so your blind, thats not canadas fault.
who's fault is it then, Bush ?
so your blind, thats not canadas fault.
unless you don't have coverage...and are not rich....then you don't even get to wait.
also you state a cause and effect with no proof. They have Universal health care, and it took a while...so one must cause the other.
Its cold in Canada...it took 8 months...thus if its cold it takes to long to get a MRI... Or of course it could be that the US has far more medical places to go and get checked...and have nothing to do with how its paid for...Or are you saying because evryone can get one done if needed it takes to long? so how do you fix that..ration it?
Our System Rations every day, just because you fail to see it does not make it not true.
She was not an institutional sort of the kind you report upon. She needed a cat scan and had to wait 8 months to get one which was enough time for the cancer to become inoperable. You can get a scan here in hours if you need it.
You asked us to compare so i did and I find them sorely lacking.
You compare ONE example (one that you alone have knowledge of) and you extend it to the whole Canadian system.
By the way, you are wrong. You do not get. CATscans "on demand" in the states, and not within hours, unless you suffer a massive head trauma, and it is a proven emergency. I had a CTScan recently, after suffering a head trauma in a car accident (broke the side window with the left side of my forehead) although iwas taken by ambulance to the hospital, with my head bleeding, and shards of glass sticking out of the gash, it took 5 weeks before I finally had a CATscan . . . Because I didn't lose consciousness, so it wasn't deemed an emergency.
You compare ONE example (one that you alone have knowledge of) and you extend it to the whole Canadian system.
By the way, you are wrong. You do not get. CATscans "on demand" in the states, and not within hours, unless you suffer a massive head trauma, and it is a proven emergency. I had a CTScan recently, after suffering a head trauma in a car accident (broke the side window with the left side of my forehead) although iwas taken by ambulance to the hospital, with my head bleeding, and shards of glass sticking out of the gash, it took 5 weeks before I finally had a CATscan . . . Because I didn't lose consciousness, so it wasn't deemed an emergency.
no, you have to have a dr's order but if he deems it necessary, you'll get it as rapidly as he requires. your doc deemsymptoms and really only did it to run up the tab.
American auto glass does not produce shards by the way.
from What Obama Can Learn from European Health Care | NewAmerica ... healthca.newamerica.net/Mar 3, 2009 – The first overriding difference between U.S. and European healthcare systems is one of philosophy. The various European healthcare systems
"My father-in-law had a similar experience while vacationing in Switzerland. He awoke one morning with what turned out to be a painful urinary tract blockage. The doctor paid a house call with hardly any wait at all and inserted a cleverly designed catheter that had no drainage bag.
Even though he was a foreigner, my father-in-law paid out-of-pocket only $100 for this emergency service. Back at home in Minneapolis when he had to go to the emergency room a couple of years later, he waited nearly nine hours to receive medical attention, even though he had health insurance.
A U.S. expatriate living in Belgium told me that both he and his sister in Minneapolis had a procedure called a catheter ablation of the heart to eliminate an irregular heartbeat. Even though she had full medical coverage provided by her employer, she spent $2,400 out-of-pocket for the procedure which was performed as an outpatient surgery under a mild sedative.
For the same procedure in Belgium, he paid just under $100 and received full royal treatment, including two nights in the hospital for observation and post-op recovery.
The medicine he now needs to take costs him about $4 for a three-week supply. In the United States that same medicine costs his sister $19 - nearly five times the price in Belgium."
That's funny, because my doctor removed a piece of glass out of my forehead even 2 weeks ago. The scaring had covered it, but it worked its way out through the skin. . .2 1/2 months after the accident.
And my friend just had to wait 4 weeks to get an MRI (she is still waiting for the results) after having been diagnosed with a suspicious lump in her breast.
you need a better doctor. and if the lump was suspicious of being aggressive it could have been done that day. in the US that is. you would still be waitin g in socialized medicine counties.
Economist's View: Health Care: The U.S. versus Europe economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/.../health_care_the.htm...Apr 10, 2007 – What Jacques Chirac could teach us about health care, Comparative .... Yeah, that's the defining historical difference between Europe and the US
"That leaves one place to look: The results of people who actually get sick. This is where the conservative argument about American superiority seems most persuasive--because, in a few cases, it actually has some merit. Cannon, Gratzer, Tanner, and others have all seized on the survival rates for cancers--particularly breast cancer and prostate cancer. In those two cases, Americans diagnosed with those diseases are significantly more likely to live than Europeans diagnosed with them.
But before leaping to the conclusion that this proves the overall superiority of American health care ... you have to consider a slew of caveats. ... It's possible that, even accounting for such [caveats], the United States still has better treatment for breast and prostate cancer. But, even if that were true, it's hard to read the data as indictment of universal health care when the U.S. survival rate on other ailments isn't so superior. The Swedes are more likely than Americans to survive a diagnosis of cervical, ovarian, or skin cancer; the French are more likely to survive stomach cancer, Hodgkins disease, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Aussies, Brits, and Canadians do better on liver and kidney transplants."
Where did you get your PERSONAL knowledge of how other countries function?
from what I read apparently the same as you.
differing rate depend on a variety of factors. transplants are a good example given that they are done on ration they won't try on anything but solid candidates. also explains infant mortality as y'all just let them die and call any death in the first week "stillborn". apples to apples always helps.
Seriously.. You and your friend need to find a different hospital. There are at least 4 in my area where I can get Xrays, Cat scans, MRI's, whatever service I need, same day... And they usually have test results 30 mins.And my friend just had to wait 4 weeks to get an MRI (she is still waiting for the results) after having been diagnosed with a suspicious lump in her breast.
Seriously.. You and your friend need to find a different hospital. There are at least 4 in my area where I can get Xrays, Cat scans, MRI's, whatever service I need, same day... And they usually have test results 30 mins.
No, dear. I doubt if you have PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED health care in Belgium, England, France, and Italy, in addition to Pennsylvania, California, Colorado and South Carolina, both as a patient myself, and as a mother, and wife.
Are you really stating that transplants are given to just ANYONE in the US? Another illusion that may explain your false beliefs in the "greatness" of our medical system!
And, you are actually offensive when you talk about system of health care you know NOTHING at all about! If you knew anything about health care in Europe, you would KNOW that every child has to be LEGALLY register with the state within 24 hours of the birth, so if that child dies even within a week, there is absolutely NO WAY it can be registered as "stillbirth!"
And, another PERSONAL experience that contradict your ridiculous statement! My niece gave birth to a VERY premature baby. . .weighing just under 1 lb. The baby was obviously placed in an incubateur, and my niece spend 20 hours every day, for a period of 4 months with her child. Miraculously, that child survived (the doctors credited the constant holding and care provided by my niece, more than they credited their skills!). Today that tiny baby is a 14 year old girl, 5 ft 9, full of life, with an IQ of 134, she speaks 3 languages, is an equestrian and a tennis player, and has a bright future in front of her.
No, dear, we do NOT let our children die! Thanks to the availability of birth control, legal early term abortions, free health care, child benefits, and the desire to keep the population at the current level, children in Europe are enormously valued. Pregnancy is a reason for pride and joy, and EVERY child who is born is absolutely wanted, both by the parents and by the governments.
But since you are choosing to resort to insults and ridiculous lies because you are running out of factual arguments, I choose to stop this discussion with you. Your last comment was FILTH!
There is NO excuse for that kind of dirt. It just demonstrates the kind of person you are.
Yes, they do let them die. I'm glad your niece escaped that fate.