked in that argument, and hoping enough time has passed for people to forget doesn't make your pathetic ignorance and deliberate dishonesty any more valid than before - let me save you the trouble. The top three causes are congenital malformations, disorders related to low birth weight/short gestation, and SIDS. See, pooch-head, these have absolutely nothing to do with health insurance, or even access to healthcare. They are the result of environmental, genetic, and lifestyle factors.

Which might just be the reason the CDC says the way to address disparate infant mortality rates both within and between countries is not access to health insurance, but a focus on two other areas:

"The plan to reduce infant mortality rates includes: A network between health care experts and minority communities to encourage healthy behaviors by pregnant women and parents of infants. Research that will determine the cause of SIDS, develop effective strategies to identify at-risk infants more precisely, and create effective interventions for high-risk infants."

In other words, little one, despite mommy's claims that you're the way you are because she couldn't afford insurance, you might look at some of her behavioral choices as the culprit.

Now, ignorant one, do you have any objective, valid measures to compare the 'output' between healthcare systems?

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Sorry, should have been "rating" not "ranking". Not that it matters as I didn't say anything about either one.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"Not that it matters as I didn't say anything"

Amazing, nota-- after a gajillion posts, you finally include a factual statement.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"All the bluster in the world won't change the fact that you got busted saying that the US's poor ranking in world health care systems was only my imagination."

And this is why the term 'porchfinkeling' was coined. Once again the lying troll, seemingly incapable of understanding that his previous posts are still up above, tries to deny he used infant mortality as a measure of healthcare "outcome", not "rankings".

I got busted saying "the US's poor ranking in world health care systems was only my imagination," troll?

Then perhaps you can show us all where I said that?

What? No?

And you don't seem to have an explanation as to why the UN's and the CIA's rankings are different, being based as they are on objective, measurable data, pooch. Wonder why?

"No one believes I work in fast food, have a drinking problem or have a poor social life."

Mostly because I seriously doubt anyone cares, gives a single thought to your pathetic existence, child. Oh, wait, you said before you had a family and you have a good job with excellent health insurance - and you really, seriously, think people believe THAT, troll? And BTW, it was YOU who implied the time spent posting here left no room for a social life - before, of course, I pointed out you post over 40% more often than I do.

"Infant mortality rate is chosen on the simple premise that the effort that a country takes in caring for its young and defenseless is a good indication of how well it takes care of most other age demographics. Anyone who works in health care knows this."

The CIA is in the healthcare business now, pooch? 'Cause the CDC - who IS in the business of healthcare - says the cause of infant mortality is not healthcare. But then, anyone that has two neurons left they could rub together to get a spark knows this (which is why you, apparently, don't).

Let me guess, next you'll bring up yet another argument you lost with Liberty to throw people off your stench ... oh, wait ...

(At least you didn't plagiarize one of his posts tonight, like you have before when you tried to weasel out of another embarassment - you remember, when you didn't know the difference between single-payer and public option.)


just_another_loser_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"Amazing, nota— after a gajillion posts, you finally include a factual statement."

Yuk yuk, you funny clown.

Hey, Mr. 'just the facts,' if 4000 posts is a 'gajillion,' how much is the 14658 (an average of almost 12 per day) you've spewed? And not one of them with anything you could back up?

Gee, I wish I could have predicted that you'd duck the question I asked of you, Mr. 'Facts.' Oh, wait a second, it seems I did. Gee, how unusual for boohoohoozo. Well, not really, when you consider there have been at least 100 times I've asked Herr Klowne to back up his claims about healthcare, and he hasn't been able to even once.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Yes, you're correct. If the US Supreme Court was filled with Martians, the nature of their decisions would undoubtedly be different."

Which, as amusing as you were attempting to be, conceeds Liberty's point.

All the things you tried to laugh off in your ignorance, poochie, not only could happen, but they have happened. The SCOTUS has reversed its own prior decisions on issues at least as significant as Roe v Wade. Or maybe you didn't know that on the first go-round, the SCOTUS ruled that 'separate but equal' laws were Constitutional? As were sodomy laws the first time the Court decided on that issue?

Is there anything else you'd like to further prove your ignorance of tonight, poochie? 'Cause I was planning on going to bed, but it's worth staying up for a little more (laughter).

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"On the bright side, I'm happy that we all agree that the Supreme Court would be a very different court if composed of Martians."

Were there Martians on the Supreme Court in 1954, oh ignorant one? Because that's when Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas was decided, reversing the Court's earlier decision in Plessy v. Ferguson on the issue of separate but equal.

Were there Martians on the Supreme Court in 2003, oh ignorant one? Because that's when Lawrence v. Texas was decided, reversing the Court's earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick on the issue of sex between two consenting, same-gender adults.

The part of this that your tiny pea-brain doesn't seem to grasp is that Constitutional law is not the same as criminal or civil law. In the latter two, the case is decided based on the facts - i.e., did or did not the defendant pull the trigger of the gun which resulted in the demise of the victim, or did or did not the defendent fail to meet his obligations as set forth in the contract he signed. In Constitutional law, the issue is whether it is Constitutional for the state of Kansas to pass a law making it illegal to shoot another person to death, or whether those contractual obligations are in agreement with principles of the Constitution. By its very nature, that requires judgment, interpretation, and opinion. And it's why very few Supreme Court decisions are unanimous - because while two or three Justices may believe that abortion does not violate the 10th Amendment, the others may, in their opinion, believe it does, or vice versa. And the majority of the nine Justices may have ruled one way in 1973, but had the case been before the nine justices of just a few years later, their consensus opinion may have been different (there were only 17 years between the Court's disparate rulings on sodomy laws).

Liberty is exactly correct that Roe v. Wade does not define the Constitution or alter it in any way. The Court is free at any time to change their decision, based on that same Constitution, just as they did in Brown and in Lawrence. The Constitution is a constant, regardless of how a majority of nine men and women decided to interpret it almost 40 years ago or how nine different men and women might interpret it on the same issue today or twenty years from now.

I was sure you wouldn't disappoint me, pooch-head. Thanks so much for sending me off to bed with yet another belly laugh. And the reassurance that there are some constants in the universe - such as, for instance, your limitless ignorance, and your ever-present willingness to demonstrate it.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

porch,

Actually I think notajayhawk is right on this one. Laws are made and overturned over time. As the justices on the Supreme Court change, their attitudes/interpretations/rulings change.

For example, I believe that the current anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional. We'll see what the current Court says on the issue shortly.

Ricky_Vaughn 5 years, 6 months ago

I can't wait to taste all the Republican tears. It's only a matter of time before we get health care, so whine it up now while you still have time.

Don Whiteley 5 years, 6 months ago

I've been working in Ottawa, Ontario for about a year-and-a-half now and, trust me, people outside their healthcare and political systems DON'T have the same opnion of their Canadian Healthcare system as these speakers voiced.

Talk to my co-worker who went to the doctor's office with swine-flu like symptoms and was told to go home and see if they got worse, then come back.

Talk to my neighbor whose child developed an infection in her leg and couldn't get in to see a doctor for over 2 weeks, because everyone with the sniffles was there. (Hey, if something's free, it has no value, so just as well use it for everything)

Talk to another co-worker who spent 3 years on canes, crutches, and in a wheel chair before the system could work her in for knee surgery. And when they finally did? They twice bumped her for someone else.

If the Canadian system is so good, ask why nearly every Canadian carries supplemental health insurance. Duh - it's because they want a choice when the system doesn't work.

And last, but certainly not least, ask the Canadians what they think of their 50% tax rate to pay for the system.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 6 months ago

CIGNA Health Insurance giant CEO receives $73 million retirement bonus

Reckless MISmanagement of health care dollars which begs the question how can anyone support this crap?

A perfect example of how profits are far more expensive than health care.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"We're not talking about Brown or Plessey. We're talking about Roe, which does enjoy “constitutional standing” as does any other law of this land."

Waddya' think, guys? Should we tell him? Or just keep laughing?

Oh, what the heck - it's not as if he'd understand anyway.

Here, poochie - THIS is the "law of this land."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/browse.html

Maybe you could show us all the 'Roe vs Wade Law'?

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Liberty,

The fact that the Court is made up of political appointees is correct, and in fact a bit troubling.

What happened to the separation of powers? The executive branch appoints Justices who serve for the rest of their life, unless they choose to resign.

The American public, except for the confirmation hearings, has no voice or impact on these choices and, in fact, if justices act differently once confirmed from the way they testify they would at the hearings, Congress has no recourse either.

Since there are clearly different judicial philosophies and interpretations, the process of deciding Constitutional questions will always be somewhat subjective.

So, your question to porch is a bit disingenuous - some justices believed there was constitutional support for Roe and some didn't.

The ones who believed there was might have been wrong, and the other ones might have been wrong.

It all depends on your interpretation of the Constitution, which is clearly somewhat subjective.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

jafs (Anonymous) says…

"What happened to the separation of powers?"

I'm not sure there's a better way of doing it than to have the judicial branch appointed by the executive branch - yes, for life - and confirmed by the legislative branch.

What would the alternative be? Set terms? Direct elections as we elect the president and the congress? I can see more than a few little problems with those approaches.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"And they wonder why I laugh."

No, we don't. We know you laugh because that's what mindless trolls do when they don't understand.

By the way, poochie - you going to answer my question this time? I gave you the link to the code - now, can you show us all the 'Roe vs Wade' law, pooch?

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Now it's an "opinion," poochie? What happened to the "law of this land"? You remember, don't you?

11 January 2010 at 8:15 a.m. porch_person (Erroneous) says… "We're not talking about Brown or Plessey. We're talking about Roe, which does enjoy “constitutional standing” as does any other law of this land."

See, poochie? You said "law of this land."

So please, pooch, amuse me some more, show me which title, chapter, article, or whatever, in the United States Code (the 'law of this land', incidentally) is the 'Roe vs Wade law.'

Oops, forgot for a minute - you really don't know the difference, do you?

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Oh, and by the way, pooch - why are you over on the other thread questioning a judge's ruling?

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jan/12/judge-trial-accused-killer-george-tiller-refuses-b/#c1109193

Why do you want to scrap the whole American system?

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

nota,

I think there should be some way that the public and/or elected officials have some recourse after Justices have been appointed.

For example, if Justices testify in Congressional hearings about their judicial philosophy and then change it once confirmed, we should be able to do something about that.

All of the arguments in favor of term limits for other offices would apply as well to Justices, in fact more so, since they do not have to be re-elected.

We seem to bounce back and forth between political parties/philosophies every 4-8 years or so - why should an appointee from the previous administration serve for life?

One idea off the top of my head - when administrations or Congress shift to the other party, reconsider the Justice. Either remove any appointments made by the previous administration and allow the president to appoint someone else and/or allow Congress to re-confirm previous appointments.

The idea of an "independent" judicial branch really doesn't make sense if they're appointed by the executive and confirmed by the legislative branch.

Another idea - we could elect Supreme Court Justices directly and hold them to term limits as we do other elected officials.

Or elect them without term limits if they continue to be re-elected (but require elections every 4 years) - I've always thought if anyone can get re-elected over and over again, they must be doing a pretty good job for their constituents.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.