Ah the joys of state-provided health care....

[natedogg]

denying cancer treatment. It's expensive!

denying alzheimer treatment. It's expensive!

I thought socialized medicine was supposed to ensure access to expensive treatments for people who couldn't otherwise get them? What is the point of universalizing healthcare if you're just going to turn around and deny the very treatments everyone was promised?

Even in a system where you CAN buy private insurance (i.e Not canada), you had better hope you didn't rely on the state-provided coverage if you come down with a cancer they won't treat.

Sign me up! Sounds like heaven.

natedogg

[ianlippert]

Thats pretty sick. I imagine that if these people wanted to pay for it out of their own pocket they would be arrested?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats pretty sick. I imagine that if these people wanted to pay for it out of their own pocket they would be arrested?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, don't you get it? They don't have to pay out of their own pocket. They already did that by surrendering their money for national health care. Their tax dollars ensure mediocre health care for everyone!

If my sarcasm was so thick as to be undetectable, I apologize.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Although some studies have shown that it is also effective in treating HER-2 early-stage breast cancer, it has not yet been licensed for such use. If it does receive a license, the drug will be appraised for potential countrywide use.

[/ QUOTE ] Here is something in the article about cancer health care. It may not be something to worry about really; once more solid and consistent research comes out it will be licensed.

[ QUOTE ]
Even in a system where you CAN buy private insurance (i.e Not canada), you had better hope you didn't rely on the state-provided coverage if you come down with a cancer they won't treat.


[/ QUOTE ] In Canada it was wisely set up in a way that drives down the price of treatment.

[ChrisCo]

[ QUOTE ]
denying cancer treatment. It's expensive!

denying alzheimer treatment. It's expensive!

I thought socialized medicine was supposed to ensure access to expensive treatments for people who couldn't otherwise get them? What is the point of universalizing healthcare if you're just going to turn around and deny the very treatments everyone was promised?

Even in a system where you CAN buy private insurance (i.e Not canada), you had better hope you didn't rely on the state-provided coverage if you come down with a cancer they won't treat.

Sign me up! Sounds like heaven.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

This is done by many major HMO's in the U.S., not just in socailized medical countries. HMo's are always looking for the cheapest way to treat a patient even if that means denying them of a much better service and replacing it with a cheaper procedure. Kaiser is infamous for doing this.

If your worried about this you should taker a closer look at your own HMO rather than criticizing others.

[Redmen62]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats pretty sick. I imagine that if these people wanted to pay for it out of their own pocket they would be arrested?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, don't you get it? They don't have to pay out of their own pocket. They already did that by surrendering their money for national health care. Their tax dollars ensure mediocre health care for everyone !

If my sarcasm was so thick as to be undetectable, I apologize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than argue over whether Canadian health care is truly mediocre, I'll just point out that Canada smokes the US in terms of outcomes (indicator of quality of care), is hugely cheaper than care in the US, and that Canadians are healthier than Americans.

I hope for your sake that Canadian health care is better than mediocre.

[ChrisCo]

[ QUOTE ]

Rather than argue over whether Canadian health care is truly mediocre, I'll just point out that Canada smokes the US in terms of outcomes (indicator of quality of care), is hugely cheaper than care in the US, and that Canadians are healthier than Americans.

I hope for your sake that Canadian health care is better than mediocre.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding Ding Ding

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although some studies have shown that it is also effective in treating HER-2 early-stage breast cancer, it has not yet been licensed for such use. If it does receive a license, the drug will be appraised for potential countrywide use.

[/ QUOTE ] Here is something in the article about cancer health care. It may not be something to worry about really; once more solid and consistent research comes out it will be licensed.

[ QUOTE ]
Even in a system where you CAN buy private insurance (i.e Not canada), you had better hope you didn't rely on the state-provided coverage if you come down with a cancer they won't treat.


[/ QUOTE ] In Canada it was wisely set up in a way that drives down the price of treatment.

[/ QUOTE ]

And makes it extremely difficult to get an appointment. Many Canadians that makes a decent living comes to the US for any sort of specialized non-emergency treatment rather than suffer the delays and mediocrity of Canadian medicine.

One family my son billeted with in Alberta had to wait 8 months for knee surgery for the father (ACL or something like that), during which time he was barely mobile and in a lot of pain. The surgery turned out fine, but if he could have afforded it he said he would have done it in the US much sooner.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
denying cancer treatment. It's expensive!

denying alzheimer treatment. It's expensive!

I thought socialized medicine was supposed to ensure access to expensive treatments for people who couldn't otherwise get them? What is the point of universalizing healthcare if you're just going to turn around and deny the very treatments everyone was promised?

Even in a system where you CAN buy private insurance (i.e Not canada), you had better hope you didn't rely on the state-provided coverage if you come down with a cancer they won't treat.

Sign me up! Sounds like heaven.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

This is done by many major HMO's in the U.S., not just in socailized medical countries. HMo's are always looking for the cheapest way to treat a patient even if that means denying them of a much better service and replacing it with a cheaper procedure. Kaiser is infamous for doing this.

If your worried about this you should taker a closer look at your own HMO rather than criticizing others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of these plans is non-coercive? Which of these providers can you sue for breach of contract? Which one only provides service if you CHOOSE to pay for it and which one charges you first then, maybe, if you're lucky (unlike canada), lets you pay for alternative service if you're unsatisfied?

Just curious.

natedogg

[Andrew Karpinski]

Just wondering if anyone who is posting about how terrible Canadian Health Care has any experience with it? I don't go to hospitals very often (or doctors or dentists for that matter).

When I was 10 I was hit by a truck and almost died. I was rushed to the hospital, received amazing treatment for 3 MONTHS! that my mother (who was a single mother, raising three kids on welfare) would not have been able to provide if it were not for state provided care. I had THREE MONTHS of morphine, something like 10 major surgeries, non stop drugs, specialists etc.

I also once banged my knee into a fence post when I was younger, was rushed to the hospital and didn't have to wait at all, was immediately treated and received stitches.

My mother got cancer later on in her life and received exceptional care, both at the hospital and at home. She was treated for literally years, and again would not have been able to receive care if it was not for state provided health care.