VOR Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 The idea that nationalized health care will only cover 50M people is the biggest farce there is. For starters, estimates are that it will only cover a third of that. And if it does cover all 50M, you can be sure that employers will dump their employees into the national healthcare pool, and cause it to grow to well over 100M. Try keeping costs down for that!
Rubes Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Let me ask a a question. Is it possible that the reason there are more premature births is because of less pre-natal care due to longer wait times? If you are implying that longer wait times in Canada leads to more premature births, the answer is "not likely". The number of premature births in the United States has been climbing since the mid-1990s, and has been described as "discouraging" and "an increasing problem." There is concern that the increase is being driven by C-sections, many of which are probably medically unnecessary. By 2008, 13% of all births in the US -- about 1 in 8 -- were premature. Canada has also seen an increase in premature births over the same time period, but as of 2007 their percentage of babies born prematurely was 8.1%. It has been noted that this trend is being seen in almost every developed country.
Zona Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 If you are implying that longer wait times in Canada leads to more premature births, the answer is "not likely". The number of premature births in the United States has been climbing since the mid-1990s, and has been described as "discouraging" and "an increasing problem." There is concern that the increase is being driven by C-sections, many of which are probably medically unnecessary. By 2008, 13% of all births in the US -- about 1 in 8 -- were premature. Canada has also seen an increase in premature births over the same time period, but as of 2007 their percentage of babies born prematurely was 8.1%. It has been noted that this trend is being seen in almost every developed country. I am not implying anything, just asking. For follow-up i would stipulate that the increase in Premature birth could well be a direct result of medically unnecessary C-sections. But the majority of those same C-sections are not what is filling up the NICU at Canadian Hospitals, and i am wondering what it may be? If a Dr. and Parents want to do a C-section on Sat. so baby has such and such birthday, fine. But if baby is premmie and needs to spend an extended time in NICU, there must be a reason, yes? That is all I am wondering about. What may be causing this? Is it the system? Or the care? or the lifestyle? Diet? Just trying to satisfy my piqued curiosity is all. I am not trying to offend...
Rubes Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 I am not implying anything, just asking. For follow-up i would stipulate that the increase in Premature birth could well be a direct result of medically unnecessary C-sections. But the majority of those same C-sections are not what is filling up the NICU at Canadian Hospitals, and i am wondering what it may be? If a Dr. and Parents want to do a C-section on Sat. so baby has such and such birthday, fine. But if baby is premmie and needs to spend an extended time in NICU, there must be a reason, yes? That is all I am wondering about. What may be causing this? Is it the system? Or the care? or the lifestyle? Diet? Just trying to satisfy my piqued curiosity is all. I am not trying to offend... Hehe...no offense at all. Sorry if I came across that way. I think "imply" was the wrong word to use. It was supposed to be more along the lines of, "If you're asking whether the longer wait times in Canada...", etc. As for the cause for all of the potentially unnecessary C-sections...I don't have the answer, although I suspect a great many things factor into it, including the tendency for doctors to pull the trigger on a C-section sooner rather than later, whether because of the belief that it's the better choice (correct or not), fear of lawsuit due to risk, or whatever else.
tennesseeboy Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 The first story points out that that Canada has had to ration specialized care to keep the system costs down. It is well known that other countries (as compared to the US) have much better gerneral care. It is also generally agreed that when it comes to specialized care or access for those who can afford it the US is considered the best system in the world. For those who can afford it. Everyone else can suck wind.
Beerball Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 And Beerball... People actually think I reach at straws! Ahhhh Haaaaaa! Found someone else who's grasping the same straw. link Patients waited an average of 10 weeks to get an MRI in 2007 The number of CT scanners per million population was 12 in 2006, compared with 33.9 in the United States A typical Canadian seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007
Fan in San Diego Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 And now for some balanced reporting about the Canadian health care system. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12523427
The Poojer Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 dude....check post #2 in this thread......... And now for some balanced reporting about the Canadian health care system. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12523427
Fan in San Diego Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 dude....check post #2 in this thread......... Great minds think alike.
Delete This Account Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 if i might add, humbly. one disturbing factor here in the U.S. is the amount of bankruptcies that result from medical expenses. that was, to pardon the pun, foreign to me while growing up and living north of the border. jw
Rubes Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Ahhhh Haaaaaa! Found someone else who's grasping the same straw. link Patients waited an average of 10 weeks to get an MRI in 2007 The number of CT scanners per million population was 12 in 2006, compared with 33.9 in the United States A typical Canadian seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007 Unlike it appears on the surface, this is an extremely complicated issue. For instance, one has to ask himself two questions: First, why does the U.S. have so many more CT and MRI machines per capita than Canada? Second, is it unquestionably a Good Thing that we have so many? The real answers to these questions, if you're truly interested, can start to give you some insight into how complex this issue really is. Like Halliburton! and Flightsuit!, the simple cries of Socialized Medicine! and Long Waits! fail to grasp the reality of the situation.
VOR Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Here's a good article on the myth of Obamacare: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640626749276595.html
linksfiend Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Maybe I'm way off-base here but to me this is all about securing the borders (which I fully support). Sometimes common sense really should prevail. I mean what are the odds that these parents are trying to cross the Peace Bridge because they're terrorists? Has the local Buffalo media picked up on this case? <They have now> And it includes some info on the border situation: "While Ava’s story reveals an occasional shortage of neonatal beds in Canada, it also raised another question: Did tougher restrictions at the U. S.-Canada border since June 1 play any role in her parents having to wait three days to visit her? U. S. border officials insist the answer is no. After Ava was brought to Buffalo, her parents thought that their lack of passports, combined with Paquette’s recovery from caesarean surgery, prevented them from following her across the border. So Stinson and Paquette monitored Ava’s condition by phone for three days. U. S. Customs officials told them on Sunday that they were free to travel to Buffalo, which they did. The couple then returned to Hamilton on Monday to deal with an infection in Paquette’s incision. Authorities say Paquette and Stinson never were denied entry to the United States, despite his criminal past from more than 15 years ago. They didn’t try to cross the border until Sunday, when U. S. Customs told them that Stinson would be eligible for what’s called “humanitarian parole.” “We have the ability to grant humanitarian parole to a person who otherwise would be inadmissible,” explained Kevin A. Corsaro, a chief at the local U. S. Customs and Border Protection office. “Under normal circumstances, we would not separate parents from a sick child.” So that was some piss poor reporting by Joanna Frketich at The Hamilton Spectator trying to disparage US Customs - neglecting to mention the father had a criminal past nor that the parents never even tried to enter the U.S.
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 So that was some piss poor reporting by Joanna Frketich at The Hamilton Spectator trying to disparage US Customs - neglecting to mention the father had a criminal past nor that the parents never even tried to enter the U.S. It was piss poor reporting, but Frketich did mention that the father had a criminal past: In the meantime, the priority is getting Paquette and Stinson reunited with their baby. The Canadian consulate in Buffalo is providing advice and guidance to the first-time parents. Hamilton Centre MP David Christopherson is working to arrange emergency passports but that will take until at least Monday afternoon. The situation is made more complicated by the fact the baby's dad has a criminal record. Ontario is a pretty big province (area that is). I know they said there were no beds available... Was this (saying there was no beds available) done for "convienence" since BFLO is only a stone's trow from Hamilton?
The Poojer Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 while this article does align with my views, lets make sure we understand, this article is an opinion piece and I am sure the other side can put out a piece voicing their opinion that would read almost the opposite, I would really like to see that side though...it would make for some entertaining reading Here's a good article on the myth of Obamacare: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640626749276595.html
The Poojer Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 the original article did mention that the father had a criminal past....that piece of it, however, was kind of buried as an after thought of the article <They have now>And it includes some info on the border situation: "While Ava’s story reveals an occasional shortage of neonatal beds in Canada, it also raised another question: Did tougher restrictions at the U. S.-Canada border since June 1 play any role in her parents having to wait three days to visit her? U. S. border officials insist the answer is no. After Ava was brought to Buffalo, her parents thought that their lack of passports, combined with Paquette’s recovery from caesarean surgery, prevented them from following her across the border. So Stinson and Paquette monitored Ava’s condition by phone for three days. U. S. Customs officials told them on Sunday that they were free to travel to Buffalo, which they did. The couple then returned to Hamilton on Monday to deal with an infection in Paquette’s incision. Authorities say Paquette and Stinson never were denied entry to the United States, despite his criminal past from more than 15 years ago. They didn’t try to cross the border until Sunday, when U. S. Customs told them that Stinson would be eligible for what’s called “humanitarian parole.” “We have the ability to grant humanitarian parole to a person who otherwise would be inadmissible,” explained Kevin A. Corsaro, a chief at the local U. S. Customs and Border Protection office. “Under normal circumstances, we would not separate parents from a sick child.” So that was some piss poor reporting by Joanna Frketich at The Hamilton Spectator trying to disparage US Customs - neglecting to mention the father had a criminal past nor that the parents never even tried to enter the U.S.
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 Like I said... I find it hard to believe that there were no beds in all of Ontario. I have a feeling they sent the baby to BFLO out of cost... Of course BFLO is closer... Why would the province send the baby further? Windsor, Ottawa, or God knows where. Maybe Toronto was unavailable. Me thinks they used "no beds in ONT" to send the baby closer (whicj is a no brainer).
VOR Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 while this article does align with my views, lets make sure we understand, this article is an opinion piece and I am sure the other side can put out a piece voicing their opinion that would read almost the opposite, I would really like to see that side though...it would make for some entertaining reading I doubt you'll find anyone dumb enough to touch the opposing view. There is just far too much incertainty, if not decades of evidence the contrary, that a government-run welfare (in essence) program won't work.
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 I doubt you'll find anyone dumb enough to touch the opposing view. There is just far too much incertainty, if not decades of evidence the contrary, that a government-run welfare (in essence) program won't work. It does work. Did you ever see a skinny person on welfare...
linksfiend Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 It was piss poor reporting, but Frketich did mention that the father had a criminal past: In the meantime, the priority is getting Paquette and Stinson reunited with their baby. The Canadian consulate in Buffalo is providing advice and guidance to the first-time parents. Hamilton Centre MP David Christopherson is working to arrange emergency passports but that will take until at least Monday afternoon. The situation is made more complicated by the fact the baby's dad has a criminal record. Ontario is a pretty big province (area that is). I know they said there were no beds available... Was this (saying there was no beds available) done for "convienence" since BFLO is only a stone's trow from Hamilton? Dammit. I guess I did a "piss-poor" job of reading the article.
Recommended Posts