UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely, weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
The question, says Stevens, is whether physicians can override the
wishes of the parents. "In England that is possible," he explains,
"and increasingly in this country we're seeing that concern rise
because a lot of things increasingly are being defined as 'futile
care.'"
And once something is defined as being a "futile" therapy, Stevens
notes, the doctor has no obligation to continue it. The CMDA spokesman
acknowledges that while there is such a thing as futile care -- such
as when all that is being done is prolonging the dying process -- this
is not the case with Baby Charlotte who, although handicapped, has
shown marked improvement.
But Stevens says in this situation, everything is run by the
government -- so there is no other option for the parents other than
to appeal the judge's ruling.
According to a BBC News report, under the British medical system,
doctors can refuse to treat a person if they feel the treatment serves
no purpose or if the quality of life is deemed to be so low that it is
not in the patient's interest. But if the family and doctors disagree,
it is left to the High Court to decide.
.
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
30 Apr 2005 01:11:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely, weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company refuses
to cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own
money on a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay
for medical treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses
to cover the cost.
The question, says Stevens, is whether physicians can override the
wishes of the parents. "In England that is possible," he explains,
"and increasingly in this country we're seeing that concern rise
because a lot of things increasingly are being defined as 'futile
care.'"
The question is: does the person paying the bill have the right to
determine what they'll pay for? In most cases, that's a "yes".
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
30 Apr 2005 06:15:21 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely, weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company refuses to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own money on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to cover the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option is not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to get MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes). Those who can afford it go to
the US. One thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't allow the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The question, says Stevens, is whether physicians can override the
wishes of the parents. "In England that is possible," he explains,
"and increasingly in this country we're seeing that concern rise
because a lot of things increasingly are being defined as 'futile
care.'"
The question is: does the person paying the bill have the right to
determine what they'll pay for? In most cases, that's a "yes".
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
01 May 2005 10:53:20 AM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely, weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company refuses to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own money on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to cover the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option is not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to get MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't allow the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
01 May 2005 03:51:41 PM |
|
|
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114962679.d15f9942a9d435a5faa5bdca179788ce@teranews...
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely, weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company refuses
to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own money
on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for
medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to cover the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option is not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to get
MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Yes, monthes.
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
The Liberals up here know all about it!
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't allow the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
I wouldn't want to give it up entirely. No one should go into bankruptcy
because of medical bills! However, I believe there should be user fees,
especially in ERs, to stop abuse of the system and a private option for
those who chose to use it.
Jane
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
02 May 2005 07:53:24 AM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114962679.d15f9942a9d435a5faa5bdca179788ce@teranews...
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely, weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company refuses
to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own money
on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for
medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to cover the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option is not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to get
MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Yes, monthes.
Sheesh, I wonder how many people die due to being diagnosed too late.
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
The Liberals up here know all about it!
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't allow the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
I wouldn't want to give it up entirely. No one should go into bankruptcy
because of medical bills! However, I believe there should be user fees,
especially in ERs, to stop abuse of the system and a private option for
those who chose to use it.
Jane
How about not allowing Illegal Aliens to crowd the ER's while they get
their free medical treatment?
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
02 May 2005 08:48:12 AM |
|
|
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1115038302.d48acbe212dee21d43465a10e7aba0fc@teranews...
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114962679.d15f9942a9d435a5faa5bdca179788ce@teranews...
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely,
weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a
national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company
refuses
to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own
money
on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for
medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to cover
the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option is
not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to get
MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Yes, monthes.
Sheesh, I wonder how many people die due to being diagnosed too late.
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
The Liberals up here know all about it!
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can
afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't allow
the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
I wouldn't want to give it up entirely. No one should go into bankruptcy
because of medical bills! However, I believe there should be user fees,
especially in ERs, to stop abuse of the system and a private option for
those who chose to use it.
Jane
How about not allowing Illegal Aliens to crowd the ER's while they get
their free medical treatment?
Well, up here we have a severe shortage of doctors and there are many people
who were born here who don't have one. However, except for isolated
communities up north, there are many "walk-in" clinics to be used when it is
not an emergency. Far too many people crowd the ER with head colds and
such.
Jane
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android`" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
02 May 2005 09:08:36 AM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1115038302.d48acbe212dee21d43465a10e7aba0fc@teranews...
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114962679.d15f9942a9d435a5faa5bdca179788ce@teranews...
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely,
weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a
national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company
refuses
to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own
money
on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for
medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to cover
the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option is
not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to get
MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Yes, monthes.
Sheesh, I wonder how many people die due to being diagnosed too late.
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
The Liberals up here know all about it!
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can
afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't allow
the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
I wouldn't want to give it up entirely. No one should go into bankruptcy
because of medical bills! However, I believe there should be user fees,
especially in ERs, to stop abuse of the system and a private option for
those who chose to use it.
Jane
How about not allowing Illegal Aliens to crowd the ER's while they get
their free medical treatment?
Well, up here we have a severe shortage of doctors and there are many people
who were born here who don't have one. However, except for isolated
communities up north, there are many "walk-in" clinics to be used when it is
not an emergency. Far too many people crowd the ER with head colds and
such.
Jane
Mostly new parents ( guilty! ) who 'just want to be sure' and drunken
teenagers.
The walk-in's are becoming much more sophisicated now as well. A few of
the smaller communities surrounding larger urban centers have converted
their smallish ER's into walk-in's. They're pretty efficient.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
02 May 2005 09:18:36 AM |
|
|
"Marvin The Paranoid Android`" <marvin@galaxy.com> wrote in message
news:1115042924.0492017ad6726c2831a15070a689d3c3@teranews...
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1115038302.d48acbe212dee21d43465a10e7aba0fc@teranews...
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114962679.d15f9942a9d435a5faa5bdca179788ce@teranews...
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely,
weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at
any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a
national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company
refuses
to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own
money
on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for
medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to cover
the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option is
not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to get
MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Yes, monthes.
Sheesh, I wonder how many people die due to being diagnosed too late.
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
The Liberals up here know all about it!
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can
afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't allow
the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
I wouldn't want to give it up entirely. No one should go into
bankruptcy
because of medical bills! However, I believe there should be user fees,
especially in ERs, to stop abuse of the system and a private option for
those who chose to use it.
Jane
How about not allowing Illegal Aliens to crowd the ER's while they get
their free medical treatment?
Well, up here we have a severe shortage of doctors and there are many
people who were born here who don't have one. However, except for
isolated communities up north, there are many "walk-in" clinics to be
used when it is not an emergency. Far too many people crowd the ER with
head colds and such.
Jane
Mostly new parents ( guilty! ) who 'just want to be sure' and drunken
teenagers.
Well...I have to admit I was guilty of that myself :-)! Yet my MD said not
to take ANY chances with a newborn! Having said that, I would have happily
paid a user fee (I am not suggesting a large fee, just something to make
people think twice).
The walk-in's are becoming much more sophisicated now as well. A few of
the smaller communities surrounding larger urban centers have converted
their smallish ER's into walk-in's. They're pretty efficient.
Indeed
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
02 May 2005 09:44:34 AM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_Eqde.3612$VL3.159331@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Marvin The Paranoid Android`" <marvin@galaxy.com> wrote in message
news:1115042924.0492017ad6726c2831a15070a689d3c3@teranews...
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1115038302.d48acbe212dee21d43465a10e7aba0fc@teranews...
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114962679.d15f9942a9d435a5faa5bdca179788ce@teranews...
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that
an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical
group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to
blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely,
weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing
problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing
is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply.
Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at
any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not
change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a
national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and
dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of
a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should
not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer
the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company
refuses
to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own
money
on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for
medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to
cover
the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option
is
not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to
get
MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Yes, monthes.
Sheesh, I wonder how many people die due to being diagnosed too late.
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
The Liberals up here know all about it!
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can
afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't
allow
the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
I wouldn't want to give it up entirely. No one should go into
bankruptcy
because of medical bills! However, I believe there should be user
fees,
especially in ERs, to stop abuse of the system and a private option
for
those who chose to use it.
Jane
How about not allowing Illegal Aliens to crowd the ER's while they get
their free medical treatment?
Well, up here we have a severe shortage of doctors and there are many
people who were born here who don't have one. However, except for
isolated communities up north, there are many "walk-in" clinics to be
used when it is not an emergency. Far too many people crowd the ER
with
head colds and such.
Jane
Mostly new parents ( guilty! ) who 'just want to be sure' and drunken
teenagers.
Well...I have to admit I was guilty of that myself :-)! Yet my MD said
not
to take ANY chances with a newborn! Having said that, I would have
happily
paid a user fee (I am not suggesting a large fee, just something to make
people think twice).
That's how it works here (Sweden, a byword for socialised everything!). You
are charged a nominal fee for going to see the quack (about 10 US dollars),
but treatment is free/subsidised. The thinking behind it is exactly as you
say - to make people think twice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
02 May 2005 11:32:42 AM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_Eqde.3612$VL3.159331@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Marvin The Paranoid Android`" <marvin@galaxy.com> wrote in message
news:1115042924.0492017ad6726c2831a15070a689d3c3@teranews...
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1115038302.d48acbe212dee21d43465a10e7aba0fc@teranews...
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114962679.d15f9942a9d435a5faa5bdca179788ce@teranews...
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that
an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical
group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to
blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely,
weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing
problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing
is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply.
Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at
any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not
change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a
national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and
dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of
a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should
not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer
the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company
refuses
to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own
money
on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for
medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to
cover
the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option
is
not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to
get
MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Yes, monthes.
Sheesh, I wonder how many people die due to being diagnosed too late.
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
The Liberals up here know all about it!
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can
afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't
allow
the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
I wouldn't want to give it up entirely. No one should go into
bankruptcy
because of medical bills! However, I believe there should be user
fees,
especially in ERs, to stop abuse of the system and a private option
for
those who chose to use it.
Jane
How about not allowing Illegal Aliens to crowd the ER's while they get
their free medical treatment?
Well, up here we have a severe shortage of doctors and there are many
people who were born here who don't have one. However, except for
isolated communities up north, there are many "walk-in" clinics to be
used when it is not an emergency. Far too many people crowd the ER
with
head colds and such.
Jane
Mostly new parents ( guilty! ) who 'just want to be sure' and drunken
teenagers.
Well...I have to admit I was guilty of that myself :-)! Yet my MD said
not
to take ANY chances with a newborn! Having said that, I would have
happily
paid a user fee (I am not suggesting a large fee, just something to make
people think twice).
That's how it works here (Sweden, a byword for socialised everything!). You
are charged a nominal fee for going to see the quack (about 10 US dollars),
but treatment is free/subsidised. The thinking behind it is exactly as you
say - to make people think twice.
Most Americans now have to pay a co-payment for any treatment covered by
their insurer, as well, at the same order of magnitude ($10-15). So,
we're paying well over $100/month in premiums per person, plus the
copayments for visits and drugs, if we're fortunate to have drug
coverages. Still beats paying for health care when you need it, though.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
02 May 2005 11:30:22 AM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1115038302.d48acbe212dee21d43465a10e7aba0fc@teranews...
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114962679.d15f9942a9d435a5faa5bdca179788ce@teranews...
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely,
weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a
national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company
refuses
to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own
money
on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for
medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to cover
the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option is
not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to get
MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Yes, monthes.
Sheesh, I wonder how many people die due to being diagnosed too late.
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
The Liberals up here know all about it!
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can
afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't allow
the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
I wouldn't want to give it up entirely. No one should go into bankruptcy
because of medical bills! However, I believe there should be user fees,
especially in ERs, to stop abuse of the system and a private option for
those who chose to use it.
Jane
How about not allowing Illegal Aliens to crowd the ER's while they get
their free medical treatment?
Well, up here we have a severe shortage of doctors and there are many people
who were born here who don't have one. However, except for isolated
communities up north, there are many "walk-in" clinics to be used when it is
not an emergency. Far too many people crowd the ER with head colds and
such.
Just to clarify - U.S. hospitals do not hand out "free medical
treatment". What happens is that public hospitals cannot turn away
anyone based on ability to pay. So, if the person has no insurance and
cannot produce a credit card, they still have to treat them. The
hospital bills the individual, if given the correct name/address, but
there's little meat to their billing. Someone with no official job and
no assets has no mechanism to force payment.
Private hospitals can and do refuse treatment to those who cannot show
proof of insurance, or some other means of payment - with the exception
of life-threatening emergencies.
Woods
Jane
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android`" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
02 May 2005 08:46:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Jane wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1114962679.d15f9942a9d435a5faa5bdca179788ce@teranews...
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely, weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company refuses
to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own money
on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for
medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to cover the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option is not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to get
MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Yes, monthes.
Sheesh, I wonder how many people die due to being diagnosed too late.
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
The Liberals up here know all about it!
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't allow the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
I wouldn't want to give it up entirely. No one should go into bankruptcy
because of medical bills! However, I believe there should be user fees,
especially in ERs, to stop abuse of the system and a private option for
those who chose to use it.
Jane
How about not allowing Illegal Aliens to crowd the ER's while they get
their free medical treatment?
Tony
In Ontario they're bringing back OHIP premiums.
Also, if you are not in possession of an OHIP card, then you'll get billed.
But since this *is* Canada a recent example of our compassion is of a
recent fire that happened in Ottawa. A family that had recently moved
there from Asia suffered a fire where the mom and four children died.
The father, a child and the grandfather all survived. Since they had
just arrived they didn't have OHIP coverage. The hospital billed the
father for $30,000 after they were released. The hospital immediately
stated they would gladly waive the bill ... it was an automated process
that had generated it.
Gotta love a socialized medical system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
02 May 2005 09:25:51 AM |
|
|
"Marvin The Paranoid Android`" <marvin@galaxy.com> wrote in message
news:1115041589.52d8fb1073e21cd7fc776674f786e880@teranews...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114962679.d15f9942a9d435a5faa5bdca179788ce@teranews...
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely,
weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a
national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company
refuses to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own
money on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for
medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to cover
the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option is
not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to get
MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Yes, monthes.
Sheesh, I wonder how many people die due to being diagnosed too late.
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
The Liberals up here know all about it!
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can
afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't allow
the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
I wouldn't want to give it up entirely. No one should go into bankruptcy
because of medical bills! However, I believe there should be user fees,
especially in ERs, to stop abuse of the system and a private option for
those who chose to use it.
Jane
How about not allowing Illegal Aliens to crowd the ER's while they get
their free medical treatment? Tony
In Ontario they're bringing back OHIP premiums.
Yep...we paid $675 with our taxes last year. Still, a lot less than
insurance premiums in the US. They never should have dropped the premiums
way back when.
Also, if you are not in possession of an OHIP card, then you'll get
billed.
But since this *is* Canada a recent example of our compassion is of a
recent fire that happened in Ottawa. A family that had recently moved
there from Asia suffered a fire where the mom and four children died. The
father, a child and the grandfather all survived. Since they had just
arrived they didn't have OHIP coverage. The hospital billed the father for
$30,000 after they were released. The hospital immediately stated they
would gladly waive the bill ... it was an automated process that had
generated it.
Gotta love a socialized medical system.
Yes, as I said to Tony, I would never want to disband it! (You posted an
earlier article where it uses my employer, GM, as an example of a company
being crippled by health insurance in the US). People should never go broke
because of medical bills! (Even new immigrants). However, I am in favour of
user fees and a private option, as they have in the UK.
I like the telehealth line, too. When my son was running a high fever one
night, the telehealth nurse was able to convince him over the phone to ditch
his heavy comforter (I had had no luck) to help his temp come down and was
able to reassure me that he could wait to see a Dr until the next day. We
took him to the walk-in the next morning and it turned out he had strep.
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
02 May 2005 11:44:06 AM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
"Marvin The Paranoid Android`" <marvin@galaxy.com> wrote in message
news:1115041589.52d8fb1073e21cd7fc776674f786e880@teranews...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114962679.d15f9942a9d435a5faa5bdca179788ce@teranews...
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely,
weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply. Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a
national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company
refuses to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own
money on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for
medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to cover
the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option is
not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to get
MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Yes, monthes.
Sheesh, I wonder how many people die due to being diagnosed too late.
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
The Liberals up here know all about it!
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can
afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't allow
the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
I wouldn't want to give it up entirely. No one should go into bankruptcy
because of medical bills! However, I believe there should be user fees,
especially in ERs, to stop abuse of the system and a private option for
those who chose to use it.
Jane
How about not allowing Illegal Aliens to crowd the ER's while they get
their free medical treatment? Tony
In Ontario they're bringing back OHIP premiums.
Yep...we paid $675 with our taxes last year. Still, a lot less than
insurance premiums in the US. They never should have dropped the premiums
way back when.
Wow - that is cheap! We're paying about $200/month out-of-pocket, but
that's only our portion - my husband's employer is picking up the other
80% of the cost for a family plan. A large number of workers in the
United States get no subsidy from their employer, so they either do
without the insurance or foot the whole $1000+ per month. It's no
wonder that so many people take advantage of public hospitals.
Also, if you are not in possession of an OHIP card, then you'll get
billed.
But since this *is* Canada a recent example of our compassion is of a
recent fire that happened in Ottawa. A family that had recently moved
there from Asia suffered a fire where the mom and four children died. The
father, a child and the grandfather all survived. Since they had just
arrived they didn't have OHIP coverage. The hospital billed the father for
$30,000 after they were released. The hospital immediately stated they
would gladly waive the bill ... it was an automated process that had
generated it.
Gotta love a socialized medical system.
Yes, as I said to Tony, I would never want to disband it! (You posted an
earlier article where it uses my employer, GM, as an example of a company
being crippled by health insurance in the US). People should never go broke
because of medical bills! (Even new immigrants). However, I am in favour of
user fees and a private option, as they have in the UK.
I like the telehealth line, too. When my son was running a high fever one
night, the telehealth nurse was able to convince him over the phone to ditch
his heavy comforter (I had had no luck) to help his temp come down and was
able to reassure me that he could wait to see a Dr until the next day. We
took him to the walk-in the next morning and it turned out he had strep.
Sounds like a nice system to have available.
Woods
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
02 May 2005 10:26:08 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qNsde.306$3b4.75@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Jane wrote:
"Marvin The Paranoid Android`" <marvin@galaxy.com> wrote in message
news:1115041589.52d8fb1073e21cd7fc776674f786e880@teranews...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
Jane wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114962679.d15f9942a9d435a5faa5bdca179788ce@teranews...
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:nTPce.13102$Bc7.6924@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
itwill@happen.com wrote:
UK's Healthcare Setup Partly Blamed in 'Baby Charlotte' Saga
By Mary Rettig
April 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A British court recently upheld a court order that
an
18-month-old girl should be allowed to die, despite her parents'
wishes to keep her alive. An official with a Christian medical
group
says the UK's socialist-style healthcare system is partly to blame.
The toddler, known as "Baby Charlotte," was born prematurely,
weighing
just one pound and measuring only five inches, with serious brain,
lung, and kidney damage. She suffers from severe breathing
problems,
although earlier this year there was evidence that her breathing is
becoming stronger and she is less dependent on an oxygen supply.
Her
parents, both committed Christians, believe in preserving life at
any
cost; but a British judge said doctors do not have to resuscitate
Charlotte if she stops breathing.
Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations
says although euthanasia is illegal in Britain, that does not
change
the control doctors are given. He explains that England has a
national
health service that provides free healthcare to British citizens.
Essentially, he says, that results in a "single-party payer" of
medical costs.
"In other words, the government's paying all the bills and dictates
all the policies, which makes it quite different than here in the
U.S.," Stevens says. "In the U.S., if a doctor was taking care of a
patient and thought that some intervention was futile and should
not
be continued but the family disagreed, you could always transfer
the
care to another physician or another hospital."
Not entirely true - this is similar to if the insurance company
refuses to
cover the cost. In Britain, you are still free to spend your own
money on
a physician of your choice, just as Americans are free to pay for
medical
treatment out of their own pockets if their insurer refuses to cover
the
cost.
Yes, and in Britain, they are lucky. In Canada, the private option
is not
available yet, in most cases (although hockey players do manage to
get MRIs
in a day where the rest of us wait monthes).
My God, months?
Yes, monthes.
Sheesh, I wonder how many people die due to being diagnosed too late.
Those who can afford it go to
the US.
Shhhhh, you'll get the Liberals all worked up.
The Liberals up here know all about it!
ne thing we Canadian Conservatives hope for is a public/private
system, whereby you have the private option if you want it and can
afford
it. The only other countries with socialized systems that don't
allow the
private option are North Korea and Cuba. I don't like being in that
company! :-)
Jane
The Liberals here in the USA keep telling us that we need socialized
medicinelike Canada has.
I wouldn't want to give it up entirely. No one should go into
bankruptcy because of medical bills! However, I believe there should
be user fees, especially in ERs, to stop abuse of the system and a
private option for those who chose to use it.
Jane
How about not allowing Illegal Aliens to crowd the ER's while they get
their free medical treatment? Tony
In Ontario they're bringing back OHIP premiums.
Yep...we paid $675 with our taxes last year. Still, a lot less than
insurance premiums in the US. They never should have dropped the
premiums way back when.
Wow - that is cheap! We're paying about $200/month out-of-pocket, but
that's only our portion - my husband's employer is picking up the other
80% of the cost for a family plan. A large number of workers in the
United States get no subsidy from their employer, so they either do
without the insurance or foot the whole $1000+ per month. It's no wonder
that so many people take advantage of public hospitals.
We read the horror stories about US health care up here, but we have our
share of horror stories, mainly do to the long waits and crowded hospitals.
My husband and I are lucky in that we have the other coverages (drug,
dental, vision, hearing, prostheses, etc) through work. Green Shield has
begun sending an itemized list of the costs they have covered over the year.
Our gov't health system should do the same, so that people remember that it
is not "free".
Also, if you are not in possession of an OHIP card, then you'll get
billed.
But since this *is* Canada a recent example of our compassion is of a
recent fire that happened in Ottawa. A family that had recently moved
there from Asia suffered a fire where the mom and four children died. The
father, a child and the grandfather all survived. Since they had just
arrived they didn't have OHIP coverage. The hospital billed the father
for $30,000 after they were released. The hospital immediately stated
they would gladly waive the bill ... it was an automated process that had
generated it.
Gotta love a socialized medical system.
Yes, as I said to Tony, I would never want to disband it! (You posted an
earlier article where it uses my employer, GM, as an example of a company
being crippled by health insurance in the US). People should never go
broke because of medical bills! (Even new immigrants). However, I am in
favour of user fees and a private option, as they have in the UK.
I like the telehealth line, too. When my son was running a high fever
one night, the telehealth nurse was able to convince him over the phone
to ditch his heavy comforter (I had had no luck) to help his temp come
down and was able to reassure me that he could wait to see a Dr until the
next day. We took him to the walk-in the next morning and it turned out
he had strep.
Sounds like a nice system to have available.
It was put in place to save $$, in the hopes that people would phone instead
of immediately heading to the ER. It worked for me!
Jane
Woods
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
03 May 2005 08:56:14 AM |
|
|
I really should add that medicare in Canada is not as cheap as a $675
premium per year (in case I gave that impression!) That is a new tax added
last year that is in addition to the thousands we already pay in taxes!
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
03 May 2005 07:24:23 PM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
I really should add that medicare in Canada is not as cheap as a $675
premium per year (in case I gave that impression!) That is a new tax added
last year that is in addition to the thousands we already pay in taxes!
Damn right. Stats from the 80's were 30 cents on every tax dollar going
to health care. In the 90's it was down to 25 cents, but I guess it is
back up to around 30 cents again now. Not sure how much of it actually
goes to direct costs (doctors, supporting staff, drugs, equipment, etc.)
I bet not more than 40%. The rest goes to support the bureaucracy and
related paper work. A huge rip off to have a bunch of white coats push
harmful drugs down people's throats, and cut them open to see what's
inside...
Stat.
Jane
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
04 May 2005 07:24:19 AM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
Woods wrote:
Sounds like a nice system to have available.
It was put in place to save $$, in the hopes that people would phone instead
of immediately heading to the ER. It worked for me!
Jane
Thankfully, but actually with Strep one day can make the difference
between a sore throat, and an infection that spreads to the heart or
other vital areas.
Strep has always been dangerous, but these days it is much more so
with its mutations even into the flesh eating varity.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
04 May 2005 08:56:48 AM |
|
|
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1115209319.4c98cc6860ae8bb516fa5c03c7b1b341@teranews...
Jane wrote:
Woods wrote:
Sounds like a nice system to have available.
It was put in place to save $$, in the hopes that people would phone
instead
of immediately heading to the ER. It worked for me!
Jane
Thankfully, but actually with Strep one day can make the difference
between a sore throat, and an infection that spreads to the heart or
other vital areas.
Strep has always been dangerous, but these days it is much more so
with its mutations even into the flesh eating varity.
Tony
I should thank you for the Microlactin advice! After just 3 days on it, I
can already feel the difference! Not so much in the carpal tunnel, but in a
knee that has been injured a couple times and is somewhat arthritic. The
stuff seems to be amazing! I'm going to give it a couple weeks and if it is
as good as I think it is, will try to talk my mother into trying it (she
thinks she needs knee replacement, but is procrastinating because she fears
the anesthetic). We have bad knees in my family, anyway...father, sisters,
mother...only my brother seems to have escaped. One sister who has already
had surgery has never been even an ounce overweight, so we think it is some
kind of genetic weakness. Thanks again!
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
04 May 2005 09:16:02 AM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Bw4ee.5497$VL3.447534@news20.bellglobal.com...
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1115209319.4c98cc6860ae8bb516fa5c03c7b1b341@teranews...
Jane wrote:
Woods wrote:
Sounds like a nice system to have available.
It was put in place to save $$, in the hopes that people would phone
instead
of immediately heading to the ER. It worked for me!
Jane
Thankfully, but actually with Strep one day can make the difference
between a sore throat, and an infection that spreads to the heart or
other vital areas.
Strep has always been dangerous, but these days it is much more so
with its mutations even into the flesh eating varity.
Tony
I should thank you for the Microlactin advice! After just 3 days on it, I
can already feel the difference! Not so much in the carpal tunnel,
Well, Tony's wrist does get a lot of hard work, not surpising he knows how
to deal with carpal tunnel/RSI injuries..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
05 May 2005 06:49:47 AM |
|
|
Tommy The Transgendered Clown wrote:
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Bw4ee.5497$VL3.447534@news20.bellglobal.com...
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1115209319.4c98cc6860ae8bb516fa5c03c7b1b341@teranews...
Jane wrote:
Woods wrote:
Sounds like a nice system to have available.
It was put in place to save $$, in the hopes that people would phone
instead
of immediately heading to the ER. It worked for me!
Jane
Thankfully, but actually with Strep one day can make the difference
between a sore throat, and an infection that spreads to the heart or
other vital areas.
Strep has always been dangerous, but these days it is much more so
with its mutations even into the flesh eating varity.
Tony
I should thank you for the Microlactin advice! After just 3 days on it, I
can already feel the difference! Not so much in the carpal tunnel,
Well, Tony's wrist does get a lot of hard work, not surpising he knows how
to deal with carpal tunnel/RSI injuries..
Just can't break away from your obsession, eh?
FYI, I have a lot of knowledge on nutrition and natural therapies.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Socialized Medicine |
09 May 2005 06:10:29 AM |
|
|
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1115293654.bbb4aebba34fc94b0fb9f5024f518f66@teranews...
Tommy The Transgendered Clown wrote:
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Bw4ee.5497$VL3.447534@news20.bellglobal.com...
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1115209319.4c98cc6860ae8bb516fa5c03c7b1b341@teranews...
Jane wrote:
Woods wrote:
Sounds like a nice system to have available.
It was put in place to save $$, in the hopes that people would phone
instead
of immed | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
