is that true? Like he said 'you could be sitting in the emergency room for weeks' For countries like england is that true? That is a gross oversimplification. There may be waiting lists for certain procedures. People brought to the emergency room who need immediate care get it. I have friends in the UK and Canada. The don't love their socialized medical plans. Of course, those plans are significantly different from what either Democrat has proposed. For example, people who are currently insured wouldn't necessarily involved in the new programs. They are really for the currently uninsured people in the US. It is absolutely TRUE !!!!
Many people in Canada have died waiting
for Treatment...not weeks MONTHS !!!!
What you have to understand about
Socialist Health care is, that it is NOT
the Doctors that make the decision on
whether you get a Heart Operation...but
a Bean Counter...None Medical Person
far removed from where you are !!!!
You know...NO WHERE in the US Constitution
or "Bill Of Rights" is it written or Guaranteed
that everyone Has "Health Care"...
That is just a Democrat/Socialist Party
agenda...If you want to lose all of your
FREEDOMS then Vote Democrat !!!! Wrong,, I know from experience it is wrong to teach and say that..another example why our school system has failed Not true.
Studies show that the wait times in the U.S. are actually longer than in other industrialized nations like England, Germany, New Zealand & Australia (all of which have universal health care).
In Canada there is no wait time for emergency surgeries - and the wait for non-emergencys is long - but on par with the wait times in the U.S.
By the way, the U.S. also lags behind all these counties in mortality rates & life expectancy. True. In fact, there is a case right now in England of a little girl with a rare form of cancer who needs surgury right now, and the NHS won't pay for her to go to the United States to get it, and she has to wait a month (she will be dead by then) for the surgury in the UK. Mindless. well, i dont think you would sit in the emergency room for weeks, but if you want to get a scheduled procedure done, it can take far more than weeks. i saw tv show on this, like 20/20 or something about people from canada happy with the care, but not with the wait. they could get the surgery they needed without paying for it, but by the time they got it, it would be too late, so they decided to come to the US and have to pay for it by themselves (very expensive) and go broke, just to get it done in time. I doubt it but to get a truer answer, re ask the question in the section with Canada, Canadians have such a health program. You should probably get a better answer to your question. You can get emergency care, its the cure that you have to wait for. Your teacher is an idiot. I lived in Germany and the Netherlands for 14 years and never had to wait more than a few days even for major surgery. Yes, In Canada if you need to see a specialist you could wait up to 6 months at times, and if you need a special operation or something that is considered not of the norm for a treatment they will not give it to you. Not quite. You'll likely get treated quickly for an emergency.
But in Canada, you could be waiting for months and months for joint replacement surgery, living in pain and discomfort, because it's considered "elective" surgery. Also, there have been a number of cases where pregnant women starting to give birth were refused admission to a hospital because it was full. People sometimes have to wait many weeks to get an MRI to determine if they have cancer. The average wait for access to health care in 12 specialties was 18.3 weeks in 2007*.
In England, some people have been unable to get to see a dentist and had to pull their own teeth.
*There is a study by the Fraser Institute which annually compiles lists of waiting times for procedures in Canada. Check it out.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.... No, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Most of the countries in the world have a health care system that is either comparable to, or better than, that in the US. Read the ENTIRE article. It's long, but I'll quote just a part and yes you can spend DAYS literally IN the ER waiting to be seen according to the doctor who worked in the system. This Canadian born & raised left that "paradise" of UHC for the bad old US:
"...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system鈥檚 problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. 鈥淭his is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,鈥?he fumed to the New York Times, 鈥渁nd in which humans can wait two to three years.鈥?br>
And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day鈥檚 clinic, for instance, handles workers鈥?compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital鈥檚 emergency room.
This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain鈥檚 government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party鈥攚hich originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as 鈥淎mericanization鈥濃€攏ow openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: 鈥淭he big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.鈥?Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain鈥檚 nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.
Sweden鈥檚 government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm鈥檚 primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city鈥檚 largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It鈥檚 important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual鈥攎arket reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_ca...
Eye-opener:
Jewish World Review Feb. 29, 2008 / 23 Adar I 5768
Dying for Universal Healthcare 鈥?British Patients Starved and Left inAmbulances
By Drs. Michael A. Glueck & Robert J. Cihak
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The Democratic candidates tell us they can provide healthcare for all either mandated or not. It sounds utopian except they don't say how we will pay for it or that the quality and quantity of care will go down as costs go up.
If we think we want universal healthcare first we need to make a few reality checks. It hasn't worked in Britain, Canada, France, Germany, and Russia.
There are some alarming health abuses going on in the United Kingdom recently noted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and others.
To meet U.K. government targets, which require emergency department patients to be treated within four hours, thousands of patients are kept in ambulances outside the department for hours. Last year, more than 43,000 patients waited for more than an hour before being allowed into the emergency room.
Ambulances that are being used as "mobile waiting rooms" are unavailable to take fresh calls. The Labour government brought in the four-hour standard in an effort to end the scandal of patients waiting in casualty for days (Daily Mail 2/20/08).
British patients are being denied certain operations because of lack of worthiness, based on smoking, obesity, heavy drinking, or age. Officials are urging patients to turn to "self care" instead of physician visits.
Statistics from the Conservative Party show that the number of patients released from British National Health Service (NHS) hospitals with malnutrition has doubled in the decade since Labour came to power, increasing from 74,431 in 1997 to 139,127. While most of the patients had nutritional deficiencies on admission, the nutritional condition of at least 8,500 actually worsened during their hospital stay.
Last year, Health Minister Ivan Lewis admitted that patients were being starved on the wards, with some elderly patients given little more than a scoop of mashed potatoes for lunch. Often, elderly patients are given non-pureed food that they cannot chew or swallow. Food trays may be placed out of reach and simply taken away when patients are too weak to get to them (Telegraph 1/1/08). "The threat to cut benefits to the old and the unhealthy in Britain is a clear confirmation that healthcare can never be free," he says. "The threat also shows that healthcare can't be truly universal, at least not for the long term, because it becomes too costly to maintain as such" ("Health Freezes Over," Investor聫s Business Daily 1/29/08).
One way to relieve strains on the system is to allow patients to pay privately for portions of their care脨while still receiving "basic" care from the NHS. For example, patient Debbie Hirst, who has metastatic breast cancer, attempted to raise $120,000 to pay for Avastin, a drug widely used in the U.S. and Europe but not available to NHS patients until the cancer is so widespread that treatment may be hopeless.
Such arrangements have tacitly been allowed before, but in this case the doctor delivered the news that he was getting his wrists slapped by the higher-ups. If the patient paid for Avastin, so goes the logic, she'd have to pay for all of her treatment 鈥?far more than she could afford.
Patients "hopscotch" all the time, for example paying for a timely private consultation or MRI, then getting their surgery from the NHS. But "that way lies the end of the founding principles of the NHS," said health secretary Alan Johnson to parliament.
The rules for private co-payments are contradictory and confusing. The idea of the NHS may be to assure rich and poor get equal treatment, but the system is riddled with inequities. Drug availability, waiting lists, and per capita spending for cancer care vary wildly from region to region.
As patient Hirst explained: "I'm a person who left school at 15 and I've worked all my life and paid into the system, and I'm not going to live long enough to get my old-age pension from this government" (New York Times 2/21/08). There is no need to die while seeking universal care.
Editor's Note: This week's commentary is submitted by Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0208/me...
ONLY worthy plan for health care reform in the US:
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm...
Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com
Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World Yes, although I do not think you will be sitting in the emergency room for weeks - that is an exaggeration. I do think you will wait for care. Have you ever seen the govt be efficient and a good steward of the money you give them? Look at social security and realize that if you invested what they tax you, by the time youre ready to get that crappy little check they give you, you could have made yourself a multimillionaire if you get 10% return on your investments (assuming you only make a whopping 20K a year). No, that is just "conservative" propaganda.
Providing universal health care in the US would likely reduce the income of certain wealthy individuals and industries. Accordingly, they have instituted a rather powerful disinformation campaign. Weeks,months and years The Canadians who can afford it come to America They well never talk about it and they think it's free Maybe they think we yanks pay for it Not True. It is just right wing scare tactics. In Canada the system has been starved of funds for a decade just to "prove" to everyone that a pay as you go US system is better (guess WHO is behind that?..WHO will make the money?) In spite of the funds being cut off the system still manages to care for the vast majority of patients. When the system was first introduced it worked flawlessly and it can do so again if we just get rid of those who would deliberately sabotage it. Dont ever think that lining the pockets of BIG MEDICINE in the U$A will ever get you better health care, all it will get you is broke. |
