Cooniedog wrote:
I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.

I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.

I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
countries when it comes to health care.

Cooniedawg
I know of several Canadians that are snow birds that travel from Canada
to the LA area for the winter. They also scheduled any operations,
medical procedure for the time they are in LA. The Canadian health care
system pays for it and they get it done in a timely manner. I should
think this speaks for itself.

Leon wrote:
wrote in message
...
Snip

You have shared just a bit of your challenges here. And I am not
being sarcastic... but just being able to understand the amount of
paperwork and levels of people to be dealt with in your situation make
you an expert in my opinion.

The health care system is a monster unto itself, no matter where you
are. At this point, I know more about M/M than I ever thought there
was to know. In the end, we still have to go to our extended care
provider for counseling on what to do to make sure the folks care is
covered. BUT... they cannot tell us what to do. They can only lay
out options. If the are caught coaching or counseling us, they can
lose the right to do business with M/M.

I have no idea what it would take to fix any of it. Personally, I
don't believe it can be fixed. I think it's too far gone.

Obviously, this is something that has been on my mind...

Robert


Robert, I think the answer is to eliminate the insurance industry from the
medical industry. Perhaps in San Antonio certainly in Houston there are TV
commercials paid for by particular "medical groups". These groups are most
often made up of select doctors, select clinics, select pharmacies, and
select hospitals. These groups DO NOT accept insurance and require you to
become a member of their group.

I never paid much attention to these commercials as they sounded like the
typical ambulance chaser attorney ad. Anyway 6 or 7 years ago I was
listening to a talk radio program that was focused on health care. A doctor
from one of these groups was the guest and they were taking listener phone
calls. The basic theme of the program that day was how to control and
afford health care. INSURANCE to the health care industry is similar to
the Labor Union and the Automobile business, they both costs through the
roof. Anyway you join the group for about $50-$75 per month for you whole
family and when you get sick you simply go to this "group". There is no
deductible or co-pay, you pay the full bill at the time of the procedure.
BUT the typical office visit is $15-$20, prescription drugs are a fraction
of the normal cost that you would normally pay if you did not have
insurance. Basically you pay a little more than an insurance co-pay but the
cost is till quite reasonable.

A listener phoned in to attest to how well these groups work out for his
family. His daughter was an up and coming tennis player, apparently she was
quite good. She injured her knee and had a persistent pain that would not
go away. They took her to their medical group and were told the bad news,
surgery would be needed, arthroscopic surgery. Long story short, $2800
later she was good to go. He indicated that he shopped around to get
competing prices from other doctors and hospitals for the same procedure and
with out insurance. IIRC the cost was going to be well in excess of
$18000.

Apparently these medical groups are doing well as I see more and more of
them in different fields, dentistry, family practice, eye care, etc,
advertising on TV more and more. From what the doctor indicated on the
radio show eliminating the insurance companies from the equation saves
everyone money. The doctors office does not need as many people to work the
paperwork to collect from insurance companies. Insurance claims are not
turned down because there are no insurance claims. Insurance rejections on
certain procedures are not turned down because there are no insurance
claims. There are no reductions of the amount paid for particular
procedures because there are no insurance claims. Cash flow is much better
as there is no longer a 2 -4 month wait for claims to be paid because there
is no insurance claim. These benefits all repeats themselves for the
pharmacies, and hospitals.
When the medical industry has to write off and spend billions to simply
deal with the insurance industry medical costs naturally go sky high.
With these medical groups you don't get treatment if you have no money so
non paying illegals crossing the border to have babies for free no longer
inflate the cost for medical care for the rest of us.

It used to work in the distant past, why not now? I suppose that the
typical citizen/ person working in the U.S. has come to expect to pay
nothing except a nothing or a small co-pay and let his employer foot the
bill for the insurance costs.

You've hit the nail on the head. Anyone that thinks everyone is going
to get medical care for less than what it costs to provide it hasn't
thought it through. I do think Insurance has a place to cover
catastrophic issues.

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
wrote in message
...
Snip


You've hit the nail on the head. Anyone that thinks everyone is going
to get medical care for less than what it costs to provide it hasn't
thought it through. I do think Insurance has a place to cover
catastrophic issues.

Having spent a lifetime working for an insurance company, let me add this: )

No "Insurance Company" is in business to lose money.
They all cry broke and take for ever to pay claims.
They only pay claims they cannot weasel out.
They can find a "pre-existing" condition for almost any ailment.
If they pay, they find some way to reduce the payment.

"Norvin" wrote in message
...
Cooniedog wrote:
I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great Britain.
They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying that
Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months and
even years of delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.

Cooniedawg
I know of several Canadians that are snow birds that travel from Canada to
the LA area for the winter. They also scheduled any operations, medical
procedure for the time they are in LA. The Canadian health care
system pays for it and they get it done in a timely manner. I should think
this speaks for itself.

I have heard of no-one doing that as Canadian healthcare will not pay for it
unless it is an emergency.
I would conceder that an outright lie lol. Keep throwing stuff out there
some of it might stick. If it was true woot woot
still better than being denied medical treatment cause your CEO wants a
bigger boat.

Upscale wrote:
"FrozenNorth" wrote in message
Depending upon the answer, they do have a Lee Valley in Saskatoon, so
you could move there.

Just to put it back on topic.

I actually considered moving to Saskatchewan at one point. All that flat
land and me hating hills so much. Now I'm glad I didn't. The land would be
flat, but I'd have been washed away in the floods.

I think you've got us confused with Manitoba. Not much flooding in
Saskatchewan this spring.

Chris

British health care is a bit of a joke in Britain.

I twisted my knee skiing and was having problems walking back in March.

My Doctor, part of our National Health Service, has made an appointment for
me to be 'assessed' for physio-therapy. Still waiting to find out when they
will decide if I need physio or not!!

My physio-therapist, charging £36 a visit and having seen me now 6 times,
thinks I need two more visits for treatment as long as I keep up with the
exercise regime he has laid down.

Having paid into the National Health Service all my working life (over 40
years) my first point of call when I need any treatment is the private
sector, be it chiropractor, physio, dentist, or even Traditional Chinese
Medicine. So I pay twice for all my medical needs.

Latest scam by our illustrious government is to get people to call into
their local chemist shop (I believe you call them pharmacies) where trained
staff can deal with them, thus keeping them away from a very overstretched
Health Service.

If you are over here don't get ill, or if you do go to Europe for a couple
of days and get some really efficient service.

--
Alan
Retired
....so yes I do have all day!
"Cooniedog" wrote in message
...
I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great Britain.
They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying that Canadians
and Brits are refused certain health care or have months and even years of
delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.

I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.

I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of the
sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective countries
when it comes to health care.

Cooniedawg

Rusty wrote:
"Norvin" wrote in message
...
Cooniedog wrote:
I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great Britain.
They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying that
Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months and
even years of delays before they receive treatments for some illnesses.

Cooniedawg
I know of several Canadians that are snow birds that travel from Canada to
the LA area for the winter. They also scheduled any operations, medical
procedure for the time they are in LA. The Canadian health care
system pays for it and they get it done in a timely manner. I should think
this speaks for itself.

I have heard of no-one doing that as Canadian healthcare will not pay for it
unless it is an emergency.
I would conceder that an outright lie lol. Keep throwing stuff out there
some of it might stick. If it was true woot woot
still better than being denied medical treatment cause your CEO wants a
bigger boat.


Well, now you have heard, so it must be true!!!!!!!!!!

On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:

And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
Cancer patients down to Six Months.

Cite please.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"PDQ" wrote in message
...

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
wrote in message
...
Snip


You've hit the nail on the head. Anyone that thinks everyone is going
to get medical care for less than what it costs to provide it hasn't
thought it through. I do think Insurance has a place to cover
catastrophic issues.

Having spent a lifetime working for an insurance company, let me add this:
)

No "Insurance Company" is in business to lose money.
They all cry broke and take for ever to pay claims.
They only pay claims they cannot weasel out.
They can find a "pre-existing" condition for almost any ailment.
If they pay, they find some way to reduce the payment.

Having been in the automotive insudtry for many years I absolutely forbid
any of my employees and or customers to allow an insurance company to enter
into the repair procedure. Our customers always wanted insurance to pay for
the repair and I always said that is fine. Let them pay you back for what I
am going to charge you for the repair but if you want us to repair your car
you will be totally responsible for paying the bill before we release your
car back to you.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:47:08 -0500, dpb wrote:

As Upscale noted, there's a lot of rationing for lack of better
nomenclature I've observed in talking w/ business acquaintances where
I've done onsite support work and gotten to know them quite well.
They're quite close to US border so it is routine for them to simply
forego the Canadian system and drive to Minot, ND or other border towns
for routine care, paying out of pocket rather than wait. That's for the
kids have ear ache, etc. The parents mostly just tough it out has been
my observation.

We live close enough to Canada that we vacation there quite often. We
usually stay in B&Bs and health care is one of the subjects that always
comes up. Most Canadians I've spoken to seem to like their system
although they do admit that sometimes there are long waits for elective
items and occasionally for critical ones.

But I think we have to balance that against two other things. There are
a lot of uninsured people in the US who don't get routine care at all or
who get charity care which is often given at a lower standard just
because of lack of funding. And of course, nobody in Canada ever went
bankrupt from medical bills.

So I suspect the percentage of unserved/underserved patients may be close
to the same in the US and Canada.

And as another poster pointed out, a doctor can make a better living in
the US - so can a drug company :-). But I've known too many doctors who
treat medicine as a calling to care much about the ones for whom it is
only a business.



--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:00:38 -0500, Swingman wrote:

wrote:

I have no idea what it would take to fix any of it. Personally, I
don't believe it can be fixed. I think it's too far gone.

Last time it worked in this country was when doctors lived in the
neighborhood and there were no insurance companies, or government,
involved ... way back when there was no concept of a "right" to medical
care and the inevitabilities of life were gracefully accepted.

... I was there, and lived it.


I was there too, and was thinking much the same thing. But the doctor
and his little black bag often treated people for free if they had no
money. One doctor I knew often got paid in chickens, corn (sometimes
distilled), etc..

Ironic, these "rights" we have been boondoggled, in ignorance, into
cherishing as inalienable, eh?


You don't consider life, as in "life, liberty, and the pursuit..." to
include health? I guess we disagree there.

There is little doubt that history will prove the "right" of every
citizen to vote in this country will be at the very root of its downfall
.. it certainly wasn't set up that way.

Now there we agree. Because qualifying to vote was misused against
minorities, we threw out the baby with the bathwater. In Washington we
now vote entirely by mail and if you're breathing you qualify to vote.
Of course in some states even breathing isn't a prerequisite :-).

The dumber the voter is, the easier he/she can be manipulated. The
politicians love the uninformed voter.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:44:43 -0700, mr fuxit wrote:

On 13 May, 17:31, Cooniedog wrote:
I'm just curious about the health care systems in Canada & Great
Britain. They are currently running TV ads here in the States saying
that Canadians and Brits are refused certain health care or have months
and even years of delays before they receive treatments for some
illnesses.

I for one, as an American, believe the is total BS put out by the
Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Companies of the U.S.

I would like to hear from some of the Canadian and British readers of
the sawdust wreck about what it is really like you you respective
countries when it comes to health care.

Cooniedawg

I will admit that the system of medical care in the UK is far from
perfect(especially since
the Thatcher administration's interference), but it seems to be many,
many times better
than the US model for those who cannot afford private health care.

Every time this subject comes up, Britain and Canada are used as
examples. I watched a show some time back on the subject and they
covered Germany and Japan as well. Seemed like single payer was working
quite a bit better there.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 14 May 2009 11:41:28 -0500, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Every time this subject comes up, Britain and Canada are used as
examples. I watched a show some time back on the subject and they
covered Germany and Japan as well. Seemed like single payer was working
quite a bit better there.

I think they both went to their systems later than Britain and Canada,
so they are benefitting from seeing what didn't work there. It might
also be worth considering that culturally they are farther removed
from us than are Britain and Canada - although I'm not sure how
relevant that really is.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:

And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
Cancer patients down to Six Months.

Cite please.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw


My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some cancers
you're dead in 62 days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm

On 5/14/2009 1:31 PM LD spake thus:

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
om...

On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:

And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
Cancer patients down to Six Months.

Cite please.

My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some cancers
you're dead in 62 days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm

Slightly misleading. First of all, we were talking about England, I
thought, and this refers to Scotland.

In any case, it isn't a "62-day waiting period": the article says "The
target, set in 2000, requires that 95% of patients begin treatment
within 62 days of being urgently referred." This means, I'm assuming,
that there is a *maximum* allowable time of 62 days until the patient is
treated. Presumably, those with more urgent cancers may be treated sooner.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Larry Blanchard wrote:

Now there we agree. Because qualifying to vote was misused against
minorities, we threw out the baby with the bathwater. In Washington
we now vote entirely by mail and if you're breathing you qualify to
vote. Of course in some states even breathing isn't a prerequisite
:-).

The dumber the voter is, the easier he/she can be manipulated. The
politicians love the uninformed voter.

That's why we need "special interests" and "lobbyists" and "Washington
insiders." They act as a counterfoil to the masses.

On 5/14/2009 2:08 PM HeyBub spake thus:

Larry Blanchard wrote:

Now there we agree. Because qualifying to vote was misused against
minorities, we threw out the baby with the bathwater. In Washington
we now vote entirely by mail and if you're breathing you qualify to
vote. Of course in some states even breathing isn't a prerequisite
:-).

The dumber the voter is, the easier he/she can be manipulated. The
politicians love the uninformed voter.

That's why we need "special interests" and "lobbyists" and "Washington
insiders." They act as a counterfoil to the masses.

No, that's why we need better education, so that Usenet posters
recognize (and avoid) that logical fallacy known as the "red herring".


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 5/14/2009 1:31 PM LD spake thus:

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
om...

On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:

And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
Cancer patients down to Six Months.

Cite please.

My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some cancers
you're dead in 62 days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm

Slightly misleading. First of all, we were talking about England, I
thought, and this refers to Scotland.

*UK* What part of *UK* is Scotland?


In any case, it isn't a "62-day waiting period": the article says "The
target, set in 2000, requires that 95% of patients begin treatment within
62 days of being urgently referred." This means, I'm assuming, that there
is a *maximum* allowable time of 62 days until the patient is treated.
Presumably, those with more urgent cancers may be treated sooner.

Or MAY NOT.

And, lest you trot into malformed uninformed notions ...

1. My sister lives in England.
2. I have 2 cousins living in England.
3. I have 2 cousins living in Scotland.
4. I have nieces and nephews living in England.
5. I have second cousins all over the UK.
6. I communicate with these people.
7. Their biggest gripe is the NHS.
8. My sister and her family lived in the US for five years.
9. I was Born in the UK.
10. I spent six months in a National Health Hospital.

LD wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
om...

On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:

And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
Cancer patients down to Six Months.


Cite please.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw



My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some cancers
you're dead in 62 days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm


If you've got a type of cancer that's going to kill you in less than 62
days most likely any treatment you'd received during that time wouldn't
help.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"Upscale" writes:

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
I think you've got us confused with Manitoba. Not much flooding in
Saskatchewan this spring.

That's possible and it might be my lack of province knowledge showing.
All I remember seeing on the news were rivers flooding to historical highs
and they were out west somewhere.

That would be the red river heading from Nodak to winnipeg. Winnipeg is
in Manitoba. I'm not sure how bad the flooding was in Canada compared
with Nodak.

scott

"Norvin" wrote in message

Rusty wrote:
procedure for the time they are in LA. The Canadian health care
system pays for it and they get it done in a timely manner. I should
think
this speaks for itself.

Don't know who told you this, but it's common knowledge that the Canadian
medical industry fights tooth and nail to have all paid for medical
treatment done here in Canada.

I have heard of no-one doing that as Canadian healthcare will not pay
for it
unless it is an emergency.

There may be some exception to the rule in effect here, but it's notoriously
difficult to get Canadian authorized medical treatments out of country. It
makes sense too, since the Canadian medical industry profits are zero with
such treatments. Not that it never happens, just that it' very uncommon. I
believe the closest one might come to such a service is if it's considered a
dire medical necessity and covered under travel insurance.

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
I think you've got us confused with Manitoba. Not much flooding in
Saskatchewan this spring.

That's possible and it might be my lack of province knowledge showing.
All I remember seeing on the news were rivers flooding to historical highs
and they were out west somewhere.

"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
I think they both went to their systems later than Britain and Canada,
so they are benefitting from seeing what didn't work there. It might
also be worth considering that culturally they are farther removed
from us than are Britain and Canada

I agree with that assessment. And, it might possibly be that if those newer
systems have any faults in them, they haven't been in operation long enough
to show. The British and Canadian systems have been in operation for a long
time. While they've remained pretty static in their operation, their
populations have changed over time and the existing systems haven't exactly
kept pace.

LD wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 5/14/2009 1:31 PM LD spake thus:

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
om...

On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:

And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
Cancer patients down to Six Months.

Cite please.

My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some
cancers you're dead in 62 days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm

Slightly misleading. First of all, we were talking about England, I
thought, and this refers to Scotland.

*UK* What part of *UK* is Scotland?


In any case, it isn't a "62-day waiting period": the article says "The
target, set in 2000, requires that 95% of patients begin treatment
within 62 days of being urgently referred." This means, I'm assuming,
that there is a *maximum* allowable time of 62 days until the patient
is treated. Presumably, those with more urgent cancers may be treated
sooner.

Or MAY NOT.

And, lest you trot into malformed uninformed notions ...

1. My sister lives in England.
2. I have 2 cousins living in England.
3. I have 2 cousins living in Scotland.
4. I have nieces and nephews living in England.
5. I have second cousins all over the UK.
6. I communicate with these people.
7. Their biggest gripe is the NHS.
8. My sister and her family lived in the US for five years.
9. I was Born in the UK.
10. I spent six months in a National Health Hospital.

Likewise ... married to a British subject at the time, I spent 18 months
under NHS.

My oldest daughter is a British subject and lives in Sheffield with SIL
and two small children, both of whom have been ill lately. She is NOT
happy with the care her children are receiving under NHS (and
"Collaborative GP", whatever the hell that is) and wondering why the
hell we would want to follow suit.

Her continuing caution, having lived under both (US/UK) systems: "Do not
change your health care system to one like ours, you will be sorry!"

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Norvin" wrote in message

Upscale??Rusty didn't wrote

Rusty wrote:
" procedure for the time they are in LA. The Canadian health care
system pays for it and they get it done in a timely manner. I should
think
this speaks for itself.

Don't know who told you this, but it's common knowledge that the Canadian
medical industry fights tooth and nail to have all paid for medical
treatment done here in Canada."


Rusty did write this lol more careful editing please


I have heard of no-one doing that as Canadian healthcare will not pay
for it
unless it is an emergency.



There may be some exception to the rule in effect here, but it's
notoriously
difficult to get Canadian authorized medical treatments out of country. It
makes sense too, since the Canadian medical industry profits are zero with
such treatments. Not that it never happens, just that it' very uncommon. I
believe the closest one might come to such a service is if it's considered
a
dire medical necessity and covered under travel insurance.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
LD wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 5/14/2009 1:31 PM LD spake thus:

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
om...

On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:

And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of
Critical
Cancer patients down to Six Months.

Cite please.

My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some
cancers you're dead in 62 days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm

Slightly misleading. First of all, we were talking about England, I
thought, and this refers to Scotland.

*UK* What part of *UK* is Scotland?


In any case, it isn't a "62-day waiting period": the article says "The
target, set in 2000, requires that 95% of patients begin treatment
within 62 days of being urgently referred." This means, I'm assuming,
that there is a *maximum* allowable time of 62 days until the patient is
treated. Presumably, those with more urgent cancers may be treated
sooner.

Or MAY NOT.

And, lest you trot into malformed uninformed notions ...

1. My sister lives in England.
2. I have 2 cousins living in England.
3. I have 2 cousins living in Scotland.
4. I have nieces and nephews living in England.
5. I have second cousins all over the UK.
6. I communicate with these people.
7. Their biggest gripe is the NHS.
8. My sister and her family lived in the US for five years.
9. I was Born in the UK.
10. I spent six months in a National Health Hospital.

Likewise ... married to a British subject at the time, I spent 18 months
under NHS.

My oldest daughter is a British subject and lives in Sheffield with SIL
and two small children, both of whom have been ill lately. She is NOT
happy with the care her children are receiving under NHS (and
"Collaborative GP", whatever the hell that is) and wondering why the hell
we would want to follow suit.

Her continuing caution, having lived under both (US/UK) systems: "Do not
change your health care system to one like ours, you will be sorry!"

Precisely my sister's words! But you don't need the relatives or first hand
experience, just look at the BBC news. Every day there is something about
the NHS failing or struggling. Yesterday it was police in Wales complaining
that they are doing far too many 'ambulance' runs in squad cars and they
think it is just a matter of time before somebody dies on them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Here's one from today:

[Long wait for mental health help

Some people seeking mental health services in Scotland are kept waiting for
more than a year, the public spending watchdog has revealed.

Audit Scotland said there was a lack of information on national waiting
times.

But "very long waits" in some areas may reflect a wider trend, its Overview
of Mental Health Services report concluded.

It found waits of between 58 and 77 weeks for psychological therapies in two
areas covered by NHS Highland.

In Tayside, 40% of older people referred to psychology services were waiting
longer than 18 weeks. ]

And they say the wait has "improved".

"Nova" wrote in message
...
LD wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
om...

On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:08:40 +0000, LD wrote:

And last year in the UK they got the waiting Time for care of Critical
Cancer patients down to Six Months.


Cite please.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw



My bad. They got it down to Sixty Two Days. Of course, with some cancers
you're dead in 62 days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7894641.stm


If you've got a type of cancer that's going to kill you in less than 62
days most likely any treatment you'd received during that time wouldn't
help.

Really?

Nova wrote:

If you've got a type of cancer that's going to kill you in less than
62 days most likely any treatment you'd received during that time
wouldn't help.

What if you've got the kind of cancer that kills you in 63 days but you have
to wait 62 days to start treatment?

On May 14, 8:23*pm, "Upscale" wrote:
"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
I think they both went to their systems later than Britain and Canada,
so they are benefitting from seeing what didn't work there. It might
also be worth considering that culturally they are farther removed
from us than are Britain and Canada

I agree with that assessment. And, it might possibly be that if those newer
systems have any faults in them, they haven't been in operation long enough
to show. The British and Canadian systems have been in operation for a long
time. While they've remained pretty static in their operation, their
populations have changed over time and the existing systems haven't exactly
kept pace.

It is hard to stay out of this discussion. Opinions and facts get all
mixed up when people outside of Canada offer their opinions of OUR
system. :-) (Unlike MY opinion on their politics..LOL.. at least I do
my homework.)

Angela is deeply entrenched in the healthcare system as her
profession. Her involvement deals with all facets, from emergency
admissions (heart & stroke) to MRI bookings and rehab.
It could be that our city is small ( about 70,000) but she has access
to that MRI 24/7. Seldom a wait more than minutes.... usually waiting
for stand-by staff to get there.
At least in Heart & Stroke, there ain't no time to wait. Ever.
Healthcare at its best.

You want a replacement knee? Not so much.
You want to see an orthopaedic surgeon because your thumb feels icky?
You wait a loooong time.

You remove half your face on the asphalt after a motorcycle accident?
You're on the table in minutes.
I think they have their priorities figured out pretty well.

If I had it MY way, the 2-pack-a-day lung-cancer patient would be at
the end of the line; if he/she doesn't give a **** about their health,
why should anybody else?

On Fri, 15 May 2009 07:36:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Nova wrote:

If you've got a type of cancer that's going to kill you in less than
62 days most likely any treatment you'd received during that time
wouldn't help.

What if you've got the kind of cancer that kills you in 63 days but you have
to wait 62 days to start treatment?

Then they have 1 day to cure you. No problem. Obama can do anything.

On May 13, 2:44*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

* The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for example)
is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.

Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
other countries’. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.

If you want to see actual data on a number of indicators, you can go
to the World Health Organization’s web site where they have data on
most countries and look at how the US compares to other countries.

http://apps.who.int/whosis/data/Search.jsp?countries=[Location].Members

The figures for the “CONCORD” study show that the US had the second
best breast cancer survival rate in the world in the late 80s-early
90s and Canada was number 3, but they were pretty close. However,
blacks in the US had considerably lower survival rates. What some
people don't like to point out is that the No. 1 country in terms of
breast cancer survival rates is that pesky commie island to the south
of Florida. Yup, Cuba.

For a news story, see:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...16?hub=MSNHome

For a copy of the original “CONCORD” study
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/co...df/CONCORD.pdf

A more recent study comparing Ontario & California in the late 90s
early 21st Century, high and middle income Americans seems to be below
Canada, although not statistically significant. However, lower income
Americans had much lower survival rates. You can see this paper at:

http://www.uwindsor.ca/users/g/gorey/KevinGorey.nsf/831fc2c71873e46285256d6e006c367a/84830734438db38b852572c20063b93c/$FILE/AnnEpidemiol2009.pdf

So as long as they’re not black and/or poor, American women with
breast cancers live about the same time as Canadian women.

Luigi

wrote in message
...
On May 13, 2:44 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

* The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for example)
is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.

Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
other countries’. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.
================================================== =========

Including the Insured in the US?

LD wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 13, 2:44 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

* The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for
example) is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.

Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
other countries’. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.

Be careful with statistics like those--some countries count an infant that
dies within an hour of birth as a stillbirth for example, that doesn't count
against either life expectancy or infant mortality, while the US counts such
deaths as infant mortality.

On May 16, 5:39*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
LD wrote:
wrote in message
....
On May 13, 2:44 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

* The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for
example) is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.

Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
other countries’. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.

Be careful with statistics like those--some countries count an infant that
dies within an hour of birth as a stillbirth for example, that doesn't count
against either life expectancy or infant mortality, while the US counts such
deaths as infant mortality.

You are quite correct in pointing out that we have to be careful with
the source of statistics. In this case, the WHO has fairly strict
definitions about what they mean and how countries should collect and
measure them. See: http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators...ndium/2008/en/
for the details on all the indicators.

In the case of infant mortality, the definition is quite clear:
Live birth refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a
product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after
such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life - e.g. beating of the
heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles -
whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.. Each
product of such a birth is considered live born.

So if countries follow the WHO guidelines, then the definition is the
same as in the US.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LD wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 13, 2:44 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

* The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for
example) is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.

Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
other countries’. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.

Be careful with statistics like those--some countries count an infant that
dies within an hour of birth as a stillbirth for example, that doesn't
count
against either life expectancy or infant mortality, while the US counts
such
deaths as infant mortality.



Be careful with attribution ...

LD wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 13, 2:44 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

* The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for
example)
is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.


Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
other countries’. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.
================================================== =========

Including the Insured in the US?

Health care improvement in Cuba was the number one project of Castro
during the cold war and was subsidized by the USSR. Under Castro Cuba's
medical system became world class. Since the demise of the USSR, and
the loss of it's funding, Cuba still has top notch medical care but it
has become a two tier system of those wealthy enough to afford treatment
and those that are not.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

wrote:
On May 13, 2:44 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

* The survival rate for many chronic diseases (breast cancer, for
example) is MUCH greater in the U.S. than in Canada.

Not really many, breast cancer survival is one of the very few health
indicators where the US is near the top. In almost all other health
indicators you may want to pick, Canadian outcomes are better, as are
other countries’. The US is at the bottom of rich countries when it
comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Some third world
countries like Cuba and Costa Rica do almost as well as the US.


Here's a ranking chart:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html


Much of the discrepancy depends on how you count. When a VERY premature baby
is born in the US, enormous efforts are undertake to keep it alive.
Tragically, many of these efforts fail and the resulting death is counted as
"infant mortality."

In some countries, the one-kilo baby is discarded and tabulated as
"stillbirth."

Another point is this, the US is an extremely diverse country. Very many
races, educational and income levels, ethnic communities, varied languages,
differing traditions and associations, disparities in incomes, weather, and
support facilities. A problem of enormous impact in one community (say
gang-warfare in black ghettos) affects the average for the entire country.

If you take the health-care statistics for a homogeneous country - like
Germany or Haiti - and obtain the statistics for a similar
ethnic/income/education group in the U.S., I predict the results will favor
the U.S.