I've seen photos of Cuban hospitals (outside the major cities). All rat infested. American hospitals gleam their so clean. Despite this, Cubans and Americans have the same life expectancy. Should tell you something.
Americans Shut Up!
- Thread starter bozonessinc
- Start date
I've seen photos of Cuban hospitals (outside the major cities). All rat infested. American hospitals gleam their so clean. Despite this, Cubans and Americans have the same life expectancy. Should tell you something.
I frequently hear of people in Canada who are in need of specialist or expedited care, opting for treatment in the United States. I frequently hear about people from all over the world going to the United States for specialist treatment in cancer, heart disease or other specialist areas. There are a number of people from the UK who prefer to be treated outside the country, perhaps because they do not have trust in the medical system or wish to avoid line-ups. I know of someone specifically who needed knee surgery, and was concerned about the possibility of getting germs in a UK operating theatre, and elected to have it in another country. Having said this, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the NHS, as it is obviously providing health care for everyone, and seems to be successful as a rule. What I am trying to say is that what works in the UK would not necessarily work in the United States. Obviously people in the United States do want major reforms in medicare, but the current reform legislation in my mind is too vague and complicated, and not supported by everyone. They probably need to rethink all of it.
Well, i should start by saying that waiting times in the NHS are at the lowest they've been in history.
Also, there was a Harris poll that ascertained most people in the US support a universal healthcare system similar to the UK.
I support a vastly localised, non-state version of the NHS. Which i opted to call an LHS (Local Health Service). When people ask and i say an "LHS", people go "i've never heard of it" and then i admit that i made it up.
:giggle:
We probably agree on the major things, as I had something along these lines in mind for banking as well. I.e. when they had the opportunity, people should have let all the BIG banks fail, and the bail-out money should have been used to create local cooperative banks, along the lines of building societies instead. Ditto health services. Federal Government will just create layers of bureacracy and the real reform will be missed out on the local level. Everyone will probably have to do everything by e-mail with faceless people who are totally divorced from local people, as is happening with the BIG banks too. With BIG bureaucracy the bureaucracy in the end seems to become its own objective, serving the system more than the people for which it is intended.
:giggle: OK. Now that was a good one!!!! AND very true. We're probably forgetting Mexico as well.I here the same of Americans and Europeans heading over to Cuba.
Absolutely. A more localised system means more democratic accountability. I've something of a love affair with democracy but it isn't always the answer - in many situations the best option may be individual conscience. Either way, it still requires far more decentralisation and localism, so i apologise for the Non Sequitur.
Canadian Health Care isn't what its claimed
Canadian health care has some good points but has serious problems. Skip the middle man and the talking heads, go straight to the source. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) is tasked by the Canadian govt with collecting and analyzing health care information from all of Canada.
So, if you think wait times are not a problem, check out
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-575-...151078-eng.htm
or
www.cihi.ca
There is all kinds of data, but in general roughly 54% of people had to wait more than 1 month to see a specialist, and then 44% had to wait more than 1 month for the diagnostic test. Thats just the specialist and the specialists diagnostic test, not treatment.
From
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/produc...06_chap2_e.pdf
Wait time of >4 weeks to see a specialist: Canada 57% USA 23%
Median wait times for an MRI (2008) were about 2 days for urgent cases, and 3 to 6 MONTHS (depends on the province) for non-urgent.
There's a lot more in the data.
I looked up cataract surgery since my wife had that procedure last year. In Canada, the median wait time to see the surgeon (specialist) is 1 month. Surgery wait time: anywhere from 14 days to 1 year, most are in the 3-6 month range. The Canadian govt set a benchmark for cataract surgery of 4 months. My wife had her appointment with the specialist in 1 month, and had surgery 3 weeks after that (and the 3 week wait was to fit her schedule, not the physicians).
The following from the Canada Chamber of Commerce is a good summary of the status of their health care system:
(http://www.chamber.ca/images/uploads...lthcare.pdf),:
Canadian health care has some good points but has serious problems. Skip the middle man and the talking heads, go straight to the source. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) is tasked by the Canadian govt with collecting and analyzing health care information from all of Canada.
So, if you think wait times are not a problem, check out
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-575-...151078-eng.htm
or
www.cihi.ca
There is all kinds of data, but in general roughly 54% of people had to wait more than 1 month to see a specialist, and then 44% had to wait more than 1 month for the diagnostic test. Thats just the specialist and the specialists diagnostic test, not treatment.
From
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/produc...06_chap2_e.pdf
Wait time of >4 weeks to see a specialist: Canada 57% USA 23%
Median wait times for an MRI (2008) were about 2 days for urgent cases, and 3 to 6 MONTHS (depends on the province) for non-urgent.
There's a lot more in the data.
I looked up cataract surgery since my wife had that procedure last year. In Canada, the median wait time to see the surgeon (specialist) is 1 month. Surgery wait time: anywhere from 14 days to 1 year, most are in the 3-6 month range. The Canadian govt set a benchmark for cataract surgery of 4 months. My wife had her appointment with the specialist in 1 month, and had surgery 3 weeks after that (and the 3 week wait was to fit her schedule, not the physicians).
The following from the Canada Chamber of Commerce is a good summary of the status of their health care system:
(http://www.chamber.ca/images/uploads...lthcare.pdf),:
Through the Canada Health Act and provincial legislation, the key aspects of diagnostic services and surgical procedures for medically necessary conditions have been restricted to those funded by government. With an aging population and advances in healthcare requiring ever-increasing funding, governments have not had the finances available to meet demand. Wait lists have grown substantially, and have the effect of rationing healthcare. The situation has reached crisis proportions, as acknowledged in a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in June 2005.
.....
Against this background, public dissatisfaction with and concern regarding the Canadian healthcare system
has reached a high level. The federal and provincial governments have acted to increase funding for the
system, but the fundamental problem remains.
.....
Against this background, public dissatisfaction with and concern regarding the Canadian healthcare system
has reached a high level. The federal and provincial governments have acted to increase funding for the
system, but the fundamental problem remains.
Excellent posting Dave. Never realized that there was so much information available on the services, but then again that must make sense. I also find that the quality of services vary, as "Government" medical services in a place like White Rock, would be much better than at Vancouver General for example. I had a friend in White Rock who needed cancer surgery and she got it almost within a day. She could not praise the system more than she had, especially post-operative care and follow up checking. I also had a friend who needed major back surgery and who lived in Vancouver Central, and was put in your classical line-up for an operation, she almost died of pain, literally, until one day when they had to trolley her into the Vancouver General Hospital, and the doctors must have realized they needed to speed things up. She still had a waiting period after that. Her impressions of nursing care were the worst she has ever seen but she thought the surgery was excellent.
What I am trying to say is that even when the reports seems to be standardized, the line ups seem to be inconsistent and relative to where you are, also if you have lots of money and can network well, you seem to be better off as in any place in the world. Money talks.
It's not the basic health care that cost us, it's when we get beyond basic that they really start charging ridiculous amounts for the services.
The rich (doctors) are not complaining so they will continue do get richer, the poor will always be poor.
I have been around plenty of poor and many will only get richer is propped up by unions which tend to destroy the business they rely on.
In the US, it matters less who is in power. So they have to make more of a fuss.
True! rotflmao
This last one mattered though. The US was on the verge of constitutional collapse, and may still be.
Verge? Our last president saw it as a 'piece of paper' and our current thinks it's out of date and thus irrelevant.
We haven't had a Constitutional gov't since the War of Southern Secession (I don't like Civil War, makes it seem like their was only 1).
Yeah I think this last one may bring the whole country down with him. Look how many are ready to "fall on the sword" for him.
Yeah I think this last one may bring the whole country down with him. Look how many are ready to "fall on the sword" for him.
Politicians are good at fecking things up. But i don't think they can achieve that much. He seems actually pretty good at maintaining the status quo while inflaming the right-wing media with his cosmetic changes?
So, I doubt it.
Maybe all of the Fox "news" station...?
:giggle:
Interesting point of view
Especially the reference to the current President thinking the Constitution is out of date and therefore treating it then as irrelevant.What would the difference be between the current "unconstitutional" Government and the Constitutional Government at the time of Southern Secession?
Interesting point of view
What would the difference be with the current unconstitutional Government vs a Constitutional Government at the time of Southern Secession?
There was no Constitutional gov't at the time. That's why we went (or rather tried) independent!
Now you've got me! Does that mean that the United States doesn't have a constitution?There was no Constitutional gov't at the time. That's why we went (or rather tried) independent!
Now you've got me! Does that mean that the United States doesn't have a constitution?
1 that's relevant? No. Just look at the SC. It's duty is to interpret the Constitution, not make law. While I happen to agree with the law's it's creating with it's rulings (except for the whole abortion thing) I can still see that it's illegal.
The root source of US law is the British common law. Common law judges have always been law makers. That is what protects people from unreasonable governments. In days of yore the giver of the law was the king and the courts stood between the king and the people, creating such doctrines as "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". In the US the law giver is the Congress subject to the Constitution, but the duty of the courts remains that of standing between the source of the law and the people whom the law governs.
That is the nature of common law government. Saying that it is not is no more useful than standing in a blizzard in Florida and saying, "This isn't snow because I'm in Florida."
Similar threads
