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.
I have grown up in a socialized medicine country (Canada) and I have relatives in The Netherlands. Right now, if you are Dutch you receive NO anesthesia for colonoscopies or child birth. If you are Dutch, you must wait until you are 60 years old for a hip replacement because that is the minimum age regardless of your hip's problems. Right now, if you are Dutch, and your kid gets the swine flu and pops a 107 fever, you aren't going to convince a doctor or health care provider to give you a script for Tamiflu (my BF over there just went through that nightmare). Oh, and now, on top of huge taxes to pay for all this "care" they don't receive, they must PAY an additional payment themselves for their health insurance because it costs too much to run the health system.
If you are Canadian, you will receive excellent free care in the way of immunizations and well baby checks. You will receive excellent care if you stay healthy. However, don't get a heart condition. Good luck getting surgery for a busted valve. Good luck finding an open bed and good luck with scheduling and rescheduling surgery (happens all the time). And good luck to you if you are Canadian and you develop symptoms for a disease that you aren't in the "risk category" for and therefore you can't get any additional testing (like a colonoscopy if you are 29 and you have blood in your stool). Good luck. You'll be denied. And what if you are the one person in a zillion who DOES HAVE COLON cancer? Fortunately, the real person with this problem lived in the USA and although diagnosed at 29 with stage 4 colon cancer, IS STILL ALIVE TODAY 5 years later. Hmmm... she'd be in the ground in Canada (but they would have saved a TON of money on medical procedures).
Oh, and that brings me to a very scary thought: recently a panel of methodologists from universities and doctors and nurses NOT IN THE ONCOLOGICAL/GYNECOLOGICAL fields recommended that MAMMOGRAMS ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR WOMEN UNTIL THEY TURN 50. Hmmm. That SAME PANEL will be advising the UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE on coverage policies. So, how suspicious is this one?
WAKE UP! Please!!! I'd love free care for all, BUT IT ISN'T CARE. It's INSURANCE. And poorly managed, risk based insurance does NOT EQUAL CARE.
Your first paragraph is completely false. Lovely anecdotes though.
[quote=ionlife;11903760]I have grown up in a socialized medicine country (Canada) and I have relatives in The Netherlands. Right now, if you are Dutch you receive NO anesthesia for colonoscopies or child birth. If you are Dutch, you must wait until you are 60 years old for a hip replacement because that is the minimum age regardless of your hip's problems. Right now, if you are Dutch, and your kid gets the swine flu and pops a 107 fever, you aren't going to convince a doctor or health care provider to give you a script for Tamiflu (my BF over there just went through that nightmare). Oh, and now, on top of huge taxes to pay for all this "care" they don't receive, they must PAY an additional payment themselves for their health insurance because it costs too much to run the health system.
If you are Canadian, you will receive excellent free care in the way of immunizations and well baby checks. You will receive excellent care if you stay healthy. However, don't get a heart condition. Good luck getting surgery for a busted valve. Good luck finding an open bed and good luck with scheduling and rescheduling surgery (happens all the time). And good luck to you if you are Canadian and you develop symptoms for a disease that you aren't in the "risk category" for and therefore you can't get any additional testing (like a colonoscopy if you are 29 and you have blood in your stool). Good luck. You'll be denied. And what if you are the one person in a zillion who DOES HAVE COLON cancer? Fortunately, the real person with this problem lived in the USA and although diagnosed at 29 with stage 4 colon cancer, IS STILL ALIVE TODAY 5 years later. Hmmm... she'd be in the ground in Canada (but they would have saved a TON of money on medical procedures).
Oh, and that brings me to a very scary thought: recently a panel of methodologists from universities and doctors and nurses NOT IN THE ONCOLOGICAL/GYNECOLOGICAL fields recommended that MAMMOGRAMS ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR WOMEN UNTIL THEY TURN 50. Hmmm. That SAME PANEL will be advising the UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE on coverage policies. So, how suspicious is this one?
WAKE UP! Please!!! I'd love free care for all, BUT IT ISN'T CARE. It's INSURANCE. And poorly managed, risk based insurance does NOT EQUAL CARE.
.................................................. ..............................................
Canada does not have a socialist healthcare system. All physicians and healthcare workers work for private entities and not the state. What Canada has is a "single payer insurance system". If you want to talk about "socialized medicine" a correct example would be Britain where medical care is run and dispensed by government employees who work through the National Health Service.
In a survey conducted by the World Health Organization, medical care in the USA was rated 37 among all the countries. We were rated behind Canada, behind the Netherlands (which actually rated very high), and behind every West European Country as well as Australia, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand. Not very impressive for a country that spends almost 16% of its entire GNP or income on healthcare. What is the difference? The USA is the one country among that entire group that does not offer universal healthcare.
If medical care was so bad in other countries it would logically follow that life expectancy would be lower than in the USA. This is not true either. Of all the countries in the world, the the USA ranks 30th in life expectancy. This is behind the very same countries mentioned above. Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and every other Western European Country including Great Britain have longer life expectancies for both men and women than in the USA.
Objective surveys actually indicate that Canadian people have high satisfaction rates with their single payor healthcare system. The surveys indicate that 85% of Canadians are either satisfied or very satisfied with the healthcare system in their country. The median or average "wait time" to see a specialist physician in Canada is four weeks. Over 85% of patients see a specialist physician in under 3 months. Over 1/2 of Canadians needing MRI or CT scans get them in under four weeks. All those who need them as a result of an emergency get them at once.
Your anecdote about colonoscopies without anesthesia is a very humorous one. Anyone who has a colonoscopy understands the virtual impossibility of undergoing such a procedure without anesthesia. The anesthesia used is not "heavy duty" and not particularly difficult to administer. I challenge you to come up with a cite to support such at outlandish claim.
I wish that those attempting to defeat the Obama Healthcare Plan could debate facts and stop inventing garbage like this. The longer this debate goes on the more desperate opponents seem to get. Don't you people have any integrity?
If medical care was so bad in other countries it would logically follow that life expectancy would be lower than in the USA. This is not true either. Of all the countries in the world, the the USA ranks 30th in life expectancy. This is behind the very same countries mentioned above. Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and every other Western European Country including Great Britain have longer life expectancies for both men and women than in the USA.
One reason for this may be that we count more lives...some other countries do not. For example, I read an article about a woman in Great Britian (?) who went into pre-term labor. In this country we would have tried to prevent the pre-term labor and allow the baby to develop further. Not so there...she wasn't far enough along to justify the cost of giving her the meds. Her labor continued and she delivered a very premature but ALIVE baby...who received no care in the hours after birth and was counted as a miscarriage. In this country....we would have tried to save that baby, given it every chance and should it still have died we would have counted it as a live birth and death.
We also have a higher homicide rate, especially among certain demographics, that and other factors contribute to a lower life expectancy.
There are many factors beyond health care which your logic fails to account for.
One reason for this may be that we count more lives...some other countries do not. For example, I read an article about a woman in Great Britian (?) who went into pre-term labor. In this country we would have tried to prevent the pre-term labor and allow the baby to develop further. Not so there...she wasn't far enough along to justify the cost of giving her the meds. Her labor continued and she delivered a very premature but ALIVE baby...who received no care in the hours after birth and was counted as a miscarriage. In this country....we would have tried to save that baby, given it every chance and should it still have died we would have counted it as a live birth and death.
We also have a higher homicide rate,especially among certain demographics, that contribute to a lower life expectancy.
There are many factors beyond health care which your logic fails to account for.
You really don't know all the facts in this story. You don't know what would have been done in the US.
Canada does not have a socialist healthcare system. All physicians and healthcare workers work for private entities and not the state. What Canada has is a "single payer insurance system". If you want to talk about "socialized medicine" a correct example would be Britain where medical care is run and dispensed by government employees who work through the National Health Service.
In a survey conducted by the World Health Organization, medical care in the USA was rated 37 among all the countries. We were rated behind Canada, behind the Netherlands (which actually rated very high), and behind every West European Country as well as Australia, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand. Not very impressive for a country that spends almost 16% of its entire GNP or income on healthcare. What is the difference? The USA is the one country among that entire group that does not offer universal healthcare.
If medical care was so bad in other countries it would logically follow that life expectancy would be lower than in the USA. This is not true either. Of all the countries in the world, the the USA ranks 30th in life expectancy. This is behind the very same countries mentioned above. Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and every other Western European Country including Great Britain have longer life expectancies for both men and women than in the USA.
Objective surveys actually indicate that Canadian people have high satisfaction rates with their single payor healthcare system. The surveys indicate that 85% of Canadians are either satisfied or very satisfied with the healthcare system in their country. The median or average "wait time" to see a specialist physician in Canada is four weeks. Over 85% of patients see a specialist physician in under 3 months. Over 1/2 of Canadians needing MRI or CT scans get them in under four weeks. All those who need them as a result of an emergency get them at once.
Your anecdote about colonoscopies without anesthesia is a very humorous one. Anyone who has a colonoscopy understands the virtual impossibility of undergoing such a procedure without anesthesia. The anesthesia used is not "heavy duty" and not particularly difficult to administer. I challenge you to come up with a cite to support such at outlandish claim.
I wish that those attempting to defeat the Obama Healthcare Plan could debate facts and stop inventing garbage like this. The longer this debate goes on the more desperate opponents seem to get. Don't you people have any integrity?
It would be nice to to have rational discussion about the issue. Exchange of concerns and evaluation of ideas for solutions. This forum kind of represents how difficult it is to do that. Our Representatives are entrusted with that responsibility, yet like us on this forum, are most times deaf to the opinions of others. Here, biases get in the way, in Congress, it is Party politics that prevents it. From what I have seen, it has been that way for decades. Congress is now working thru a plan for reform, the Party politics is preventing that plan from being more rational. But we have one Party with enough power to push a plan thru, we will get one. It will not be nearly as effective as it could be, and much more expensive, but the future will provide opportunities to correct some of the mistakes.
It would be nice to to have rational discussion about the issue. Exchange of concerns and evaluation of ideas for solutions. This forum kind of represents how difficult it is to do that. Our Representatives are entrusted with that responsibility, yet like us on this forum, are most times deaf to the opinions of others. Here, biases get in the way, in Congress, it is Party politics that prevents it. From what I have seen, it has been that way for decades. Congress is now working thru a plan for reform, the Party politics is preventing that plan from being more rational. But we have one Party with enough power to push a plan thru, we will get one. It will not be nearly as effective as it could be, and much more expensive, but the future will provide opportunities to correct some of the mistakes.
Or grow them and multiply them. (I'm a skeptic when it comes to the Government fixing anything)
I have grown up in a socialized medicine country (Canada) and I have relatives in The Netherlands. Right now, if you are Dutch you receive NO anesthesia for colonoscopies or child birth. If you are Dutch, you must wait until you are 60 years old for a hip replacement because that is the minimum age regardless of your hip's problems. Right now, if you are Dutch, and your kid gets the swine flu and pops a 107 fever, you aren't going to convince a doctor or health care provider to give you a script for Tamiflu (my BF over there just went through that nightmare). Oh, and now, on top of huge taxes to pay for all this "care" they don't receive, they must PAY an additional payment themselves for their health insurance because it costs too much to run the health system.
If you are Canadian, you will receive excellent free care in the way of immunizations and well baby checks. You will receive excellent care if you stay healthy. However, don't get a heart condition. Good luck getting surgery for a busted valve. Good luck finding an open bed and good luck with scheduling and rescheduling surgery (happens all the time). And good luck to you if you are Canadian and you develop symptoms for a disease that you aren't in the "risk category" for and therefore you can't get any additional testing (like a colonoscopy if you are 29 and you have blood in your stool). Good luck. You'll be denied. And what if you are the one person in a zillion who DOES HAVE COLON cancer? Fortunately, the real person with this problem lived in the USA and although diagnosed at 29 with stage 4 colon cancer, IS STILL ALIVE TODAY 5 years later. Hmmm... she'd be in the ground in Canada (but they would have saved a TON of money on medical procedures).
Oh, and that brings me to a very scary thought: recently a panel of methodologists from universities and doctors and nurses NOT IN THE ONCOLOGICAL/GYNECOLOGICAL fields recommended that MAMMOGRAMS ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR WOMEN UNTIL THEY TURN 50. Hmmm. That SAME PANEL will be advising the UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE on coverage policies. So, how suspicious is this one?
WAKE UP! Please!!! I'd love free care for all, BUT IT ISN'T CARE. It's INSURANCE. And poorly managed, risk based insurance does NOT EQUAL CARE.
Oh. You get this, right? I won't start off by insulting my audience. I figure somehow they'll get the message though, I hope. They do deserve to be insulted, of course, but right now I am just trying to put together a speech.
How are you going to give them the message so that they'll get it? I mean, you seem like you don't have any idea *why* government run health care would be better than what we have- just that it somehow *must* be. How can you make a decision about a given subject if you don't know all the pros and cons, and weigh them for yourself to decide?
You obviously have made your choice which side of this debate you land on- yet you apparently are seeking information from others to tell you *why* you favor it. Weird. Most people would get the facts and then decide, instead of deciding and then asking for the facts.
You better get a good understanding of what this debate is about before you go and make a speech to a group of people who are against it. That would be kinda like taking a knife to a gun fight.
But my advice is just go in there and be up front with them- start right off the bat about how immoral they are for not wanting socialized medicine. They will appreciate your honesty.
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.
(I'm a skeptic when it comes to the Government fixing anything)