[B5JMS] And So It Begins...

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: kurtullman at yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 15:46:52 GMT
Lines: 55

In article <20030525044021.09289.00000272 at mb-m07.aol.com>, jmsatb5 at aol.com 
(Jms at B5) wrote:
>><< We have problems here at home, ranging from poverty, >>
>>
>>a person living on the street in the USA has more access to food, water and
>>shelter then much of the populations of the nations of india, china, or
>>mexico,
>>and of much of the continent of africa. and those are just the large nations
>
>So you exalt this by pointing to the worst cases, as opposed to looking to the
>majority of industrialized nations that offer universal health care and
>assistance.  So because we're not the worst, we're okay?  Odd reasoning there,
>but it makes you happy....
    Of course some also studiously ignore the downsides of universal health 
care. The Canadian government is now proudly touting the fact that they have 
brought the waiting time for hip surgery down to less than three years. SIx to 
nine months to get access to an MRI. About two years ago, jsut about every 
nurse in one one of the provences (7,500 of them) submitted resignations 
because the government refused to negotiate on pay raises. 
        They have a lag time in getting approval to pay for new medications of 
quite a few months after regulatory approval since all medications in Canada 
can only be sold (thorugh the Patened Medicine Prices Review Board). In 
addition, although studies have "inidcated" that prices are lower in Canada, 
others have noted that when you look at total market (in otherwords, not just 
the individual prices but also the mix of generics to brand name) Canadian 
generics are consistenly higher than American, so in real life you see 
Americans pay less overall. 
     If you would care to tiptoe through Medline, there are a number of other 
studies (many by Canadian docs) showing that differences in quality of life 
issues. For instance, heart patients in Canada have significanly more angina 
and are significantly more likely to be disabled than Americans. Although it 
is an older study, there was actually a time in the not-too-distant past where 
you were three times more likely in Canada to die on the queue waiting for 
your bypass operation than you were to die on the table DURING it.
    You see many of the same things currently going on in the British Health 
Service which is also rather publicaly tussling with their own waiting list 
problems. 
     Even closer to home. Waiting lists and similar problem are a big concern 
with the closest thing we have to national healthcare, the VA. Talk about a 
group that has been at the funding whim of governments for generations... 
     SO, if you want state run facilities, then be VERY careful what you wish 
for. 
     Anyway. Don't pretend that all the problems go away with  universal 
health care, because they don't. You just change them around a little and not 
always for the better.
      BTW: How do you feel about Hillary Care and HMOs. 

  

------
For there is surely nothing more beautiful in this
world than the sight of a lone man facing singlehandedly
a half a ton of angry pot roast!
	Tom Lehrer on Bullfighting.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 26 May 2003 03:00:21 GMT
Lines: 31

>Of course some also studiously ignore the downsides of universal health 
>care. The Canadian government is now proudly touting the fact that they have 
>brought the waiting time for hip surgery down to less than three years. SIx
>to 
>nine months to get access to an MRI.

Sounds pretty good for that section of the American population who can't afford
it at all, however.  If I had the choice between not getting a new hip because
I couldn't pony up the money, because I had no health insurance, and waiting
three years...I'd go for the latter every time.

You kinda have to put on a different perspective to view that one with
equanimity.

>BTW: How do you feel about Hillary Care and HMOs. 

Rephrase that in a less obviously biased fashion and there's a discussion to be
had.  To call it "Hillar Care" is to dismiss something out of hand by ad
hominem attack.  That's not an entry point to a conversation, it's the opening
salvo in a diatribe.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)