|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On July 07 2012 05:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 04:56 Epocalypse wrote:
If people really think that socializing anything make it cheaper/better... then they should be fighting for socialized computing. You think it will get faster, cheaper, better? So by wanting some things to be socialized I want everything to be socialized? Please don't speak in absolutes (unless absolutes are implied) and instead actually look at issues in society more closely to actually be able to solve them effectively. ... that awkward moment when you realize you clearly have no idea who you're talking to...
I think you missed the point. People claim that socialized medicine will drive down costs, increase standards, and increase accessibility. So why not put the same force that can make it so to computing?
|
On July 07 2012 07:14 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 05:55 DoubleReed wrote:On July 07 2012 04:56 Epocalypse wrote:
If people really think that socializing anything make it cheaper/better... then they should be fighting for socialized computing. You think it will get faster, cheaper, better? So by wanting some things to be socialized I want everything to be socialized? Please don't speak in absolutes (unless absolutes are implied) and instead actually look at issues in society more closely to actually be able to solve them effectively. ... that awkward moment when you realize you clearly have no idea who you're talking to... I think you missed the point. People claim that socialized medicine will drive down costs, increase standards, and increase accessibility. So why not put the same force that can make it so to computing?
...because medicine isn't computing?
|
On July 07 2012 06:19 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 22:37 Epocalypse wrote:Under ObamaCare... ACO physicians may thus be reluctant to recommend PSA screening even when the patient is willing to pay for it himself. Patients who test positive will require further downstream procedures such as prostate ultrasounds, MRI scans, or biopsies, which may count against the doctor’s ACO practice statistics. USPSTF guidelines could slowly erode many doctors’ willingness to offer their best honest advice to their patients. If your doctor recommends against a PSA test, can you be sure he’s offering his best medical opinion, without being biased by the bonus he’ll receive for reducing the number of procedures performed by the ACO? Read how ObamaCare will introduce conflicts of interest and reduce the quality of healthcare provided... ==Source== All I'm reading is "no PSA screening regardless of age"... I believe prostate cancer is so common that 90% of all elderly men die WITH it, but not FROM it. (The rest die without it or from it.) Question is do you screen it, operate them and put them on chemo, when in fact they have a fair chance of living longer without the poison and the surgery; considering they are much more likely to die of other causes than of prostate cancer. And then there's the age thing. Younger men are not expected to have prostate cancer (or cancer in general); and no way should you screen and test for every fathomable disease when you're in fact healthy. Breast cancer feels VERY proactive in that regard. I have no idea wether it is warranted, but it probably is. Self examination is also a strong possibility here; which is not the case for the prostate (I believe). Maybe you notice issues with peeing etc when you get older, and so it might be time to check your prostate (enlarged prostate often blocks urinal passage). But if you pee just fine, your prostate is most likely not enlarged by a tumour in the first place. Maybe after the age of 50-60, periodic screening every few years can be a good thing. Before that I really don't see the need; and once health starts failing in general; your prostate should not be the most immediate concern. Ultra sound for instance is cheap, can be performed by a nurse for all I know, and is a good tool for detecting cancer. If you're below 40, and have a cancer that can't be detect by ultra sound or other cheap means; then you are very unlucky, and you might aswell go screen for any other sort of cancer while you're at it (and be a complete hypochondriac), cause the chances are gonna be just that low. how important is PSA screening when you use it on any age group? What's next, use it on females aswell? I don't see the point. I googled a random article about this, from fox news I believe, and no where did it say PSA scanning would be abolished, it just said it would not be common irregardless of age; which is only sensible in my point of view. Maybe the only reason you were given regular PSA screenings, regardless of age, was so that the doc could make money off of your insurance? Hmm.. Also I would never come out and accuse my doctor of causing harm on purpose; like that first nested quote claims is a possibility. I highly doubt doctors will start doing harm because of a slight change in the healthcare system. That's just un-called for. Atleast that's what I got out of this.
PSA got a “D” grade aka "not recommended" now with the anticipation of increased healthcare costs due to ObamaCare... time will tell... insurance companies will have to cutback somewhere and they will start with the worst grades. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force gave it a D grade, and what they determine is final. Take note that thousands get PSA checks regularly now and they are affordable... What will happen in the future? time will tell, but remember what the cause was when people stop getting them as often and they get more expensive.
You seem pretty informed, enough to make a decision with the consultation of your doctor. But in America you may lose that chance. Conflicts of interest are a problem because it puts interests at odds with each other. So either you are claiming that there will be no conflicts of interest introduced... or you are claiming that conflicts of interest can be dismissed all together; maybe you can clarify. However the article states that doctors risk points when they grant too many procedures to their patients. I agree that a good doctor would dismiss it and risk his practice... but some won't... all I'm saying is that the alternative should never be introduced in the first place but ObamaCare, according to the article, makes it possible. So why make it possible in the first place?
In the Elections thread, people are claiming that despite people having a rational faculty, they will not act on it as a rule of thumb and therefore they should not have choice. So despite me hoping that my doctor's first priority is me, the implication in the article is that it may not be thanks to my health being in competition with the doctor's practice points.
From my own personal experience, when I used to go to the doctor(I don't go anymore, since I changed my diet many years ago and haven't been sick since. Now I just call, pay my doc $10 cash to get a letter of permission to get a blood test once a year) I always left dissatisfied, basically felt like I was just brushed out the door, the doctor didn't really get familiar with me. My friends all feel the same way. It took one of my best friends a trip to America to get doc recommendation to get MRI... when he got the MRI(in the US) A tumor was found in his brain. He lives now, minor memory loss but he could have been dead if he didn't go to the US. He had terrible headaches for many years in Canada, he asked for an MRI but was not permitted to get one. And he had been to several doctors hoping to get yet another opinion. They all prescribed Advil and told him to go home.
|
So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area.
|
Wow. Here we get in pretty much ASAP if it is something serious. Waiting 6 after cutting off your finger is pretty bad.
|
On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote:
So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area.
I've had the complete opposite experience in Saskatchewan. I slipped at the pool and cut my forehead and was stitched up within 5 minutes of entering the emergency room. It wasn't serious either, no concussion or anything. Another time I had my first and only severe migraine and I had a morphine drip within 10 minutes.
|
On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote:
So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area. Half hour normally (usually about 15 minutes)? Maybe an hour if it's busy? I do think you are exaggerating and using far too much anecdotal evidence and hyperbole to claim that it is standard to wait 6 hours for minor emergency, or even major emergency. The longest I've been at a waiting room was a bit over two hours when my brother broke his arm, and that was because we were waiting on an x-ray machine.
The Canadian healthcare system is excellent, especially here in Saskatchewan (We have among the shortest surgical wait times in the country). Sure it has a few faults, but I would not for one second think of trading it for the American system, which to be honest seems archaic compared to the socialized medicine of most modern first world countries. Any system that puts profit before health is not a system that I want to be part of, especially when it is in such a convoluted fashion like the American system is.
On July 07 2012 08:01 Undrass wrote:
Wow. Here we get in pretty much ASAP if it is something serious. Waiting 6 after cutting off your finger is pretty bad. It's not as bad as he makes it. I'm pretty sure he's just exaggerating to prove a point.
|
On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote:
So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area.
Ah, good old personal (unverifiable) anecdotal evidence - surely the best way to determine the respective strengths and weaknesses of the Canadian and American systems of healthcare.
|
On July 07 2012 08:23 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote:
So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area. Half hour normally (usually about 15 minutes)? Maybe an hour if it's busy? I do think you are exaggerating and using far too much anecdotal evidence and hyperbole to claim that it is standard to wait 6 hours for minor emergency, or even major emergency. The longest I've been at a waiting room was a bit over two hours when my brother broke his arm, and that was because we were waiting on an x-ray machine. The Canadian healthcare system is excellent, especially here in Saskatchewan (We have among the shortest surgical wait times in the country). Sure it has a few faults, but I would not for one second think of trading it for the American system, which to be honest seems archaic compared to the socialized medicine of most modern first world countries. Any system that puts profit before health is not a system that I want to be part of, especially when it is in such a convoluted fashion like the American system is. Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 08:01 Undrass wrote:
Wow. Here we get in pretty much ASAP if it is something serious. Waiting 6 after cutting off your finger is pretty bad. It's not as bad as he makes it. I'm pretty sure he's just exaggerating to prove a point.
No exaggeration ben... and yes, the American system is far from what I'd like to see. I'd like to see me and my doctor trading with no government interference.
And I don't appreciate being called a liar.
|
On July 07 2012 07:42 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 06:19 Cutlery wrote:On July 06 2012 22:37 Epocalypse wrote:Under ObamaCare... ACO physicians may thus be reluctant to recommend PSA screening even when the patient is willing to pay for it himself. Patients who test positive will require further downstream procedures such as prostate ultrasounds, MRI scans, or biopsies, which may count against the doctor’s ACO practice statistics. USPSTF guidelines could slowly erode many doctors’ willingness to offer their best honest advice to their patients. If your doctor recommends against a PSA test, can you be sure he’s offering his best medical opinion, without being biased by the bonus he’ll receive for reducing the number of procedures performed by the ACO? Read how ObamaCare will introduce conflicts of interest and reduce the quality of healthcare provided... ==Source== All I'm reading is "no PSA screening regardless of age"... I believe prostate cancer is so common that 90% of all elderly men die WITH it, but not FROM it. (The rest die without it or from it.) Question is do you screen it, operate them and put them on chemo, when in fact they have a fair chance of living longer without the poison and the surgery; considering they are much more likely to die of other causes than of prostate cancer. And then there's the age thing. Younger men are not expected to have prostate cancer (or cancer in general); and no way should you screen and test for every fathomable disease when you're in fact healthy. Breast cancer feels VERY proactive in that regard. I have no idea wether it is warranted, but it probably is. Self examination is also a strong possibility here; which is not the case for the prostate (I believe). Maybe you notice issues with peeing etc when you get older, and so it might be time to check your prostate (enlarged prostate often blocks urinal passage). But if you pee just fine, your prostate is most likely not enlarged by a tumour in the first place. Maybe after the age of 50-60, periodic screening every few years can be a good thing. Before that I really don't see the need; and once health starts failing in general; your prostate should not be the most immediate concern. Ultra sound for instance is cheap, can be performed by a nurse for all I know, and is a good tool for detecting cancer. If you're below 40, and have a cancer that can't be detect by ultra sound or other cheap means; then you are very unlucky, and you might aswell go screen for any other sort of cancer while you're at it (and be a complete hypochondriac), cause the chances are gonna be just that low. how important is PSA screening when you use it on any age group? What's next, use it on females aswell? I don't see the point. I googled a random article about this, from fox news I believe, and no where did it say PSA scanning would be abolished, it just said it would not be common irregardless of age; which is only sensible in my point of view. Maybe the only reason you were given regular PSA screenings, regardless of age, was so that the doc could make money off of your insurance? Hmm.. Also I would never come out and accuse my doctor of causing harm on purpose; like that first nested quote claims is a possibility. I highly doubt doctors will start doing harm because of a slight change in the healthcare system. That's just un-called for. Atleast that's what I got out of this. PSA got a “D” grade aka "not recommended" now with the anticipation of increased healthcare costs due to ObamaCare... time will tell... insurance companies will have to cutback somewhere and they will start with the worst grades. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force gave it a D grade, and what they determine is final. Take note that thousands get PSA checks regularly now and they are affordable... What will happen in the future? time will tell, but remember what the cause was when people stop getting them as often and they get more expensive. You seem pretty informed, enough to make a decision with the consultation of your doctor. But in America you may lose that chance. Conflicts of interest are a problem because it puts interests at odds with each other. So either you are claiming that there will be no conflicts of interest introduced... or you are claiming that conflicts of interest can be dismissed all together; maybe you can clarify. However the article states that doctors risk points when they grant too many procedures to their patients. I agree that a good doctor would dismiss it and risk his practice... but some won't... all I'm saying is that the alternative should never be introduced in the first place but ObamaCare, according to the article, makes it possible. So why make it possible in the first place? In the Elections thread, people are claiming that despite people having a rational faculty, they will not act on it as a rule of thumb and therefore they should not have choice. So despite me hoping that my doctor's first priority is me, the implication in the article is that it may not be thanks to my health being in competition with the doctor's practice points. From my own personal experience, when I used to go to the doctor(I don't go anymore, since I changed my diet many years ago and haven't been sick since. Now I just call, pay my doc $10 cash to get a letter of permission to get a blood test once a year) I always left dissatisfied, basically felt like I was just brushed out the door, the doctor didn't really get familiar with me. My friends all feel the same way. It took one of my best friends a trip to America to get doc recommendation to get MRI... when he got the MRI(in the US) A tumor was found in his brain. He lives now, minor memory loss but he could have been dead if he didn't go to the US. He had terrible headaches for many years in Canada, he asked for an MRI but was not permitted to get one. And he had been to several doctors hoping to get yet another opinion. They all prescribed Advil and told him to go home.
The tumour thing sounds bad. This year I went to the doc for the first time in many years, and asked for a few tests, and we did some other tests, and for instance found out I required vitamin D supplements and blabla; anyway, he ran all tests I asked for, and we even came up with some new tests based on how I "felt" (like different allergies, lactose intollerance, etc etc). I paid a minor deductible and tests were analyzed. We have free healthcare here, well, except the deductibles. The deductible is minor and inconsequential to just about anyone except students (like me), but students can even get free health care (although there you really feel "streamlined"; atleast my regular doctor seems to want to help me). And I trust him enough that I believe he would help me out if I came to him and said I had a different kind of headache, nothing like the migraines or passing stress pains and I was worried... Obviously your friend knew something was wrong, because he knew hisn own body (so to say). While I won't say we're perfect here, I do think my doctor would listen to me if I came to him worried that something was very wrong and I explained why I thought so.
Other than that I don't really know much. But I can guarantee that when one subscription doesn't work, my doc is pretty much required to once again take me seriously when I come back. This is often an issue with elder people who just want some human interaction, costing us money; but then again, they prolly have pains and all sorts of health issues I don't even want to know about.
Policies can change over time. I'm not near convinced that Obamacare is bad. It might not be good, but now that it is, it can be improved upon, and hopefully that will happen... I think one of the reasons why it is so "bad" is because the law makers had to jump through all kinds of loopholes to appease the opposition and the courts. Now it's up to the american democracy to make sure their care doesn't get compromised because of this; wether that entails scanning their prostates or not.
In a way, overall, having everyone on healthcare is more essential than giving half of everyone regular prostate screenings. Big picture - small picture. Hopefully there was an improvement to the big picture, and now the smaller pictures need time to work themselves out. Idk; as I'm not directly affected I view it as a change for the better. I don't particularly care about the prostate of the rich getting screened regularly, but rather I care somewhat that everyone has a fair chance at having a life after getting sick; without being forced to pay huge depts or die in silence cause they know they can't aford sh!t. (and I'm not interested in another socialism debate... Even hospitals know something should be done, why else do they have free clinics o_o)
|
On July 07 2012 08:31 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 08:23 Ben... wrote:On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote:
So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area. Half hour normally (usually about 15 minutes)? Maybe an hour if it's busy? I do think you are exaggerating and using far too much anecdotal evidence and hyperbole to claim that it is standard to wait 6 hours for minor emergency, or even major emergency. The longest I've been at a waiting room was a bit over two hours when my brother broke his arm, and that was because we were waiting on an x-ray machine. The Canadian healthcare system is excellent, especially here in Saskatchewan (We have among the shortest surgical wait times in the country). Sure it has a few faults, but I would not for one second think of trading it for the American system, which to be honest seems archaic compared to the socialized medicine of most modern first world countries. Any system that puts profit before health is not a system that I want to be part of, especially when it is in such a convoluted fashion like the American system is. On July 07 2012 08:01 Undrass wrote:
Wow. Here we get in pretty much ASAP if it is something serious. Waiting 6 after cutting off your finger is pretty bad. It's not as bad as he makes it. I'm pretty sure he's just exaggerating to prove a point. No exaggeration ben... and yes, the American system is far from what I'd like to see. I'd like to see me and my doctor trading with no government interference. And I don't appreciate being called a liar.
Fine, what your wrote was baseless, anecdotal, and completely unverifiable. Not a liar... or maybe you are.
And the idea that government shouldn't be involved at all in healthcare is insane. We have millions of people without jobs. We, in America, also have an extremely large and extremely bureaucratic insurance process that acts as middle-man between patients and doctors. Without regulations, the potential for the consumer to be raked over the coals is pretty much a guarantee.
Medicine does not abide the "supply and demand" laws of economics. Everyone NEEDS medicine. It is a guaranteed demand. Making profit the only driving force behind providing people with healthcare is barbaric.
|
On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote:
So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area.
Slicing off the tip of your finger and waiting 6 hours kind of sucks.
Tell me, how much did he have to pay to have it repaired?
Oh yes, your cousin paid ZERO dollars. He might have been charged $20 for a splint if he broke his finger as well.
The reason why your cousin had to wait is because cutting off the tip of your finger IS NOT life-threatening. It hurts and it's a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world.
In the US, there is no guarantee that you would get better service.
But let's say you wait an hour, as opposed to six. You will also receive a bill for a least a thousand dollars if you're uninsured, depending on how much finger you've cut off.
Waiting for 6 hours to get you finger fixed FOR FREE is a great deal.
|
On July 07 2012 08:31 Epocalypse wrote:
And I don't appreciate being called a liar.
Considering that nearly every one of your posts spouts falsehoods, deceptions, and exaggerations, maybe you should stop lying if you don't appreciate beng called a liar?
Seriously, it's so over-the-top that you almost look like you're a troll trying to make conservatives look bad. As an actual libertarian, I cringe when I read your posts.
|
On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote:
So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area.
If anything, your anecdotes prove just how cost-effective the Canadian health care system actually is.
It provides universal care to everyone. The only cost is that people with serious problems are given priority over your relatives.
I can't speak for all Canadians but that's a price I'm willing to pay.
/troll
|
|
|
On July 07 2012 09:10 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote:
So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area. Slicing off the tip of your finger and waiting 6 hours kind of sucks. Tell me, how much did he have to pay to have it repaired? Oh yes, your cousin paid ZERO dollars. He might have been charged $20 for a splint if he broke his finger as well. The reason why your cousin had to wait is because cutting off the tip of your finger IS NOT life-threatening. It hurts and it's a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world. In the US, there is no guarantee that you would get better service. But let's say you wait an hour, as opposed to six. You will also receive a bill for a least a thousand dollars if you're uninsured, depending on how much finger you've cut off. Waiting for 6 hours to get you finger fixed FOR FREE is a great deal.
My cousin works 10-14 hours a day, runs a business, employs I think 8 people. He has earned the money to pay for immediate care but he didn't have the option. Instead he had to waste his time and life and sleep in a hospital waiting for some pretty basic care. You call that free?
How much do you think it would cost for someone to splint it? Maybe scan it to check for fracture or break in how many places? My guess, $20 to splint it, $100 max for a scan but I would bet closer to $50. And $50 for the doc's time or $30 for the nurses time. So somewhere in between would be about $150 to fix broken extremities. But that's just a guess. Are you saying someone can't afford $150 while saving 5 hours of their time?
|
On July 07 2012 11:08 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 09:10 Defacer wrote:On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote:
So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area. Slicing off the tip of your finger and waiting 6 hours kind of sucks. Tell me, how much did he have to pay to have it repaired? Oh yes, your cousin paid ZERO dollars. He might have been charged $20 for a splint if he broke his finger as well. The reason why your cousin had to wait is because cutting off the tip of your finger IS NOT life-threatening. It hurts and it's a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world. In the US, there is no guarantee that you would get better service. But let's say you wait an hour, as opposed to six. You will also receive a bill for a least a thousand dollars if you're uninsured, depending on how much finger you've cut off. Waiting for 6 hours to get you finger fixed FOR FREE is a great deal. My cousin works 10-14 hours a day, runs a business, employs I think 8 people. He has earned the money to pay for immediate care but he didn't have the option. Instead he had to waste his time and life and sleep in a hospital waiting for some pretty basic care. You call that free? How much do you think it would cost for someone to splint it? Maybe scan it to check for fracture or break in how many places? My guess, $20 to splint it, $100 max for a scan but I would bet closer to $50. And $50 for the doc's time or $30 for the nurses time. So somewhere in between would be about $150 to fix broken extremities. But that's just a guess. Are you saying someone can't afford $150 while saving 5 hours of their time?
Are those numbers what you are guessing care in America costs? If it is, you need to multiply all of them by about 10, and you'll be in the ball park.
|
On July 07 2012 09:10 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote:
So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area. Slicing off the tip of your finger and waiting 6 hours kind of sucks. Tell me, how much did he have to pay to have it repaired? Oh yes, your cousin paid ZERO dollars. He might have been charged $20 for a splint if he broke his finger as well. The reason why your cousin had to wait is because cutting off the tip of your finger IS NOT life-threatening. It hurts and it's a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world. In the US, there is no guarantee that you would get better service. But let's say you wait an hour, as opposed to six. You will also receive a bill for a least a thousand dollars if you're uninsured, depending on how much finger you've cut off. Waiting for 6 hours to get you finger fixed FOR FREE is a great deal.
I agreed with you until you said "FOR FREE"
|
Over the years I've heard of other prominent people from around the world flying to the US for care but I can't seem to find a list.
The Wiki article lists a few Canadian politicians who voted against "paying for health services" but hypocritically flew to the US for care.
I'm also curious to see a comparison of wait times across the provinces since a few posters have mentioned their wait times are not as long as in the wiki article.
|
On July 07 2012 11:20 Epocalypse wrote:Over the years I've heart other prominent people from around the world flying to the US for care but I can't seem to find a list. The Wiki article lists a few Canadian politicians who voted against "paying for health services" but hypocritically flew to the US for care. I'm also curious to see a comparison of wait times across the provinces since a few posters have mentioned their wait times are not as long as in the wiki article.
I actually had a good argument with an American Journalist while sitting in the OR waiting for (specifically my girlfriend) in the recovery room. He made the comment (was there for 3 hours) that the waiting times are a bitch, but I replied "I'd rather wait 3-6 hours, then work 150 hours to pay off insane bills" and he laughed and agreed.
I guess that would be argument for me against wait times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
