Food for Thought
SENIOR DEATH WARRANTS:
via email:
The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada . It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. In the United States , we have medical evacuation helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes.
In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed.
Obama wants to have a healthcare system just like Canada's and England's.
If Obama's plans in other areas don't scare you, this should. Please do not let Obama sign senior death warrants.
Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" Bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement:
Bloomberg: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that
come with age instead of treating them."
If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that our esteemed Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.
via email:
The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada . It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. In the United States , we have medical evacuation helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes.
In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed.
Obama wants to have a healthcare system just like Canada's and England's.
If Obama's plans in other areas don't scare you, this should. Please do not let Obama sign senior death warrants.
Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" Bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement:
Bloomberg: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that
come with age instead of treating them."
If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that our esteemed Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.
posted by Northern Exposer at 21:14
11 Comments:
Wrong, wrong, wrong! I knew a guy who had triple bypass and he was well over 59! It depends if the risks are higher and the older you are of course the risks are higher! Your heart may not be strong enough, there could be other complications that can arise with certain ages. Do you understand what consists of a double or a triple bypass surgery? It's no joke. Have you even bothered to do some medical research as to why doctors or even the patients themselves may refuse a sugery like this?
If the risk is too high, then yeah they will not operate. And a little FYI. It's up to the patient to make the final descision whether or not to go through with a procedure. Stop posting stuff you no little about. Research, research the Canadian Health Care. Look at where you work!!!!!!
Right away I have to step in on this. "In the United States , we have medical evacuation helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes." WE HAVE HELICOPTERS!!! Perfect example, I know a person that works at a hospital in Windsor(which is in Canada), and one day this nurse had to transport a premature infant to London. In stead of driving 1.5 hours, a helicopter was used and took less than a half hour. Geographically Canada is larger than the United States. Population wise, Canada is significantly lower. The only reason why you always hear that a helicopter was used to transport a patient in the United States and that driving is the most common method in Canada is that the United States can afford abundantly more uses of this type transportation. Owning a Helicopter is very expensive and the United States has more helicopters because they get more uses with that type of vehicle. Canada has their population more spread out and would need more helicopters to cover the vast land for less people. Perhaps the area where the actress had fallen was just another place (like many) where having that kind of transportation wasn't suffient (the hospital or the area of the ski lodge may not have had a helicopter to transport or they do have one but was already in use)
Here is a little food for thought for you.
Quebec's medical evacuation system has NO emergency helicopters to transfer patients quickly to superior hospitals in Montreal.
Their system isn't set up for traumas and doesn't match what's available in other Canadian cities.
So again. Before you start bashing your own health care system in your own country. try reaserching a little bit.
Now, THESE are intelligent arguments. Good job, guys.
But Anarchist, I do research. You KNOW that I have informed you on MANY different topics. You may not like what you hear, you not want to believe it, but you cannot deny that.
In this case, you got me pretty good. But my overall point is if Canada's health care system is so vastly superior, why the "brain-drain? Why are so many of our best and brightest going to the States to work? (Other than money and in Canada, doctors are regulated to only make a cap of $100,000/year) Why do most people go to the States for their treatment, including foreigners (I mean other than Canadians?)
Canada's system has people dying on stretchers, ridiculous wait times and people that are treated as cattle. You know this as well as I do.
Have you been to Quebec? I have. I used to live there for a short time. They do have emergency helicopters to transport people between Montreal, Quebec City, Hull, Trois-Riviers, Chicoutimee, wherever. It happened to my uncle. I don't know where you got that from.
And..."It's up to the patient to make the final decision whether or not to go through with a procedure."
That won't happen with Obamacare.
And, please, no personal information about other people.
Ms. Richardson REFUSED medical treatment at the time of the incident.
"if Canada's health care system is so vastly superior, why the "brain-drain? Why are so many of our best and brightest going to the States to work? (Other than money and in Canada, doctors are regulated to only make a cap of $100,000/year)"
That's a sure fire way to win an argument - know the counter-point in advance, then state "YOU MAY NOT USE THIS POINT AS THE ANSWER". The doctor cap and the (at one point) far superior US dollar are a great incentive for medical professionals to WORK in the US. Do you know why? Because the money charged by private health care can easily afford to pay these people a fortune.
I'm not going to say the Canadian system is perfect - it's not. Long waits (and I mean for surgery, not ER waits), lack of beds, and a government funded system that often requires budgetary cuts and nurse shortages can be problematic. If you are lucky enough to have health benefits in the US, you are treated like royalty over there (I know this quite well).
That said, is it better to give ONE PERSON awesome service or 100 people satisfactory to above average service that meets their medical needs?
Childbirth is a great example. It is incredibly expensive and life changing to raise a child - the average $7,000 - $15,000 cost to give birth in the US (and I believe that figure only factors in the procedure, not the cost of the room for the mother, etc.) is a terrible way to start this process. None of this exists here in Canada.
I'm a stubborn man when I'm sick. I won't go to a clinic or ER unless I feel it's absolutely, 100% necessary. That's my choice and I'm glad I can make it. I feel bad for those who aren't as stubborn as me, those who ARE sick, and those who WOULD like to get themselves checked out but there is no way they could afford it, especially in these economic times.
Yes it has it's flaws. So me personally wouldn't go as far and say it's superior. However in the end, I'm going to see the Miller family not worry about the medical bills, because little Timmy has to get blood transfusions everyday, or multiple tests. And the Miller family can focus on other expenses, because all their medical is already taken care of. There are people unable to pay their mortgage. Families sacrifice everyday to save a loved one. In middle America you can't have both. Health care and the American dream. Families have to give up one for the other. You gotta understand just having a baby. Forget raising it. Just to give birth. The hospital bill is astounding. Now all these new mothers to be. Will not have to worry about a $50,000.00 hospital bill for little Susy
I believe that health care is a privilege, not a right. We all work really hard at our jobs and one of the reasons why is so we can have good health insurance.
Doctors work so hard and have gone through a grueling education for most of their lives, so in my opinion they deserve every penny they get.
"If you are lucky enough to have health benefits in the US, you are treated like royalty over there (I know this quite well)."
It doesn't matter if you have health benefits or not, in the U.S. no one is denied the medical care they need. I have half a dozen stories of my own personal friends and family where this happened. Not to mention the millions of dollars spent on illegals' medical care. In my home state of Texas I think we spent around $43mil last year alone on illegal immigrant medical costs.
Regarding the child birth example you gave - that it costs $15,000 or so to give birth - if you have insurance, you only have to pay your deductible plus whatever percentage above the max as determined by your plan. So it's not $15k for the patient, not even close.
The difference between the insured and non-insured is how much the patient must pay. For instance, someone who has a heart attack without insurance will treated the same as someone who does - the differnce is the cost. The uninsured would have to pay all of it and the insured would have to pay whatever was determined by their plan and contributions.
And Sith, being Canadian you know there are ridiculous wait times in the ER. I myself have had to wait eight hours or more just to see a doctor to get an inhaler for my asthma. EIGHT HOURS for something that should take no more than 20 minutes, tops.
And how many in the US are without health insurance? Liberal Sith is very close. You speak of a small per centage in the US who don't have to pay those medical bills for child birth. And yes even in Canada if you have health benifits and don't rely on OHIP then you get better treatment as well. You have a choice of private or semi-private. Not those horrible wards they stick you in. However for a middle class family or just the average working Joe, who does not have the greatest health insurance. They do not have to literally take out a second mortgage, or sacrifice their children's college fund just to pay off a medical bill(s) There are pros and cons for both.
Andriene. That is exactly the point. Someone who has a heart attack without insurance has to pay the full bill, where someone with insurance doesn't have to pay.
In Canada you don't need health insurance.
Post a Comment
<< Home