Interesting post about Canadian healthcare

Enter at your own risk.

Moderators: thunder, Gillian, Chari910, catloveyes, Helen8, fruitbat, kjshd05, Marie, LadyLucius

User avatar
Hilary the Touched
Site Registrant
Posts: 6966
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: The Frozen North
Contact:

Post by Hilary the Touched » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:00 am

Grannybear, we're grateful you're here to share your story with us! :hug
Wolfsaver, you make some excellent points--some might have argued against the expense of hip replacement for a woman of advanced years, but those surgeries have obviously had a profound impact for your aunt, and allowed her to avoid more expensive life changes.
As I said, I think elective euthanasia should be permitted--assisted suicide. People have been 'playing God' for centuries, diminishing and removing causes of death (smallpox, antibiotics). I think a little laxity in the other direction is warranted.
I'm not sure how to settle all the questions about people who aren't able (i.e., comatose) to provide informed consent . . . but that's a question for next of kin even now, so not, I think, a radical change . . .

Guest

Post by Guest » Sun Aug 02, 2009 5:10 pm

Have you ever heard of the movie Logan's Run made in 1976?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run_(1976_film)

Guest

Post by Guest » Sun Aug 02, 2009 5:56 pm

:oops: Sorry the link isn't taking you to what I had intended. Just check out Logan's Run 1976 movie with Michael York. :oops:

Guest

Post by Guest » Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:00 pm


User avatar
Hilary the Touched
Site Registrant
Posts: 6966
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: The Frozen North
Contact:

Post by Hilary the Touched » Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:18 pm

I'm old enough to have seen it when it first came out.
What's your point?
I'm as big a fan of conspiracy theories as the next person, but it's a pretty indirect, crooked line from universal healthcare to mandatory death at the age of 30 . . .

Guest

Post by Guest » Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:52 pm

Me too. I just remembered it when reading some of the previous posts.
Conspiracy theroy, eh, not what I meant. No conspiracy just humanity becoming to relaxed with certain aspects of medical care for certain
people like the elder or the little ones whose parents could care less about them. Or maybe the homeless or ones with mental problems that start to be too much trouble.

Indirect or crooked line from universal healthcare to
mandatory death at any age........not so sure. Maybe not for us oldies but what about the future? Riduclous..... maybe, maybe not.

Who here knows exactly what the whole universal healthcare proposition
is about..... or for that matter exactly what it contains? I know I don't
And who will exactly make the judgement call for you (as in plural) or me? The Federal government?

We have come along way from the 70's and now we are looking at how we became so dependent on oil products. I know, I know the oil doesn't have anything to do with this subject but we might look back in 20 yrs or so and wonder why we became so dependent on our government for universal health care. What is universal health care anyway?Is it for the unborn up to the very old?

Maybe we need to think about this subject. That's all I am saying.

User avatar
Marie
I dig animals--sometimes hundreds of feet down
Posts: 5874
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Indialantic, FL

Post by Marie » Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:03 am

You mean people would rather deal with early mandatory death than birth control and abortion...................

Now that is what I'd call stiring the pot............ ;-)

User avatar
Helen8
Pillar of the Community
Posts: 8972
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:18 am
Location: SoCal

Post by Helen8 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:33 am

What is universal health care anyway?Is it for the unborn up to the very old?

Look up "universal" in the dictionary. That would include prenatal to geriatric. Everybody.

Indirect or crooked line from universal healthcare to
mandatory death at any age........not so sure.


So, it's okay that people die unnecessarily because they can't afford to go to the doctor or to pay for their treatment as they don't have health insurance or because their insurance company dumped them on trumped-up "pre-existing condition" charges?

User avatar
Hilary the Touched
Site Registrant
Posts: 6966
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: The Frozen North
Contact:

Post by Hilary the Touched » Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:17 pm

I find it completely maddening that the people so passionately opposing universal health care (yeah, HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE) are so often the ones worst served by our current system (the poor, the under-insured or uninsured).
As I quoted above, for those reading as well as writing, ""I can never understand why right wingers are always worried about the government making their health care decisions when they are perfectly willing to let insurance companies do it."

So let's review:
Allow healthcare decisions to be made by people working for huge corporations strongly invested in MAKING A PROFIT FROM YOUR HEALTHCARE, or made by your physicians and the entity currently responsible for providing care to the indigent, the U.S. military, retired military, and Congress, all of whom do currently suffer under a single-payer plan??
Who here is using a commercial insurance plan? And how many among you can honestly say you've NEVER had to change physicians because your old doctor isn't affiliated with the new insurance plan that your employer offers? How many have never had a test or treatment denied by your insurance company, even when your doctor urged you to have it done?
The United States spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country, and yet has higher rates of infant mortality than FORTY-ONE OTHER COUNTRIES (I got this information from that socialist hotbed of pinko propaganda, the CIA World Factbook), including paragons of progressiveness like Slovenia and, um, Cuba. Also Canada and the United Kingdom, two unfortunate nations currently languishing under a single-payer plan.

I know it's charming to believe it, but just because something is American doesn't always make it the best.

User avatar
Hilary the Touched
Site Registrant
Posts: 6966
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: The Frozen North
Contact:

Post by Hilary the Touched » Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:43 pm

Don't like that metric? The U.S. ranks somewhere around 43rd in life expectancy. One might therefore argue that America is already murdering old people.

Chari910
Multimedia Maven
Posts: 5162
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:11 pm
Contact:

Post by Chari910 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:17 pm

The high US infant mortality rate maybe deceiving. We want to be heroic and did EVERYTHING trying to save a 24 weeker (costing millions for a baby who will need continuous care poss for the rest of its life.)

Some of the 'developing countries' just didn't 'count' those very immature ones as 'Infants'....they put them in a corner to die quietly since they aren't 'viable' and count them as 'miscarriage'.

The new reform needs to cap the malpractice awards or at least the lawyer fees. Healthcare cost skyrocketed because of 'defensive' medicine. If nothing was done, the cost will keep going up.

I feel angry when my patients showed up in the ER with...say..abdominal pain..and was ordered to have CT scan done to rule out ..say..acute Appendicitis...totally unnecessary if you are a good clinician. Too much $$ wasted and too much radiation .

User avatar
Helen8
Pillar of the Community
Posts: 8972
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:18 am
Location: SoCal

Post by Helen8 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:52 pm

" . . . the entity currently responsible for providing care to the indigent, the U.S. military, retired military, and Congress, all of whom do currently suffer under a single-payer plan?? . . . Also Canada and the United Kingdom, two unfortunate nations currently languishing under a single-payer plan.

Hilary, I'm afraid that irony and sarcasm aren't decipherable to some. It just flies over their heads, and they think you're in agreement with them. Otherwise, your points are all well presented.

User avatar
Hilary the Touched
Site Registrant
Posts: 6966
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: The Frozen North
Contact:

Post by Hilary the Touched » Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:12 pm

Char, you raise an interesting and valid point--I wasn't aware of that.
I am aware that the issue of infant mortality is complex, and that the U.S. has led in important developments--I remember reading about the death of a child born prematurely to the Kennedys, who, before the introduction of drugs to speed lung development, just had no chance at all. :-(

Chari910
Multimedia Maven
Posts: 5162
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:11 pm
Contact:

Post by Chari910 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:34 pm

Years ago..*cough* when I was an intern back in Bangkok, when we had any baby younger than 32 weeks, we didn't have anyway to 'save' them.. so we just let them go quietly.

Right now 32 weekers with not many complications grow up to be healthy, productive citizens.

grannybear
Posts: 2582
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:36 pm
Location: Florida

Post by grannybear » Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:31 pm

And don't forget the overabundance of multiple births now. Many of these children grow up to have lifelong health problems. Most of them will receive some form of government help or the hospitals will write off a lot of care. All of this adds up.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't help these parents. I'm just adding another facet to the problem. A friends grandson was born at 2 1/2 lbs. and since neither parent had jobs or health insurance the hospital ended up graciously writing off the bill. With universal insurance this would have been unnecessary.

Post Reply