Was listening to the news this morning and one story was about the death of the actress, Mz Richardson a couple weeks ago. Turns out that if she had been given a simple test she would likely still be alive. But that this test was not authorized under the Canadian health system because of cost. Top that off with the long delay in getting her to medical treatment because of the lack of helicopter medevac service and you have a relatively young woman dead because of inadequate health services due to Government regulation. Is this what we really want in America? :(

Of course it's not. As a nurse I am quite frightened by the idea of socialized medicine. I won't be able to order an ultrasound if I feel that there might be a shoulder dystocia because it's "too expensive." That simple test could save the life of the baby I am ordering it for.

Hello 450:

I don't want the government in the examining room with me and my doctor... But, right now, I've got the government in there AND an insurance adjuster.

Frankly, I don't know what the insurance adjuster is doing there. Certainly HE'S going to deny me services too, just like you think the government is going to, otherwise he WOULDN'T be there. No?

Why do YOU think he's there? Or do you even get that he is. Certainly the email you get from the right wingers isn't going to tell you about them.

Seems to me, that health care would get a whole lot cheaper, and be more widely available if we removed ONE of those FOUR people from the examining room..

What?? You don't think insurance companies are making money here?

excon

Excon, my love,

Did you not know that we, as medical professionals, can manipulate the insurance companies when necessary? Yes, there are billing codes, etc. but when there is a medical necessity, we can re-code the procedures so that your insurance company will pay. And, it's LEGAL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

Excon, my love, Did you not know that we, as medical professionals, can manipulate the insurance companies when necessary? Yes, there are billing codes, etc. but when there is a medical necessity, we can re-code the procedures so that your insurance company will pay.

---

Hello again, J:

Me theenks you could do the same with the government. I don't know why not.

excon

Government Run Universal Health Care isn't universal, doesn't create health, and doesn't care.

Government-run Universal Health Care results in rationing of health care, which means that millions of people won't get the care they really need. Therefore, it is NOT universal.

Government-run healthcare doesn't provide health care. It provides, at best, health insurance, and at worst, miles of red tape. Therefore it doesn't provide health.

And government-run agencies are crewed by people who don't give a damn... go to any Department of Motor Vehicles office and tell me if that statement isn't true. The government and its employees don't care.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, J:

Me theenks you could do the same with the government. I dunno why not.

excon

---

Lack of competition.

In the end, insurance companies are businesses. If they get a reputation for not covering the procedures that they say they are going to cover, clients will go elsewhere for coverage. So it is in their best interests, in the end, to provide the services they promise. In the end, that's how they get new customers and make money. That incentive doesn't work in a single-payor government-run system that doesn't have competition.

There is no incentive for the government to pay out on benefits, and every incentive for them to make it as hard as possible to obtain benefits. Every penny they don't spend on health care is another dollar that some politician can use for his pet pork project.

That's why it won't work to change codes in a government-run system.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

government-run agencies are crewed by people who don't give a damn... go to any Department of Motor Vehicles office and tell me if that statement isn't true. The government and its employees don't care.

---

Hello again, Elliot:

Tell me why you think the insurance agent gives a damn, or cares about you at all. You're HAPPY to have HIM in the examining room with you... I can't tell why. Maybe you own insurance company stock. Come on, El. Don't keep secrets. Why do you think your insurance company is going to treat you any better than the government would?

I can tell that you're IGNORING the insurance agent issue. That tells me a LOT.

excon

I read the whole story in the Globe and mail about the timeline of Ms. Richardson's events. I'm curious to know what this simple test is 450donn. By the report it is possible that nothing would have helped Ms. Richardson who walked away from the scene of her ski fall of her own accord. Not even a helicopter flight would have helped. An autopsy would reveal more details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Tell me why you think the insurance agent gives a damn, or cares about you at all. You're HAPPY to have HIM in the examining room with you.... I can't tell why. Maybe you own insurance company stock. Come on, El. Don't keep secrets. Why do you think your insurance company is going to treat you any better than the government would?

I can tell that you're IGNORING the insurance agent issue. That tells me a LOT.

excon

---

As I said, because they are in the business of making money, it is in their best interests to keep their clients happy. Ergo, they usually are. It doesn't matter whether the employees really give a damn or not, because they HAVE to do their best for the client or else they get fired by a company that wants to be competitive.

The government has no such incentive to keep employees happy because they have no competition.

Elliot

Hello Need:

He might be referring to an MRI. Another poster suggested that the LACK of an MRI meant that the Canadian health system was CUTTING necessary services. Ergo - BAD, and that's what killed her!

But, of course, in a small ski town, there's no MARKET for an expensive MRI machine. In my home town of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, in the very much market driven economy, there wasn't an MRI machine either.

I suppose one could blame the market based system for that failure... But, that would be stupid, kind of like blaming this failure on Canada's system...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I read the whole story in the Globe and mail about the timeline of Ms. Richardson's events. I'm curious to know what this simple test is 450donn. By the report it is possible that nothing would have helped Ms. Richardson who walked away from the scene of her ski fall of her own accord. Not even a helicopter flight would have helped. An autopsy would reveal more details.

---

globeandmail.com: Saving Morgan: The lesson of Natasha

Quote:

---

Morgan was whisked to the local emergency room, where doctors ordered a CT scan and immediately put her on a helicopter to Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital in Cleveland. She was operated on in the early hours of March 20.





The actress was skiing at Mont Tremblant resort, north of Montreal, on March 16 when she fell on a beginner's hill. She initially said she was okay, and waved off medical assistance. Two hours later, she began showing symptoms of a brain injury. By the time she arrived at a specialized Montreal hospital, seven hours had passed. She was airlifted home to New York the next day, already said to be brain dead, and died on March 18.

---

In almost every hospital in the US, regardless of size, a Cat Scan is available.
A cat scan should have been ordered and performed asap. Any ER doctor will tell you that an emergency CT of the head can be done WITHOUT having to clear it with insurance, lack of insurance or with some Medicare or Medicaid clerk.
If this happened in the US, her death would be deemed negligent and a malpractice suit would have been filed within a week!


On Google maps it appears that Montreal is within 100 miles of the resort.

? Did the late Mrs Richardson get flown by helicopter [ a common occurrence in the US ] or by ambulance?

? Why did it take SEVEN hours to get a cat scan?

? Why did she get airlifted to the Mt Sinai in NY - could they not handle her condition in "a specialized Montreal Hospital?"





G&P

I agree 100% with ETW
The stimulus even has a provision that will set up a board that will review and decide IF THEY feel a person should receive surgery and other medical things. They can decide that you are sick and dying and/or too old and deny you because they want the money in their pockets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I agree 100% with ETW
The stimulus even has a provision that will set up a board that will review and decide IF THEY feel a person should receive surgery and other medical things. They can decide that you are sick and dying and/or too old and deny you because they want the money in their pockets.

---

How is that different from the insurance companies doing the same thing for their profit?

I think it will get worse with the government being in charge of who gets help. Same but way worse.

I guess it depends on the governmental situation in each country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I read the whole story in the Globe and mail about the timeline of Ms. Richardson's events. I'm curious to know what this simple test is 450donn. By the report it is possible that nothing would have helped Ms. Richardson who walked away from the scene of her ski fall of her own accord. Not even a helicopter flight would have helped. An autopsy would reveal more details.

---

I remember the article quite clearly appearing in the Toronto Star. Ms. Richardson refused to wear a helmet that would have saved her life, and she also refused medical care, and was offered it 3 times. As for a 'simple test' being too expensive, wouldn't you think that her family had enough money to pay for five or six of them if they were needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Need:

He might be referring to an MRI. Another poster suggested that the LACK of an MRI meant that the Canadian health system was CUTTING necessary services. Ergo - BAD, and that's what killed her!

But, of course, in a small ski town, there's no MARKET for an expensive MRI machine. In my home town of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, in the very much market driven economy, there wasn't an MRI machine either.

I suppose one could blame the market based system for that failure... But, that would be stupid, kinda like blaming this failure on Canada's system....

excon

---

Canadian govt. is not cutting necessary services. I live in a small town in Ontario with a new hospital. We have an MRI and catscans are done on a daily basis, ordered up by the client's physician. As for ultrasound, I had one the other day. Quite simple really.

I have heard too many stories about health care being denied to SOME people or that it was too little too late. But I do believe you on the Richardson case because something told me that it was because she didn't bother getting the necessary help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I have heard too many stories about health care being denied to SOME people or that it was too little too late. But I do believe you on the Richardson case because something told me that it was because she didn't bother getting the necessary help.

---

No health care is denied any Canadian, new or otherwise. We have all paid into it over the years through employee deduction (it is now up to the employer to make these contributions). I am quite happy the way I am treated, and I imagine others are too.

Where do you hear these stories ? It is up to the individual to keep on top of his/her healthcare, make appts. Show up for appts. For procedure. No one else can do that for them.

I am in healthcare, as you know, I know how the system works, and from my standpoint it works perfectly for my clients, who by the way, come out of the hospital into homecare, cared for by Personal Support Workers, paid by socialized medicine until they can function on their own.

So, where do we fall down on the job ?

Tick

I find it interesting that the Canadians have not answered why it takes 7 hours
To be evaluated for head trama?


Tickle in your post 17 are you
1] blaming the victim?
2] by this statement:

Quote:

---

As for a 'simple test' being too expensive, wouldn't you think that her family had enough money to pay for five or six of them if they were needed.

---

a] are you implying a dual standard of care based on ability to pay?
b] a cat scan of the head in a paient with a recent history of head trauma and changes in consciousness is STANDARD OF CARE IN THE US - ask any ER physician in the US.

Docs questioning Quebec's urgent care resources - CNN.com

Quote:

---

Natasha Richardson came to Mont Tremblant ski resort in eastern Canada last month for what was supposed to be a skiing getaway.


Actress Natasha Richardson died after suffering an epidural hematoma in a fall during a ski lesson.

But what she may not have known is some doctors have been arguing that if a person here is in need of urgent care at a medical trauma center, he or she may not be able to get there fast enough. The only way to get to the closest trauma center from here is to drive 2½ hours to Montreal. No helicopter medical service is available...


Another ambulance was dispatched to the resort. This time, the paramedics went inside and worked on Richardson for 33 minutes before transporting her to the closest hospital an hour away, but it is not a trauma center.

In the US, EMS "scoops and runs," that is get the patient and stabilize en route rather than try to stabilize on the scene. Same situation occured with Princess Diana. Why bring her to an unqualified hospital ??????????!!!!!!!!!!


In an open letter to the citizens of Quebec sent to the Montreal Gazette, Dr. Michael Churchill Smith, director of professional services at the Montreal General Hospital, said incidents like Natasha Richardson's should serve as a wake-up call to Quebec. "It is no longer morally acceptable for our citizens who, in the moment of their greatest needs, do not have access to a rapid transit system that gives them the best chance to not only survive, but to survive with a quality of life."


The following statement is typical of a bureacrat that sees things in terms of cost and not as a person in the medical field.



Daniel LeFrancois, director of Quebec's pre-hospital care, told the Gazette that cost is prohibitive when a one-hour flight costs $6,000. It's a question of resources and priorities focusing on "the biggest gain for the biggest need," he said.

---

If this had been an ordinary citizen there would be no press.

Just something to think about when the politicians promise "universal healthcare."






G&P

inthebox, I am not prepared to argue with you regarding our healthcare system. Ms. Richardson refused care when she came of the slopes. If she had gone directly to emergency, the way the ski instructors were suggesting, she may have had a chance. That is what I read in the paper.

Our heathcare works for me and my family and has done for several years. My son has some pretty expensive healthcare every six months and will for the rest of his life. He is 27, his condition was diagnosed at l8. Hopefully he will have these benefits for quite a while longer.

I have benefits too and I am 66, inthebox. I can go the hospital and have a catscan, MRI, any procedure that I want, and don't have to pay dime. Can you say that??

I don't care about Ms. Richardson. Callous, but I take care of my own. Why weren't her family up front as soon as she collapsed. No one said her husband or family were with her that day. She was alone, albeit not contemplating any accidents, but she did refuse a helmet.

I have healthcare here in Ontario Canada and being in the healthcare sector, I know I will be treated the way I want to be.

You don't want universal heathcare, okay, that's fine with me.

ms. tickle

One can also notice how many Canadians come to this board looking for medical advice because they can't afford to see a doctor - it's pretty much all americans. Both systems have individual cases that one could dig up to try make a point. I agree with tickle, we are overwhelmingly happy with our system here. If you don't like it then that's fine.

I am glad that you have healthcare, but it would be foolish to deny the fact that TIME and ACCESS played a role in the death of Mrs Richardson.

CNN, not reputed for being "right wing," had this segment from Dr Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon, and it was 2 hours after the event since her first call to seek medical help, and then it was FIVE HOURS till she got to Montreal. The ambulance took 2 and a half hours and a helicopter would have taken half an hour or less, but as per lack of resources and decisions from Quebec's "pre-hospital care" a helicopter was deemed "cost prohibitive."

BTW Tickle, at least you are honest saying you don't care, but what if it were you or a loved one in the place of Mrs Richardson? Would you deem that kind of emergency care and that result acceptable for you?

In the US, with our lack of "universal healthcare," if this case happened to any citizen, lawyers would be lining up to, justifiably, file a malpractice / wrongful death suit, and they would win.


This is worth repeating;

Quote:

---

In an open letter to the citizens of Quebec sent to the Montreal Gazette, Dr. Michael Churchill Smith, director of professional services at the Montreal General Hospital, said incidents like Natasha Richardson's should serve as a wake-up call to Quebec. "It is no longer morally acceptable for our citizens who, in the moment of their greatest needs, do not have access to a rapid transit system that gives them the best chance to not only survive, but to survive with a quality of life."[

---

As to


"I can go the hospital and have a catscan, MRI, any procedure that I want, and dont have to pay dime. Can you say that ???"


I would like to see the wait time, the actual bill in order for you to prove that statement.






G&P

inthebox,
Please read tickle and my posts just above yours.
Thanks.
NK.

NK:

I have.

I am glad you are content with the Canadian heathcare system. Yes, anyone can point to specific examples of failure in ANY healthcare system, private or socialized. No system is perfect all the time.


Certainly the faults of the American healthcare system - expense, wastefullness, litigation, ER waits, waits to see a primary care physician, insurance company interference with medical decisions based upon cost, lack of an integrated communication between doctors, variations in care, big pharma influence, bankruptcies due to medical costs etc...
All these are big problems and open for discussion...

But the notion that socialized medicine is the best thing for the population as a whole and for every single person under its auspices... is very much debatable.

The notion that politicians can promise the moon and the sun to a knaive population that wants to believe in those promises has to be tempered with reality.








G&P

inthebox, when I required an ultrasound, doctor gave me the requisiton, I was at the hospital the next day and having it done; same for a catscan for my husband, next day, MRI, next day. We never see the billings, don't have to and never will. Why would you want to see the biling for it ? What would that tell you ? Would it matter ?

Her husband, Liam Neeson was in Toronto filming at the time of her accident. I saw no mention of him attending her at the that time or after. Surely he had the funds for a helicopter, even if the Quebec govt. didn't? So, yes, family dropped the ball. I haven't heard anything of a class action lawsuit from the family yet.

You are a very negative person. I would not want to be in your shoes. I have lived in the US where there was no money for my son's care when he was 2. Hospital bill was $5000 for two days in pediatric care. We moved back up to Canada immediately after he was out of hospital and have never regretted the decision.

Tick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

The notion that politicians can promise the moon and the sun to a knaive population that wants to believe in those promises has to be tempered with reality.

---

But the population is not *naive*. Only the doomsayers believe that a system can be perfect. Pretty much most people are indeed grounded in reality unless you feed them other information. I'll agree that your politicians differ from ours and perhaps our system would not work in your country. Once again feel free to click on any topic innthe healh and wellness section and take stock of who asks the questions. Not many from Canadians as they will actually go to their GP without worried about having to repay the cost or fighting with an insurance company.

NeedKarma and Tickle,

Is Erbitux an approved treatment for colon cancer in Canada yet?

What is the average wait time for senior citizens to receive medical care in Canada? I have heard that 5 days waiting in the ER is not uncommon in places like Winnipeg. Ottowa PROMISES a 4-week wait for radiation therapies to begin... and I read a news story where they failed to meet that promise. In the USA, you get radiation therapy as soon as you are ready for it, and there are no 4-week wait periods to contend with. Why are there 4-month waiting periods for MRIs for patients who have been suffering from seizures, headaches and nausea?

(As a side note, I witnessed a patient suffer a gand-mal seisure this past Thursday. She is 25 years old, never before having suffered a seisure of any type, but is a Type II insulin-dependent diabetic. She had a series of diagnistic tests performed within HOURS on the onset of the seizure, including MRIs, blood workups, neurological tests, and a whole bunch of stuff I can't even pronounce. She is still in the hospital, but she received care IMMEDIATELY, and there was no delay in testing or treatment. I question whether Canada's health system would be as quick or as thorough, due to lack of equipment and personnel.)

I hear that patients with chronic back pain are waiting years for treatment. Is this true? I suffer from chroonic back pain and can see my physician within a couple of hours, and if needed, get surgery within a couple of days.

Are there MRI machines in every hospital in Canada yet? What is the average wait for diagnostic tests in Canada? Does it take more time for a human or an animal to receive a PET scan in Canada? Word is that patients wait days, even weeks, for a PET scan machine to become free, while the machines are used in animal experiments.

I also hear that 1.5 million Ontarians can't find a family physician because of a lack of practitioners. We may fail in terms of INSURANCE COVERAGE here in the USA, but there is no shortage of trained medical personnel. EVERYONE can find a doctor here, even if they have to go to the ER to do so.

The big argument in favor of universal single-payer health care in the USA is that there are supposedly 48 million Americans without health insurance. The problem is that this 48 million number is a crock.

Of that 48 million, what they don't tell you is that 11 million of them are young single adults aged 18-30, in perfect health, who have CHOSEN not to pay for insurance that they don't need yet.

Another 11 million are illegal immigrants. Incidentally, illegal immigrants may not have health insurance, but they most certainly have health coverage... from free clinics and hospitals.

Of the remaining 26 million, we need to examine their situations. The question asked in 2007 (the year of the study that produced this information) was "Have you been without health insurance during any time in 2007?" Many respondents said yes. However, the polsters never asked "How long were you off insurance?"

The Heritage Foundation did some investigating and found out that half of respondents who said that they were off insurance for 'part of 2007' were uninsured for less than 6 months, any many only for a few weeks. Almost 3/4 of all respondents were back on isurance within 1 year. The fact that these people were never accounted for when they went back on insurance totally changes the situation.

So now we are down to 19 million, or roughly 6% of the US population that is uninsured.

And as I said before, that 6% of the population STILL is covered for health care by free clinics and hospitals.

So the "problem" that universal health care is supposed to fix is a tiny one, compared to the incredible damage that will be done to our medical system that will effect the other 94% of us adversely.

Elliot

ET,
Don't know. I haven't faced any of that, nor has anyone in my family.

NK,

I am an EMT, my brother is a doctor and most of my family are patients of one sort or another. I have also lived with universal health care (in Israel). So I know a lot about this subject.

I personally have taken sick people with no medical insurance to hospitals and have seen them taken care of to the same degree as patients with full coverage.

I have seen patients in the USA get care as soon as they ask for it, and have also seen patients in Israel wait on line in the "Kupat Cholim" universal healthcare system for literally days on end.

On the other hand, I've also seen Israeli hospitals treat Palestinians with no medical insurance as if they were Israelis, so I've seen both the good and the bad in the Israeli universal health system.

(But I have also seen uninsured Palestinians who weren't even part of the healthcare system given care while Israelis who are covered by the system waited... so I don't know whether the care for Palestinians is part of a PC culture or based on the strength of the system. A discussion for another time.)

I've seen patients in the USA who would have died anywhere else live because they had the right technology in the right place at the right time and didn't have to wait for it. And I've seen patients who should have lived die because they didn't get the care they needed because they weren't in the USA.

I mentioned Israel's system. The advantage that Israel's universal health system has over other universal health systems around the world is that Israel is still a major innovator of medical technologies... on par with the USA in terms of medical breakthroughs. What that means is that even though there are long lines and mediocre care within the system compared to private health care, they make up for it with innovative treatments, medicines and technologies not available in most other universal health systems. That technological advantage of innovation is able to offset the natural disadvantages of a universal health system.

But as a general rule, even Israelis don't like their universal health system. Most of them go to private doctors as soon as they are able to afford it, using Kupat Cholim for only the most basic care. That's another advantage that Israel has over other government-run universal healthcare systems... the system is by-choice. Those who want and can afford private medical coverage are able to get it without hassle. Which brings the natural competitive forces back into the system, which is in turn what inspires the innovations discussed above. The system really is a free-market system, with the government being one of the competitors. A poor one by most standards, and one that would have failed long ago if not for the government's treasury to keep it afloat. But Israel offers alternatives to a single-payer system.

In any case, my point is that I know universal healthcare from the inside as well as the outside. And I know private healthcare from inside and outside. And based on my experience, universal healthcare is ALWAYS 2nd best (or worse) to private health care.

So, NK, I know that you haven't faced any of that. But I have. Trust my greater experience in this area.

Elliot

Hello:

I don't understand how people who DON'T have the system, can tell people who DO have the system, that the system sucks... Specially when the people who DO have the system, like it.

I spose they don't really know anything about their own system, do they? You righty's are getting sillier every day.

excon

All right, excon, let me put this in a way that you might be able to understand.

You have been in prison. Was it a government run prison, or was it a privately run one that was contracted by the government?

Government-run prisons SUCK. You know that better than anyone else here. Privately-run prisons suck too, but a lot less than government-run ones. They suck, but they don't SUCK. For one thing, they tend to be more efficient. For another, quality tends to be better (food quality, accommodations, etc.). Not GOOD mind you, but better.

So... which do you want running your healthcare? The government that SUCKS or the private company that only sucks? Or for that matter, the company that competes with the one that sucks and therefore doesn't suck?

You don't have to be part of a system to know whether it works or not. I was never a communist, but I know that the Soviet Union fell because of it. I've never been in prison, but I know it sucks (or SUCKS, depending on where you are).

But again, unlike most here, I HAVE lived in a country with government-run healthcare. And it really does SUCK.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

Actually, private prisons are MUCH worse... But, we can have that argument on another thread...

I hate the government too, but I found that I hate insurance companies worse.

Interestingly, I like the way Medicare is handled, and I like the way Social Security is handled... Yes, I'm pleasantly surprised... They answer their phones. They know what they're talking about. There were no lines when I had to go in. They pay the bills. The money is in the account when it's supposed to be.

What's not to like?

So, all we need to do is have the government write the checks, and throw the insurance companies OUT of the equation. I PROMISE you it will be cheaper, better and we can cover everybody...

Really, I've done the math.

excon

If we REALLY want to cut medical expenses, we need to re-impose the rule that forbade lawyers to ADVERTISE.

I know, I know. Off thread!

Ex if you hate third party payors [ gov or private ins ] why don't you just pay everything out of pocket?




G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

If we REALLY want to cut medical expenses, we need to re-impose the rule that forbade lawyers to ADVERTISE.

---

Hello gal:

I agree. The Pharmaceutical companies too.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So, NK, I know that you haven't faced any of that. But I have. Trust my greater experience in this area.

---

Sorry mate, you have experience in Israel, I have experience in Canada - two different things. Feel free to speak of your Israel experiences but don't extrapolate them to all countries' systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Ex if you hate third party payors [ gov or private ins ] why don't you just pay everything out of pocket?

---

Hello in:

Before the insurance companies and/or the government set the prices, I could afford to pay my own way. I'd be happy to go to back to that time. It was affordable when my medical care was just between me and my doctor.

Back then, the doctor submitted the bills and the insurance company paid them... That ain't happening today.

excon

I agree with NK. I haven't faced any of the problems you mention, and I have cared for two elderly family members in the last 15 years. If not for our healthcare system, I would have gone broke caring and providing for medical treatment for both of them.

Tick