Originally Posted by djplong

Richie: That's all you need to know? Why not look a little further. If I had to pick ONE statistic for "all I need to know", I would look at life expectancy.

According to THAT metric, Japan is #1, France is #10, Canada is #11, The UK is tied for 20th. The US? TIED FOR 36TH WITH *CUBA*.

Now, maybe you wouldn't like the source because it's from the UN. How about from the CIA World Fact Book?

With *them*, Monaco is #1, Japan #5, Canada is 9th, France 10th, UK 36th and the US is *50th*. (For reference, Cuba is 55th in this ranking, 0.92 years less average life expectancy than the US).

The CIA Fact Book also has many more 'political entities' and is not restricted to "UN Member States" - although both lists separate the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico from the United States in the stats. ...and both of those territories scored higher than the US in both lists.

I'm sorry, I can't believe the statistical results are tied to Health Care. I guess I'll have to see if I can find what parameters they're using to promote these finding. Are they using violence and transportation deaths? Are they counting the deaths from natural disasters in this study? What else are they using or not using to determine national life expectancy?

18 Days to see a doctor by English Health Law. 26 % of the time they fail to meet this standard. Dispute those statistics. Ask people what numbers they care about. I think I'll win this argument easy.

Richie: Thank you for at least having a bit of explanation in disagreeing with me.

As far as the UK NHS is concerned, the people I know that live there don't complain too much. My wife's son was living there for 6 months and will be returning to the UK to continue his studies in a few months. In that time, I've gotten to know the family he's lived with. To make a long story short, I suspect that some of that "26% failure" rate is like my ex-grandmother-in-law who used to call the doctor demanding a penicillin prescription when she had a cold. I *wish* I was making that up.

I'd like to know what kinds of appointments are being shoved out for that kind of failure rate.

I know more about the Canadian system where there have been complaints about long waiting times. But the reason for that is that they don't do a "first come first served" system. The particular case that went to court was over an ex-postal worker, retired, who had a knee problem and wanted surgery. He was put on a waiting list because he was ambulatory and the condition wasn't getting worse because of a brace the man wore. He wanted to pay a private doctor to get his surgery sooner and Quebec sued him (under a law saying you couldn't pay privately for something the national system covered). Ottawa then told Quebec that they were violating this man's human rights.

The point was that he wanted, at his own expense, to have more time in his retirement without the brace. Nothing wrong with that. BUT, it explains why his case was pushed out - because he didn't have as severe a case and that it wasn't going to get worse with time. In other words, he could wait.

That's the kind of adult discussion that, in this country either doesn't happen or becaomes a "death panel" screaming match.

This isn't 'rationing' health care but it certainly *is* "prioritizing" it.

Two patients die in ambulance waiting for service at full hospital. Maybe their ages were taken into account?

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...-hospital-unit

(About your anecdote about your grandmother; Do you think if you tell people their healthcare is "free" that you will have less national demand?)

Richie, I'm sure that I could find the same kind of story in this country. The ones I *was* familiar with had to do with patients dying in hallways, unattended.

So I went to your link. One patient died the next day IN THE HOSPITAL and another THREE DAYS LATER in another hospital. The delays were 7 & 20 minutes for the two individuals, the hospital was full and sending people to other hospitals. On top of that, the WERE screened by a doctor while waiting.

And, oh yeah, they believed to be in their 80s.

THEY DID NOT DIE IN AN AMBULANCE - your first line is misleading at best and a complete lie at worst.

Perhaps most telling is that the families of the two decedents have not filed any complaints.

Here's the direct quote from the article:

The patients, believed to have been in their 80s, couldn’t get into the Royal Oldham Hospital for seven and 20 minutes respectively.

They were assessed by ambulance crews as ‘very sick’ and were both suspected of having suffered heart attacks.

The A&E department was so busy that all but the most urgent cases were being sent to other hospitals at the time. All five resuscitation beds at Oldham were full.

The two patients were assessed and treated by a casualty doctor and senior nurse in the ambulances.

It is understood neither actually had suffered a heart attack by the time they were admitted – although both later died at the hospital. One died in the resuscitation unit the following day and the other three days after being admitted to a ward.

I've often said that people shouldn't lie or exaggerate to try and make a point becuase, when they're called on it, it makes their future arguments weaker as they've lost credibility.

Originally Posted by djplong

Richie, I'm sure that I could find the same kind of story in this country. The ones I *was* familiar with had to do with patients dying in hallways, unattended.

So I went to your link. One patient died the next day IN THE HOSPITAL and another THREE DAYS LATER in another hospital. The delays were 7 & 20 minutes for the two individuals, the hospital was full and sending people to other hospitals. On top of that, the WERE screened by a doctor while waiting.

And, oh yeah, they believed to be in their 80s.

THEY DID NOT DIE IN AN AMBULANCE - your first line is misleading at best and a complete lie at worst.

Perhaps most telling is that the families of the two decedents have not filed any complaints.

Here's the direct quote from the article:



I've often said that people shouldn't lie or exaggerate to try and make a point becuase, when they're called on it, it makes their future arguments weaker as they've lost credibility.

"2 patients die after waiting in ambulance outside 'full" hospital unit" Pretty darn close to my headline, I think. It was a current story and pertinent to the thread and not some unresearchable anecdote related to bolster an argument.

I know times have changed but 18 years ago, I had lasik surgery in one eye in Charlotte, NC, cost $150....I was fortunate to talk to a patient in waiting room that suggested one eye, so you can still read menu's....Husband had same surgery but with both eyes and he was forced to go to reading glasses 12 years ago....So you see, you can get good prices here in the states also..sorry for hijack... Unfortunately, that isn't the case when hospitalization is necessary...Someone has to pay for patients without insurance that head for the ER..

The only thing I would add....Why is it called Obamacare why not IncompetentCongresscare...Granted he signed it (a shared responsibility) BUT it isn't what he proposed!

Ok Richie, jump all over this....

Originally Posted by Xavier

A number of years ago my son and I were both interested in Lasik surgery. In the States at the time they were charging $2,400 for each eye and they would do one eye at a time with a minimum of 6 weeks in between. That's $4,800 total.

We went to Mississauga, Ontario for the procedures at a cost of $1,000 for both eyes done on the same day. That's $1,000 total. The waiting room was filled with U.S. citizens. It was well worth traveling to Canada for the follow-up visits at that price. The expertise was way ahead of what was offered in the States. The machine they used for mapping the eye in Canada wasn't even approved in the U.S. yet. As it turned out, I had Marginal Degeneration (thin around the edges) and they couldn't map my eyes to the degree of accuracy that was needed. They told me that the machine to do it was already available in Europe and that they'd have it within the year. They said that it wouldn't be approved in the U.S. for at least another 5 years.

Xavier

There is a HUGE difference between:

"Died in ambulance waiting for service"

and:

...died 1 & 3 days later after waiting 7 & 20 minutes for admittance, when doctors and nurses came out to see them IN the ambulance PLUS the fact that they were in their 80s.

Richie, what it tells me is that you didn't fully read the story in the link you posted. You *seemed* to be wanting an anti-UK-NHS story with an inflammatory headline so bad, you didn't bother to fully check what you were sending along.

Quite frankly, I think you're better than that, despite my disagreements with your opinions.

Are there drawbacks to a UK/Canada style system? Hell yes! But the bottom line is that they're getting a LOT more bang for their buck. (And bang for OUR bucks since it seems we're funding the R&D on most of the world's new medicines and then the other countries get it a lot closer to 'cost' - but that's another aspect of the issue)

They live longer, spend less and certainly worry less (medical bankruptcy is unheard of in those countries). Meanwhile, we pay more, get less, get kicked off of plans when we're no longer a 'profit center' and, on top of that, have people leaving this country in DROVES to get foreign care creating a whole new industry of "medical tourism"!

What's wrong with this picture? EVERYTHING!

The Federal Government growing more immense with the total acquisition, and or control, of the health care industry and all health care decisions cannot be in the interest of the public. If I can't get a prompt appointment now, I can call another doctor. I can pick and choose every aspect of my health care needs, and provide for whatever procedure I want, and at the time of my choosing.

Why would I want that to change? It's not in my best interests or the interests of my family. I don't need more unelected bureaucrats without my wants and needs at the forefront of their duties to have any more control of my life; and might I add, the possible end of my life.

We do not need, and people should be frightened, of the all encompassing control of their health, and life and death decisions that the government is scheming to possess. Why you would want the government to have more control over you I cannot fathom.

Interesting. I'm glad YOU can call another doctor if you don't get an appointment when you want. Me? I can't. I get assigned to someone else if I want an appointment before 'my' doctor is available because my primary care physician is actually an association. Normally this is no big deal.

But let me ask you something and, if it's none of my business or you don't want to answer, I'll understand. Who provides your insurance? If you're retired, is it Medicare/Medicaid?

(I'm on a BC/BS Anthem plan myself covering myself, my wife and one of my daughters)

Originally Posted by djplong

Interesting. I'm glad YOU can call another doctor if you don't get an appointment when you want. Me? I can't. I get assigned to someone else if I want an appointment before 'my' doctor is available because my primary care physician is actually an association. Normally this is no big deal.

But let me ask you something and, if it's none of my business or you don't want to answer, I'll understand. Who provides your insurance? If you're retired, is it Medicare/Medicaid?

(I'm on a BC/BS Anthem plan myself covering myself, my wife and one of my daughters)

If it matters, I've got Blue Cross/Blue Shield and I choose whoever I want who accepts plan, which is most everyone.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008...great-britain/

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272 (The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz1NIDcgY7O(Mother confronts Nick Clegg on 7 month wait for child mental health service)

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/04/s...tain-alarming/(Surgeons: Wait times in socialist Great Britain alarming)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11539533 (3 year wait for mental health services)

http://docs4patientcare.org/_blog/Re...ed_Wait_Times/(British Surgeons raise alarm over increased wait times)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110406/...guish_in_agony(Wait times for orthopedic surgeries in Britain cause patients to languish in agony)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...hours-cut.html(NHS: Waiting lists rise after doctors hours are cut)

I can post scads more stories from the British media.

The reason it 'mattered' is because I was curious as to whether or not you were on Medicare/Medicaid.

And, in the interest of full disclosure, technically, I can see a LOT of doctors on my plan. Just not if I want to change physicians RIGHT AWAY (like having to wait too long to see a doctor so I want to change to another). I have to file paperwork to change my primary care physician to another approved doctor or association.

Originally Posted by djplong

The reason it 'mattered' is because I was curious as to whether or not you were on Medicare/Medicaid.

And, in the interest of full disclosure, technically, I can see a LOT of doctors on my plan. Just not if I want to change physicians RIGHT AWAY (like having to wait too long to see a doctor so I want to change to another). I have to file paperwork to change my primary care physician to another approved doctor or association.

Your plan must be different than mine because I don't have to do any of that. I just pick a plan doctor and that's that. Almost all offices accept my plan. I don't need to have a primary physician. I don't need approval or referral to get tests that are prescribed, such as a MRI.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

...I just pick a plan doctor and that's that. Almost all offices accept my plan. I don't need to have a primary physician. I don't need approval or referral to get tests that are prescribed, such as a MRI.

Geez, that sounds like Medicare. You're not talking about Medicare, are you Richie? That single payer, government-funded, socialist inspired insurance can't have those kinds of advantages....or can it?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

...If I can't get a prompt appointment now, I can call another doctor. I can pick and choose every aspect of my health care needs, and provide for whatever procedure I want, and at the time of my choosing.

Why would I want that to change? It's not in my best interests or the interests of my family....

I'm really confused. This sounds like the hated Medicare to me.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I'm really confused. This sounds like the hated Medicare to me.

Bait me all you want. I'm not sure what the game is, but I'm not playing. I've said I have a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan. I don't have Medicare. I don't want Medicare. I'd rather just have the plan I have now forever. Unfortunately, when I turn 65 in the future, I'll be forced into it. But this is about the unadulterated socialist health care scheme known as Obamacare which will dictate the health care of every American and non-American who violates our borders, not Medicare that only affects seniors.