In light of the U.S.A. having only 5% of the world's population, but having 70% of number of lawyers in the world, can you imagine how long the line-up of lawyers would be at the employment office.
That would be a day that would put a smile on my face...
Ireland has tort reform. Stopped at the BS lawsuits that lawyers here do because they know the "break point" where its cheaper to pay them then fight.... with tort they would fight is as they can recover their costs from the plantiff and that attorney. How sweet is that for stopping the crap!
2005 Rockwood 26' 5'er, Michelin LTX MS tires, 270 watts of solar on the roof, 4 T-105 golf cart batteries, Xentrex converter, Outback FX2012T inverter/charger.
If you can't take it with ya, why bother with an RV!
2000 Tundra (bought 9/9/99)
JBA Headers
Gone but not forgotten~
Now, we get socialized meds. The doctors now have a set pay, which is good, but, since the pay is now lowered it is no longer feasable to goto yale or harvard, why would you when u make the same money as a graduate of University Of Local state. There is no incentive to push forward, there is no incentive to try to over achieve, cause we all know doctors do the work cause they know its for the better of humanity, and not because they can make shite tons of money.
Really, will the standard of health care remain the same? how could it when u remove any kind of incentive.
but that is one silly argument as doctors will just continue at lower pay when no other buisiness worker would? They are such better people.
chucky
Chuck, I am with you all the way in opposing doctors being on a set pay as is the case in some communist countries.
I live in Canada with a universal healthcare system. My doctor is in private practice and so is my wife's doctor, as are other doctors and specialists in Canada. As you and the Good Doctor in your life know, it's all piece work for doctors and specialists...the more patients they see, or the more prescriptions they write, the more they will get paid. That's how it is in Canada. Doctors are paid for every patient visit and every prescription they write. Further, specialists are paid for every surgery they perform. The more they work the more money they make. The difference in Canada is the doctors or specialists don't bill the patient, they bill the government.
I understand some doctors work 60 to 80 hours a week in the U.S. No doubt they would make considerably more than a doctor working 25-30 hours a week. My daughter had been referred to specialist one time several years ago. While chatting with the specialist during the examination, he boastfully told me the office hours he works was 9am to 2pm; with a tee-off time at 3pm, 19th hole at 5pm, and then home for supper. (This might help explain the waiting times in Canada.)
You can find more about how Canadian doctors are paid from here:
...and then scroll down to "Physicians, Nurses and medical organization". Below that gives information on "wait times".
Stuball
Excellent post
I suppose this supports what I was saying about making your life better.
CAN vs USA
Life Expectancy 80.7 vs 78.1
Infant mortality 5.0 vs 6.7
Physicians per 1000 people 2.2 vs 2.4
Nurses per 1000 people 9.0 vs 10.6
Per capita expenditure $3895 vs $7290
health care as % GDP 10.1 vs 16.0
So in Canada, overall, you are likely to live longer and your kids are less likely to die...and at close to half the price. Sounds like a win-win. And Americans keep wondering why we think its a good idea?
__________________
Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be Woodrow!
I suppose this supports what I was saying about making your life better.
CAN vs USA
Life Expectancy 80.7 vs 78.1
Infant mortality 5.0 vs 6.7
Physicians per 1000 people 2.2 vs 2.4
Nurses per 1000 people 9.0 vs 10.6
Per capita expenditure $3895 vs $7290
health care as % GDP 10.1 vs 16.0
So in Canada, overall, you are likely to live longer and your kids are less likely to die...and at close to half the price. Sounds like a win-win. And Americans keep wondering why we think its a good idea?
I'd love to see those same stats when you take out the people who don't have insurance. I think the point that is being lost on you Canuks is that we don't give a rat's azz about providing free health care to illegal aliens and those who make bad life decisions.
__________________
Songdog
If you're being chased by a police dog, try not to go through a tunnel, then on to a little seesaw, then jump through a hoop of fire. They're trained for that!
-- Milton Jones
I did alot of reaserch before i got my lasik surgery several months ago. I searched posts for negative experiences, google, everything i could to find out about how many people had bad experieinces. I was sooo surprised to find tons of people who had bad experiences. You know what my surprise was? all but 2 where from canada. 2 where from america and they had it done many years ago.
All who had bad experiences left canada to come to america to get a fix. All where told the same thing, you where never a candadite for the surgery and should never have had it, and it cann't be fixed.
With no recourse they have to suffer the consiquenses, i am sure i didn't spell that right, and it was simply because in that system, you go decide you want it, put in for it wait your time, get it done. There is no real care to it simply, in my opinion, because they are pushing a number game. Get them in and out, it's free, and no one cares except those in pain.
There is no real consern for patients because they dont matter. get them in get them out and goto wherever.
god save us there are 2 people on this site supporting the bill, 1 from cali, 1 from canida and the rest oppose it. I think this is a very fair assesment from the country.
I did alot of reaserch before i got my lasik surgery several months ago. I searched posts for negative experiences, google, everything i could to find out about how many people had bad experieinces. I was sooo surprised to find tons of people who had bad experiences. You know what my surprise was? all but 2 where from canada. 2 where from america and they had it done many years ago.
All who had bad experiences left canada to come to america to get a fix. All where told the same thing, you where never a candadite for the surgery and should never have had it, and it cann't be fixed.
With no recourse they have to suffer the consiquenses, i am sure i didn't spell that right, and it was simply because in that system, you go decide you want it, put in for it wait your time, get it done. There is no real care to it simply, in my opinion, because they are pushing a number game. Get them in and out, it's free, and no one cares except those in pain.
There is no real consern for patients because they dont matter. get them in get them out and goto wherever.
god save us there are 2 people on this site supporting the bill, 1 from cali, 1 from canida and the rest oppose it. I think this is a very fair assesment from the country.
god save us, we don't seem to be able to
chuck
While interesting, you've got it a little backwards.
First, when you want laser surgery, you ask your eye care professional if they think you are a good candidate prior to going to the Laser Eye surgery clinic.
Second, ask your eye care professional to recommend a laser surgery clinic.
Third, your supposed to discuss the risks, benefits and your expectations with the surgeon. Read the "informed consent" form thoroughly. Ask questions. Make sure you are a suitable candidate for surgery before you decide to go ahead.
Fourth, and this might surprise you considering your research, its not FREE, never has been as far as I know.
I've never had the surgery myself, but friends who have had it done seem happy with their outcomes. The more recent people seem happier than the ones who had it done 20 years ago, and in some cases, they are able to get it corrected. The two people I know who had corrections had them done here.
Like any business, you get what you pay for, and if you want the $400 per eye operation, you shouldn't be surprised if you see a halo around street lights at night.
I hear commercials on the radio for this place all the time
And it might surprise you to know that one of the most common cross-border surgeries is laser eye surgery...oh...and one more thing, its not Canadians going south, its Americans coming north.
__________________
Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be Woodrow!
Last edited by Hickleberry; 11-08-2009 at 11:28 AM.
1st, I used to work for a eye company. So, I had allready gone through the am i a good candidate or not.
2nd you research the company you plan on using to see if any reviews exist for the doctor/company you plan on using
3rd you research what the downside to the operations can be.
4th be offended all you like, I found what i found.
It is sad but true that the people with good experiences don't blog about it much, more often the people with bad experiences blog about it all the time. AS i stated before, all but 2 people where pissed that the canadian doctors didn't go into enough checking to see if they where good candidates.
O, and for the record, I spend 2 weeks looking for people with downsides to thier experiences and evaluating them. My eyes hurt, do not interest me this is expected, I have scattered vision since it was done does concern me.
Face it, In my research online, and you can go check out what you find yourself with google or whatever, it's canadians who had the most problems, and if you really think americans goto canida for any health care, please provide any available data pertaining. It just doesn't happen. Stop watching tv, its mostly fiction, read what people put down for thier own experience. Those are much more realiable. Just weed out the wimpering parts.
I personally don't think all canadian docs are bad, I just haven't seen anything at all to imply that canida has a better health care system. perhaps cheaper as they bill government and take it out of your colletive taxes, but, if you checked where did most of the doctors there goto med shool at? How many came to america just to get that seal of approval? And more so, why is it sooo important to have things like, "did my fellowship at Yale/Harvard/John Hopkins? Why is american medical soo touted around the world, so important to see on a resume, if we suck soo badly in the medical field??
I never assumed you where undereducated, your posting implies to me that is what you think of me. Totally incorrect. But, I assumed that people would guess i had done the other needed leg work before undergoing a surgery that is totally optional not required.
I suppose this supports what I was saying about making your life better.
CAN vs USA
Life Expectancy 80.7 vs 78.1
Infant mortality 5.0 vs 6.7
Physicians per 1000 people 2.2 vs 2.4
Nurses per 1000 people 9.0 vs 10.6
Per capita expenditure $3895 vs $7290
health care as % GDP 10.1 vs 16.0
So in Canada, overall, you are likely to live longer and your kids are less likely to die...and at close to half the price. Sounds like a win-win. And Americans keep wondering why we think its a good idea?
I see these all the time. Here's a question. Take the infant mortality rate. Sweden is 2.5. Canada 5.0. U.S. 6.7
So, Canada has TWICE the rate of Sweden. How do you explain that? Sweden and Canada both have socialized medicine. So, it would seem to me that something else can explain this. Maybe the teen pregnancy rate? Or percentage of people seeking neo-natal care. Yet, you compare Canada's 5.0 to the U.S. 6.7, and you explain it all away by saying it's the system. I don't think so. Same arguments can be used for every other stat. It would be nice if it were so simple, but it's not.
/Mike
__________________
2001 2WD Silver Tundra: 4x4 TRD springs, Daystar 1", Carson AAL, red/blue Bilsteins, 265/75 Revo's, IS kit(minus bumper) and rims(hand polished), RF851X amp, Alpine HU, JL 6.5"XR comps, Qlogic with JL 8W3V2 subs. 185k miles and counting......
2005 Silver Sienna LE with 12" Overhead DVD
Face it, In my research online, and you can go check out what you find yourself with google or whatever, it's canadians who had the most problems, and if you really think americans goto canida for any health care, please provide any available data pertaining. It just doesn't happen.
"In some months, more than 50% of Sutton's patients are Americans; most are from Washington state, but some come from as far as California, Oregon and Idaho. They are lured across the border by the attractive exchange rate and cheaper surgical fees, as well as by the fact that the Vancouver doctors have more experience with the surgery than their American counterparts. Sutton says the high volume of surgery in Vancouver allows clinics to charge less, and "we have more advanced equipment than [is allowed in the US]"
"Shouldice Hospital
This hospital, having gained a worldwide reputation for the technique of repairing hernias, (the method having been developed some 50 years ago), has treated 400 - 500 American patients a year!"
The Institute of Cosmetic Surgery
"Dr. Tarshis has performed various procedures for over 500 American patients"
"Bochner Eye Institute
Laser eye surgery seems to be growing in popularity and the laser technology being developed and in use in Canada today is distinctly different from the first or second generation of lasers used in the U.S. The Canadian government has approved for use advanced laser technology equipment and procedures that the FDA has not as yet certified.
The Bochner Eye Institute uses the Nidek 5000 laser, developed in Japan, and as a result of performing this procedure since 1991, is now seeing 100- 150 American patients annually.
Many patients are referred by their eye care doctors or even their physicians, and have come from as far as Texas and California, (you may recognize some names) although most patients coming from the U.S. are from the border States. "
Private offices which offer these surgeries are better suited than hospitals, since paying for a hospital visit in cash isn't as common here.
In addition, Canadians are on waiting lists, there would be riots if Americans were put at the front of the line because they showed up with cash. Its not to say our hospitals couldn't start, the infrastructure is there, but hospitals are not supposed to be money makers.
I did find an article which sites the reasons for Americans going to Canada for medical treatment.
I see these all the time. Here's a question. Take the infant mortality rate. Sweden is 2.5. Canada 5.0. U.S. 6.7
So, Canada has TWICE the rate of Sweden. How do you explain that? Sweden and Canada both have socialized medicine. So, it would seem to me that something else can explain this. Maybe the teen pregnancy rate? Or percentage of people seeking neo-natal care. Yet, you compare Canada's 5.0 to the U.S. 6.7, and you explain it all away by saying it's the system. I don't think so. Same arguments can be used for every other stat. It would be nice if it were so simple, but it's not.
/Mike
Infant mortality rate at which babies die at less than 1 year of age.
But, since you asked
"Part of the answer may lie in international differences in the registration of babies with an extremely low birth weight or countries’ classifications of births as live births or stillbirths. Some researchers suggest that comparisons between countries should therefore be interpreted with caution.6 A European report on perinatal indicators, for example, noted a wide variation in how European countries define infant mortality, due to differences in birth and death registration practices (that is, differences in the cut-off points for acceptable weight or estimated gestation period to be registered as a birth and subsequent death).7 This discrepancy can lead to under-reporting of infant deaths by some countries, particularly when compared with countries that use a broader definition for live birth. The international discrepancies in data may have existed for some time, but they have been overlooked because of much higher infant mortality rates. Now that rates are so much lower, however, differences in registration may be more important in explaining inter-country differences in infant mortality.8
Other researchers suggest that Canada’s ability to reduce infant mortality is constrained by the successful delivery of more preterm babies and babies with very low birth weight. These babies face higher risk of death. Statistics Canada reports that the increase in the infant mortality rate in 2002 was entirely due to the deaths of infants less than one day old.9 The factors underlying an increase in the number of low-birth-weight babies may include socio-economic and environmental determinants of maternal and child health, as well as health-system factors such as the use of new technologies in high-risk deliveries.
New fertility programs are also resulting in more multiple births (two or more babies). These babies are usually born preterm, with a higher risk of early death.
The greater number of low-birth-weight and preterm babies, coupled with the discrepancies among countries in defining “live births,” could be contributing to Canada’s relatively higher rate of infant mortality. These medical and methodological factors undoubtedly play a role in Canada’s infant mortality rate. "
__________________
Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be Woodrow!
god save us there are 2 people on this site supporting the bill, 1 from cali, 1 from canida and the rest oppose it. I think this is a very fair assesment from the country.
chuck
This site is a hell of a lot bigger than you suspect. Most people steer clear of these
arguments for good reason. If you're talking about the post in question, don't go
by the count of people replying as most of it is people going back and forth.
As far as the people on this site you're referring to having opinions that reflect a
fair assesment of this country, I don't think so. Thank God to that!
John
__________________
The fools, the fools the fools! They have left us
our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these
graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace!
Infant mortality rate at which babies die at less than 1 year of age.
But, since you asked
"Part of the answer may lie in international differences in the registration of babies with an extremely low birth weight or countries’ classifications of births as live births or stillbirths. Some researchers suggest that comparisons between countries should therefore be interpreted with caution.6 A European report on perinatal indicators, for example, noted a wide variation in how European countries define infant mortality, due to differences in birth and death registration practices (that is, differences in the cut-off points for acceptable weight or estimated gestation period to be registered as a birth and subsequent death).7 This discrepancy can lead to under-reporting of infant deaths by some countries, particularly when compared with countries that use a broader definition for live birth. The international discrepancies in data may have existed for some time, but they have been overlooked because of much higher infant mortality rates. Now that rates are so much lower, however, differences in registration may be more important in explaining inter-country differences in infant mortality.8
Other researchers suggest that Canada’s ability to reduce infant mortality is constrained by the successful delivery of more preterm babies and babies with very low birth weight. These babies face higher risk of death. Statistics Canada reports that the increase in the infant mortality rate in 2002 was entirely due to the deaths of infants less than one day old.9 The factors underlying an increase in the number of low-birth-weight babies may include socio-economic and environmental determinants of maternal and child health, as well as health-system factors such as the use of new technologies in high-risk deliveries.
New fertility programs are also resulting in more multiple births (two or more babies). These babies are usually born preterm, with a higher risk of early death.
The greater number of low-birth-weight and preterm babies, coupled with the discrepancies among countries in defining “live births,” could be contributing to Canada’s relatively higher rate of infant mortality. These medical and methodological factors undoubtedly play a role in Canada’s infant mortality rate. "
Soooo......long story short Hick. It has NOTHING to do with your single payer system being better than what we have in the states. So to point at it and quote it as a stat which supports this claim, is bogus.
/Mike
__________________
2001 2WD Silver Tundra: 4x4 TRD springs, Daystar 1", Carson AAL, red/blue Bilsteins, 265/75 Revo's, IS kit(minus bumper) and rims(hand polished), RF851X amp, Alpine HU, JL 6.5"XR comps, Qlogic with JL 8W3V2 subs. 185k miles and counting......
2005 Silver Sienna LE with 12" Overhead DVD
__________________
2.4" front/1" rear leveling kit - toyo A/T 285/75/18 tires - bull bar with hella 500FF lights - 20% tint side and back windows - 55% full windshield tint
in the works:
stock HU -> LOC -> PPI FRX-456 -> DLS A4 + Marathon 6150 -> DLS iridium 6.2 comps + Hybrid-Audio L3's + 4 Tang Band W6-1139SI's
to come:
JBL MS-8 + center channel speaker + components for the rear + sirius adapter for stock HU
Re: Health Care Revolt
Linear Mode
