Waiting Lists for Single Payer Health Care by JEWELSTAITEFAN

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Waiting Lists for Single Payer Health Care

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Monday, April 30, 2018 19:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2768
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, July 31, 2017 8:09 PM

I keep seeing Libtards denying that there are horrific and catastrophic waiting lists for single payer health care systems, particularly in Canada - patients/victims must wait until after they die before being allowed health care.

All at the same times that I keep hearing about the horrors of waiting lists, and Death Panels, like in Canada, UK, etc.

So here are some linkies which seem to clearly show the failures of the single-payer health care systems. Hope it clarifies some things.

2016:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/waiting-your-turn-
wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2016.pdf

2012:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/reducing-wait-time
s-for-health-care.pdf

2016:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/healthcare-wait-times-hit-20-weeks-in-201
6-report-1.3171718

https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HCIC2012-FullReport-ENweb.pdf

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wait-times-for-medical-p
rocedures-at-20-year-high-in-canada-study/article33001028/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/how-qui
ckly-can-you-see-a-doctor-study-shows-canada-lags-behind-other-nations-on-timelyaccess/article34043606/

Does this seem sensible enough, or is their plausible deniability remaining?

I see charts showing 40 week wait time before treatment is allowed.

In terms of specialized treatment, national wait times were longest for neurosurgery (46.9 weeks) and shortest for medical oncology (3.7 weeks).

Neurosurgery: 46.9 weeks
Orthopaedic surgery: 38
Ophthalmology: 28.5
Plastic Surgery: 25.9
Otolaryngology: 22.7
Gynaecology: 18.8
Urology: 16.2
Internal medicine: 12.9
Radiation oncology: 4.1
General surgery: 12.1
Cardiovascular: 8.4
Medical oncology: 3.7

I see 28 weeks just to get an appointment with a Specialist in the field of your ailment, assuming the GP got it right the first time.
And then over 20 weeks to get scheduled for treatment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 31, 2017 9:41 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

It would be far better to list wait times for PROCEDURES rather than doctor types. For example, a wait time for dermatology may seem excessive - unless it was for acne. A wait time for an orthopedist might seem excessive - unless it was for an elective cartilage trimming.

This gives a more accurate rendition of wait times in terms of procedures:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/sunday-review/long-waits-for-doctor
s-appointments-have-become-the-norm.html

Yet there is emerging evidence that lengthy waits to get a doctor’s appointment have become the norm in many parts of American medicine, particularly for general doctors but also for specialists. And that includes patients with private insurance as well as those with Medicaid or Medicare.

The study found that 26 percent of 2,002 American adults surveyed said they waited six days or more for appointments, better only than Canada (33 percent) and Norway (28 percent), and much worse than in other countries with national health systems like the Netherlands (14 percent) or Britain (16 percent). When it came to appointments with specialists, patients in Britain and Switzerland reported shorter waits than those in the United States, but the United States did rank better than the other eight countries.

... it turns out that America has its own waiting problem. But we tend to wait for different types of medical interventions. And that is mainly a result of payment incentives, experts say.

Americans are more likely to wait for office-based medical appointments that are not good sources of revenue for hospitals and doctors. “It’s the primary care where we’re really behind, with many people waiting six days or more” to get an appointment when they were “sick or needed care.”

In our market-based system, patients can get lucrative procedures rapidly, even when there is no urgent medical need: Need a new knee, or an M.R.I., or a Botox injection? You’ll probably be on the schedule within days. But what if you’re an asthmatic whose breathing is deteriorating, or a diabetic whose medicines need adjustment, or an elderly patient who has unusual chest pain and needs a cardiology consultation? In much of the country, you can wait a week or weeks for such office appointments — or longer if you need to find a doctor who accepts your insurance plan or Medicare.

In other countries, people tend to wait longest for expensive elective care — four to six months for a knee replacement and over a month for follow-up radiation therapy after cancer surgery in Canada, for example.

So, in the US, people wait longest when they're urgently sick. While in other countries they wait longest for elective procedures. SHORTER WAITS FOR URGENT CARE AND LONGER WAITS FOR ELECTIVE CARE SEEMS REASONABLE - WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?

And then of course, in those other countries everyone and everything is covered - even long-term nursing home residence for the elderly infirm. That's compared to the US where many people STILL don't have general medical coverage; and some things - like nursing home residence - aren't covered at all.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2017 6:56 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

132 views with 2 posts in one day?
I wonder if these are FFFs, or robo-links.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2017 8:27 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Bump for a link I'm trying to find.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:54 PM

WISHIMAY

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
132 views with 2 posts in one day?
I wonder if these are FFFs, or robo-links.

This is like the fifth time you've blathered on about views and posts. You know this ISN'T Twitter or Facebook, right?

No one here GIVES A SHIT. If that matters to you, go where it matters.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 13, 2017 7:40 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Apparently more entertainment:

https://grabien.com/story.php?id=127989

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 29, 2018 1:56 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Regarding the Death Panels, this week the kid in UK was unplugged, and remained alive for days before succumbing.

The Government Death Panel demanded that they had authority over the child, that Parents must be prohibited from saving their child at no cost to the Health Care institution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 29, 2018 8:09 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

link?

I read about *a* child (not sure if it's the one you're referring to). The child had a genetic disorder that caused the brain to deteriorate. MRIs indicated not much brain was left, which means he was irretrievably brain dead.

I do want to point out that he was on life support in a neonatal intensive care unit in Liverpool since December 2016 free of charge, courtesy of the British taxpayers.

In this country he might not even make it to an ICU, let alone reside in one on full life support for 5 months. And even if he did, and even if the parents had insurance, they would have been forced into debt they might never have gotten out of. Unless of course they declared bankruptcy. Medical expenses are STILL the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US, even with insurance. And the medical bankruptcy rate has NOT gone down with Obamacare.

The story of Alfie is a credit to the British medical system, which is one of the worst, if not the worst, of first-world public systems. We would be lucky to have something as bad as that.

They decide on medical care based on the condition of the patient. We decide based on money.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 30, 2018 4:48 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
link?

I read about *a* child (not sure if it's the one you're referring to). The child had a genetic disorder that caused the brain to deteriorate. MRIs indicated not much brain was left, which means he was irretrievably brain dead.

I do want to point out that he was on life support in a neonatal intensive care unit in Liverpool since December 2016 free of charge, courtesy of the British taxpayers.

In this country he might not even make it to an ICU, let alone reside in one on full life support for 5 months. And even if he did, and even if the parents had insurance, they would have been forced into debt they might never have gotten out of. Unless of course they declared bankruptcy. Medical expenses are STILL the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US, even with insurance. And the medical bankruptcy rate has NOT gone down with Obamacare.

The story of Alfie is a credit to the British medical system, which is one of the worst, if not the worst, of first-world public systems. We would be lucky to have something as bad as that.

They decide on medical care based on the condition of the patient. We decide based on money.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

The case I mentioned had Italian Doctors ready to provide treatment, free of charge. The parents have wanted to pursue this avenue for a long time. If the Government had not spent all this time fighting in court to confiscate the Parent's Rights of their child, the "free care" aka "free termination" would have ended as soon as they allowed the Parents to assert their Parental Rights and take their child to a more competent doctor.
Giving the Brit Death Panel credit for stealing their child and free forced termination of their child does not really wash.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 30, 2018 5:19 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The case I mentioned had Italian Doctors

It was the Vatican that stood ready to maintain Alfie's body, such as it was, not "Italian Doctors". I suspect if you're hoping for a miracle, one might presume the Vatican's a good place. But short of a miracle, nothing was going to bring Alfie back. The Court ruled that Alfie was too medically unstable to transport.

I just wanted to give you some medical information about his condition, so that, hopefully, you'll understand how truly beyond any kind of medical help Alfie was.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5668545/Alfie-Evans-degenerati
ve-neurological-condition.html

Medics said scans of Alfie's brain showed most of his brain matter had been replaced by fluid and could not be regenerated, which left him in a vegetative state for over a year.

And I reiterate my conclusion: the US would be lucky to have a medical system as bad as England's.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 30, 2018 6:33 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The case I mentioned had Italian Doctors
It was the Vatican that stood ready to maintain Alfie's body, such as it was, not "Italian Doctors". I suspect if you're hoping for a miracle, one might presume the Vatican's a good place. But short of a miracle, nothing was going to bring Alfie back. The Court ruled that Alfie was too medically unstable to transport.

I just wanted to give you some medical information about his condition, so that, hopefully, you'll understand how truly beyond any kind of medical help Alfie was.
Quote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5668545/Alfie-Evans-degenerati
ve-neurological-condition.html

Medics said scans of Alfie's brain showed most of his brain matter had been replaced by fluid and could not be regenerated, which left him in a vegetative state for over a year.

And I reiterate my conclusion: the US would be lucky to have a medical system as bad as England's.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

THE COURT ruled he was too medically unstable to transport. Although he lived for almost a week without Life Support.
So THE COURT ruled that he was not too medically unstable to be removed from Parental protection and terminated in the "medical care" facility.

Seems conflicting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 30, 2018 7:04 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Could you rephrase your question? I don't understand it.

Some medical info you might find useful - breathing regulation is found in the brainstem, located between the spinal cord and the rest of the brain. It's possible to remove or damage large amounts of brain, and still have an intact brainstem - therefore having a breathing, but braindead, being.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE