Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You responded with implication the service availability was the same while it is most definitely not.
Millions of Americans are going without. Yes, even flu shots, with less than half your population getting them. I believe this implies a general mistrust of the medical establishment in the U.S.. Your opinion may differ?
As early as the 80's in Ontario as an example, flu shot clinics were set up in most major business's employing large numbers. Qualified personnel arrived on an appointed date and inoculated all the employees. That's been the common practice for decades.
You implied I was not intelligent enough to debate you.
And I have a surprise for you, the Vaccines for Children program is not a "charity program" as you ass*u*me, but a federal program financed by taxes. Local health departments are not charities either, they are tax supported government agencies. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/index.html
You are ignorant if you think there is no public health infrastructure in the US.
And I have another big surprise for you-as early as the 1980s, flu shot programs were set up in major businesses in the US, and even in some smaller businesses. Qualified people, usually RNs, arrived on an appointed date and inoculated all the employees who elected to get the vaccine. That's been the common practice for decades. I've worked many such clinics, both for the local health department (which you think doesn't exist) and the local Visiting Nurses Association, a private NON-profit agency, something else you don't think exists in the US health care system. Again, ignorance of the US system reigns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Well, Katrina reminded me I need to focus on the issue and dial it back.
We (Canadians in general) wish nothing but the best for everyone involved as what is to be gained by us for doing otherwise?
Thank you BruSan. I'm thinking of that old teacher meme: "If you promise not to believe everything your child says happens at school, I'll promise not to believe everything he (sic) says happens at home". https://www.pinterest.com/pin/111956...50819/?lp=true
Substitute "Canada" for "school" and "The US" for "home". I really had a chuckle over "MANY Americans have very weird ideas about healthcare in Canada." As if! It seems at least some of you Canadians think that in the US, Walmart employees (you know, the ones who make minimum wage and can barely read or write?) are giving flu shots in the hardware section or somewhere similar, with no resuscitative equipment on hand. In point of fact, these vaccines (shots and mist) are given in the PHARMACY section by . . . pharmacists! Do you think Walmart would take the liability to give vaccines without proper precautions? And lest you think (the teacher meme again) that the NVICP would protect them, think again. It does not protect against negligence as in not having proper equipment available.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 10-19-2018 at 05:49 PM..
My exact quote "There can be no intelligent debate with anyone arguing the fact Canada is giving it's citizens better delivery/access to healthcare, full stop!"
Are you arguing your healthcare system is giving you equal delivery and access to Canada? I don't believe you are when you keep using qualifier adjectives like "some" and disclaimers such as "those with insurance" etc..
44 million of you without medical insurance of any kind and nearly fifty percent of you not routinely seeing your doctors due to costs precludes any argument you could make on that score in any case.
You keep bringing up the flu shot after I've explained numerous times I mentioned it as an explanation to counter the impression Americans had we waited for everything and could not avail ourselves of similar service. If you wish to keep belabouring your point in the condescending manner, allow me to refresh your memory a bit with my exact quote : "The last time that came up in discussion down in Florida, it was stated with some pride that they could go to a Walmart and get the shot to which we responded that so could we if we chose to, but why do that when our Dr's office two blocks away does walk-ins and are better equipped to handle any allergic reaction?" In that context; do you see anything contained where your continued harping is warranted?
Now as to my lack of knowledge about America's public health system...I am fully aware of what exists and has existed in the U.S. for eons. What has that got to do with EVERYONE being afforded basic pre-emptive healthcare across the board which would make your availability and access equal to Canada's?
Americans were coming across the border to the tune of 660,000 of you in one six month period in just one province alone to avail themselves of free healthcare. Admittedly that was in the mid nineties but if we're going to play the dating game...…… That practice only stopped when Photo Identification Healthcards were issued across the country for the express purpose of stopping Americans fraudulently obtaining what they're now saying is inferior care.
Seems strange to me they were able to tolerate those long wait times when all they had to do was drive across and see a doctor. Seem strange to you?
Now we're on to the "stay classy" comment you made a while back. Taking some of my comments out of context and attributing implications and assumptions of yours to them....seem classy to you?
My exact quote "There can be no intelligent debate with anyone arguing the fact Canada is giving it's citizens better delivery/access to healthcare, full stop!"
Are you arguing your healthcare system is giving you equal delivery and access to Canada? I don't believe you are when you keep using qualifier adjectives like "some" and disclaimers such as "those with insurance" etc..
44 million of you without medical insurance of any kind and nearly fifty percent of you not routinely seeing your doctors due to costs precludes any argument you could make on that score in any case.
You keep bringing up the flu shot after I've explained numerous times I mentioned it as an explanation to counter the impression Americans had we waited for everything and could not avail ourselves of similar service. If you wish to keep belabouring your point in the condescending manner, allow me to refresh your memory a bit with my exact quote : "The last time that came up in discussion down in Florida, it was stated with some pride that they could go to a Walmart and get the shot to which we responded that so could we if we chose to, but why do that when our Dr's office two blocks away does walk-ins and are better equipped to handle any allergic reaction?" In that context; do you see anything contained where your continued harping is warranted?
Now as to my lack of knowledge about America's public health system...I am fully aware of what exists and has existed in the U.S. for eons. What has that got to do with EVERYONE being afforded basic pre-emptive healthcare across the board which would make your availability and access equal to Canada's?
Americans were coming across the border to the tune of 660,000 of you in one six month period in just one province alone to avail themselves of free healthcare. Admittedly that was in the mid nineties but if we're going to play the dating game...…… That practice only stopped when Photo Identification Healthcards were issued across the country for the express purpose of stopping Americans fraudulently obtaining what they're now saying is inferior care.
Seems strange to me they were able to tolerate those long wait times when all they had to do was drive across and see a doctor. Seem strange to you?
Now we're on to the "stay classy" comment you made a while back. Taking some of my comments out of context and attributing implications and assumptions of yours to them....seem classy to you?
No, I was talking about flu shots.
Your 44 million (which you tell us is larger than the population of Canada to which I say "so what?") is how many were uninsured pre-ACA. https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-s...ed-population/
The percentage of uninsured is at its lowest ever: https://www.census.gov/library/publi...o/p60-264.html
Note that my sources are professional, not from the popular press
And dammit all, how many times do I have to say I meant "some" doctors, not "some" people? That you have twisted this not just once but twice, including after I explained what I meant, says more about you than the Canadian or US health systems.
As far as people (50% you say) not going to the doctor because they can't afford it, I'm going to give you a "real world" example of same.
After the US measles epidemic of 1989-91, the feds in their wisdom tried to figure out why there were some many unvaccinated toddlers. This took the tack, during the Clinton administration, of "blame the providers". Now some of the criticisms were valid, e.g. there were some physicians who would not give vaccinations except at designated well visits, even if a child was behind and was at the doctor for a "sick visit" that did not preclude giving vaccines; using inappropriate contraindications for vaccines such as the child being on antibiotics even if s/he was in the convalescent phase of the illness for which the ABs were prescribed. But some of them were silly, and they came down on the public clinics, which you seem to think we don't have in this country. The three evils of public clinics are etched in my mind; they were in every press release, etc for several years. To wit, public clinics-
1. Are overcrowded. Kinda reminds me of the old Yogi Berra quote "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/yogi_berra_100418
2. Have inconvenient hours. True for some, but not all. Many public clinics have long had Saturday hours, and extended evening hours.
3. Are not accessible by public transportation. Most public health agencies are located in business/commercial areas of their respective cities and towns; if anything is accessible by public transportation (something else you probably think we don't have) it's the business/commercial areas. It's possible some people's homes are not accessible to PT, but that is not the fault of the public health service, though the Clinton administration could have probably figured out a way to make it so if they tried hard enough.
Anyway, the local health department I worked for had to do a lot of "outreach" stuff to keep some of our federal funds, so we did a survey of parents of unimmunized/underimmunized kids. Mind you, at the time, Colorado law required insurance policies to pay for immunizations, even though there was no federal ACA. See how backwards we are out here in the wild west? And the Vaccines for Children program, which you thought was a charity, but is in actuality part of the CDC run by the federal government, pays for vaccines for kids who are uninsured, underinsured, on Medicaid, are Native American or Alaskan Native. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/index.html
Even so, many parents said their kids were unimmunized/underimmunized because they couldn't afford it.
It seems that saying one can't afford something is considered an acceptable reason, regardless. It's sort of like my relative who bought a motorcycle but no helmet, because he couldn't "afford" the helmet and was going to buy one "later". Well, later never came. He got in a serious accident and had a life-changing head injury within days. But I digress. Affordability is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. In any event, all of those links of yours were from the popular press and referenced the same study. It always helps to go to the source, not what CNBC, CBS, Vox, etc think a study says.
I was responding to a point you made. Happens all the time on CD. And you're wrong about the allergic reaction issue. As I said, Walmart is not having regular floor employees giving shots in the hardware section. Pharmacists give them in the pharmacy. Pharmacists have the education to handle an allergic reaction. I'll "harp" all I want.
I'll respond to the rest later. Gotta get on with my day.
Now as to my lack of knowledge about America's public health system...I am fully aware of what exists and has existed in the U.S. for eons. What has that got to do with EVERYONE being afforded basic pre-emptive healthcare across the board which would make your availability and access equal to Canada's?
Americans were coming across the border to the tune of 660,000 of you in one six month period in just one province alone to avail themselves of free healthcare. Admittedly that was in the mid nineties but if we're going to play the dating game...…… That practice only stopped when Photo Identification Healthcards were issued across the country for the express purpose of stopping Americans fraudulently obtaining what they're now saying is inferior care.
Seems strange to me they were able to tolerate those long wait times when all they had to do was drive across and see a doctor. Seem strange to you?
Now we're on to the "stay classy" comment you made a while back. Taking some of my comments out of context and attributing implications and assumptions of yours to them....seem classy to you?
No, you aren't. You think the VFC program and local health departments are "charities" that do jog-a-thons and the like to raise money. Your quote: "I don't give a rats patoot about your charity programs or your free flu shots that could go away when the mood behooves." in response to: KW-"ALL children who are uninsured can get a flu shot for free through the Vaccines for Children program. There are programs for free flu shots for adults at local health departments." And for the nth time, I was talking about flu shots, not the whole shebang! I have gone on record, many times, as supporting a UHC for the US.
BTW, the Province of Quebec is not giving free flu shots to anyone except people with specific chronic diseases and people over 75. https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/advi...m/eligibility/
They claim that healthy children aged 6 to 23 months and healthy people aged 60 to 74 are at no higher risk for flu complications than other healthy people. This is not borne out by US statistics: Study shows youngest kids most at risk of flu death | CIDRAP "A new analysis of seasonal flu deaths in US children in the six seasons that followed the 2009 H1N1 pandemic reveals that children ages 2 and younger are most at risk, and of children who died, less than a third had been vaccinated against the disease." https://drive.google.com/file/d/114u...72jOel8u6/view (See chart of hospitalizations)
It also goes against the recommendation of the public health service of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-heal...2017-2018.html "Influenza vaccination is recommended for all individuals aged 6 months and older (noting product-specific age indications and contraindications), with particular focus on people at high risk of influenza-related complications or hospitalization, including all pregnant women, people capable of transmitting influenza to those at high risk, and others listed in Table 1."
It appears that PQ never did give free flu shots to healthy older children and working age adults.
No, you aren't. You think the VFC program and local health departments are "charities" that do jog-a-thons and the like to raise money. Your quote: "I don't give a rats patoot about your charity programs or your free flu shots that could go away when the mood behooves." in response to: KW-"ALL children who are uninsured can get a flu shot for free through the Vaccines for Children program. There are programs for free flu shots for adults at local health departments." And for the nth time, I was talking about flu shots, not the whole shebang! I have gone on record, many times, as supporting a UHC for the US.
BTW, the Province of Quebec is not giving free flu shots to anyone except people with specific chronic diseases and people over 75. https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/advi...m/eligibility/
They claim that healthy children aged 6 to 23 months and healthy people aged 60 to 74 are at no higher risk for flu complications than other healthy people. This is not borne out by US statistics: Study shows youngest kids most at risk of flu death | CIDRAP "A new analysis of seasonal flu deaths in US children in the six seasons that followed the 2009 H1N1 pandemic reveals that children ages 2 and younger are most at risk, and of children who died, less than a third had been vaccinated against the disease." https://drive.google.com/file/d/114u...72jOel8u6/view (See chart of hospitalizations)
It also goes against the recommendation of the public health service of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-heal...2017-2018.html "Influenza vaccination is recommended for all individuals aged 6 months and older (noting product-specific age indications and contraindications), with particular focus on people at high risk of influenza-related complications or hospitalization, including all pregnant women, people capable of transmitting influenza to those at high risk, and others listed in Table 1."
It appears that PQ never did give free flu shots to healthy older children and working age adults.
You've twice twisted my use of the word "some".
Yeppers; I'm the twister here.
I say so what to the Fraser In. (Conservative think tank getting it's funding from Koch Bro's) reporting 63,000 leaving Canada to PAY for medical care elsewhere that would almost certainly be of the non-required surgical care kind. Did you get that word PAY? Instead of desperate people fraudulently obtaining it?
NOw how about the couple of million of Americans beating feet out of The U.S. each and every year to obtain care they can afford in third world countries?
"The good news is many people don't have to pay anything. The Affordable Care Act required insurers to cover the cost of patients' flu shots without charging a copay, although some insurers only cover vaccines given by doctors or at certain locations.
A government program also pays for shots for low-income children.
Traditionally, most people have gotten flu vaccinations at doctors' offices or government health centers. But pharmacies and workplaces have become major venues for vaccinations, especially for adults.
CDC officials say they don't know how exactly many people pay for shots themselves.
For those paying cash, pharmacies generally charge $20 to $45 per shot, but the price can vary based on which drugstore you visit. Also, the cost can rise to $70 or more if you get the higher-dose version of vaccine offered to seniors.
Some pharmacies offer discounts and other enticements. For example, CVS is offering customers at some of its pharmacies a $5 coupon redeemable at Target stores.
Websites such as https://vaccinefinder.org can help locate where doses are available in your neighborhood."
Well almost free, and almost for everyone.
I repeat; your healthcare access and delivery system is inferior by all measures. Own it.
Rather see State though Federally managed might be better
A Government created insurance that competes with private insurance companies. Makes the market competitive.
Increase medical research funding.
Few differences with the program would be can pick various areas want cover. Example want that surgery covered pick it and not the other. If you don't want to pick your own then they have various packages created. Also how much would be covered be transparent as well.
Then can make changes up to 3 months after signing up for health insurance.
The other thing insurance can be accepted any where in the U.S.
The other thing it replace Medicaid. So this part we be more on the State level.
First be eligible for 2 years of 90% health care covered by the Government. Then for 4 years have adjusted insurance based off household size and income. Parameters be set up by the State.
Then have permanent disability assistance where the individual would be covered up to 90% by the Goverment for health related cost.
Medicare would switch over to Universal Healthcare for those 70 and over.
Up to States but can buy prescriptions sell them at a lower rate back to those who need it in the State. Again encourage competition to drive cost down.
Federal tax to provide emergency life saving care where 70% of bill be covered by the Goverment. Example being emergency cardiac surgery.
Less red tape and regulation with pharmaceuticals. Federal funding to support smaller pharmaceutical businesses.
Universal mental health care and cancer treatment for all those who can prove domicile for up to a year in the U.S.
Allow private health organizations to dictate their own cost.
States work with public and non-profit agencies every two years evaluate cost and set up a State standard cost for various health services.
Allow groups and organizations to create health exchanges.
Federal liability insurance at low rate to lower cost of health care.
Probably much minute things and details to cover. Think in my honest opinion something similar to this would be the best opition.
Last edited by RunD1987; 10-22-2018 at 07:33 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
