Canadian Healthcare the real story

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's assume the number is only 22,000. Are you saying that this is acceptable?

Tell me, Aquila, how many INSURED people die per year? People die. It happens. There is more to it than, "are they insured?"

Are they TRULY uninsured involuntarily, or have they made the choice to be uninsured? What is their lifestyle? How do they take care of themselves?

You make it sound as though being insured is sunshine and happy days. Death happens, regardless if you're insured or not.

[aegsm76]

A - I have been involved in healthcare for many, many years.
I have participated in many studies involving the direction that our healthcare system needed to take.
The Canadian model is not the answer.
I do not know why you are obsessed with it.
The Canadian model has only worked because of the close proximity to the US.
I do believe we need a better healthcare system.
I also believe we will never get the best possible one, because of too many competing interests in the US.
Small incremental changes would better suit us, than massive overhauls, such as Obamacare or even killing Obamacare.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Tell me, Aquila, how many INSURED people die per year? People die. It happens. There is more to it than, "are they insured?"

While yes, people die, the insured are far more likely to have the coverage needed to see specialists and get the treatments they need. Which is far more than the uninsured who perished of treatable conditions because they didn't have the necessary coverage.

Are they TRULY uninsured involuntarily, or have they made the choice to be uninsured? What is their lifestyle? How do they take care of themselves?

Looking for excuses to excuse the fact that THOUSANDS of uninsured have died of treatable conditions they could have had addressed if insured?

You make it sound as though being insured is sunshine and happy days. Death happens, regardless if you're insured or not.

I know that death happens. However, there's a big difference between being able to say, "We've done all we can do.", and saying, "This is unreal...I wish mom could have been able to afford to see a specialist."

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A - I have been involved in healthcare for many, many years.
I have participated in many studies involving the direction that our healthcare system needed to take.
The Canadian model is not the answer.
I do not know why you are obsessed with it.
The Canadian model has only worked because of the close proximity to the US.
I do believe we need a better healthcare system.
I also believe we will never get the best possible one, because of too many competing interests in the US.
Small incremental changes would better suit us, than massive overhauls, such as Obamacare or even killing Obamacare.

Oh, I know that Single Payer isn't perfect. However, it is a plan. A serious plan. So far, no other workable plans are being offered.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's assume the number is only 22,000. Are you saying that this is acceptable?

But there is no data as to why they died. How many were old and decide not to be treated? To say that they were rejected for treatment cannot be substantiated. None of this justifies singe payer. Under single pay I guaranteed deaths will skyrocket.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

While yes, people die, the insured are far more likely to have the coverage needed to see specialists and get the treatments they need. Which is far more than the uninsured who perished of treatable conditions because they didn't have the necessary coverage.

Again, the study didn't account for why they were uninsured, their lifestyle, etc. In fact, it didn't even account for those who later on attained health insurance and still died. Instead, it just chalked up the death and didn't include that they had insurance when they died!

Originally Posted by Aquila

Looking for excuses to excuse the fact that THOUSANDS of uninsured have died of treatable conditions they could have had addressed if insured?

I'm not the one making excuses.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know that death happens. However, there's a big difference between being able to say, "We've done all we can do.", and saying, "This is unreal...I wish mom could have been able to afford to see a specialist."

Oh good grief.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

But there is no data as to why they died. How many were old and decide not to be treated? To say that they were rejected for treatment cannot be substantiated. None of this justifies singe payer. Under single pay I guaranteed deaths will skyrocket.

Ummm... most of these people had families that participated in the studies. You should know my story with my mom. Had she had insurance, the specialist would have seen her and would have most likely caught the problem. (This is where you tell me that they might not have caught the problem, so as to make me feel better, right?) She couldn't see the gosh darn specialist because she didn't have insurance... and she DIED. Even if the specialist would have only had a 10% chance of finding the problem, that's a 10% chance greater than her chances without seeing the specialist.

And no, deaths wouldn't skyrocket. That's all a bunch of fanciful mythology. I've already posted the FAQ on H.R. 676 that explains how it works... and that wouldn't happen. If we had single payer, I'm confident that the odds are in my favor that my mom would still be alive.

Just another example of WHY the Republican party is so dangerous to civilization.

[n david]

Move along . . .

[aegsm76]

A - you seem to have some unresolved issues about your mom's death.
You seem to need someone to blame, instead of asking yourself if that was just her time.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

But there is no data as to why they died. How many were old and decide not to be treated? To say that they were rejected for treatment cannot be substantiated. None of this justifies singe payer. Under single pay I guaranteed deaths will skyrocket.

Families and medical records show treatable conditions and inability to pay. And odds are that the numbers are higher if you consider reported deaths of homeless people.

Your really trying to justify a system that rations care based on ability to pay, leaving thousands of poor and working poor dying from treatable conditions. It isn't rationed based on age, chance of recovers, quality of life, but instead it's rationed based on cold hard cash.