I keep hearing so many people saying they want the medical to be like Canada and other countries but you hear so many stories about people who have to wait months for their surgery and end up dying in the meantime, or they end up coming to the USA and paying for it themselves anyway. Now I am hearing that people in the UK are pulling their own teeth because they can't get a dentist appointment. Then I am hearing Canadians saying that they have to buy their own Blue Shield on top of their governments system like a co pay to cover what the government doesn't. So not only are they not only paying the taxes into the national health care but they are also paying into their own plan anyway. Now they are saying that patients in the UK and other countries with socialized/nation medical are dying from Cdiff because of a nurse shortage they do not have time to change bedpans, sheets, etc...
They say they have a shortage of doctors because under this system nobody wants to become a doctor or a dentist.
We have grants and so forth like the Hill Burton Act, Chips, welfare health insurance and so forth so what are we really gaining if we get a new health care? Why don't they simply create some more grants for the ones who do need it but fall through the cracks?

Here's a story where a couple was going to have quaduplets but there were not enough neo-natal care beds in Calgary .So they had to go to Montana to have their babies.
Birth of Calgary quads in Montana makes Americans question Canada's health system - Yahoo! Canada News

This subject has been kicked around so much we should rename it football:D

That's just it, NoHelp4U. There are virtually no people falling through the cracks.

Have you heard of any case in the recent past of a poor person being denied required care at a hospital because they can't pay? I have not.

What that tells me is that even poor people get care in the USA. And they do. They get their care at emergency rooms and at free clinics across the country. Nobody in this country who needs medical treatment in order to survive will be denied that treatment. It is ILLEGAL for hospitals to deny that treatment.

There are not 50 million people without health care in this country. What there are is 50 million people without health INSURANCE. Big difference. The ones without health insurance get care anyway, and either have to pay out of pocket for their coverage or (more often) others pay for them in the form of higher medial costs.

There is no need to create a universal health care system in the USA because it already exists.

If the Canadian family in Tom's article had been born in the USA instead of Canada, there would have been no issue of sending them to another country to give birth to their quadruplets. Our hospitals have enough incubators and delivery equipment to accommodate everyone who needs them. And if we need more, we buy more. You can't do that in Canada. And even if they were unable to pay for their health care, they still would have been able to have their quadruplets at any major hospital in the country. In fact, any hospital in the country would be thrilled to be involved in a quad birth because they are so rare and get great press. But apparently Canada couldn't handle a quad birth.

Seems to me that this is one of many cases that prove the weaknesses of the Canadian "universal" social health care system. Lack of resources is the main one. And it shouldn't be called "universal" if it can't handle everyone, should it.

Elliot

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week. Canadians wait an average of 17.9 weeks for surgery and other therapeutic treatments, according the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. The waits would be even longer if Canadians didn't have access to the U.S. as a medical-care safety valve.



:: TheSouthern.com - The Southern Illinoisan ::

"Underscoring this concern is the account from the veteran's mother that one health professional at the Marion VAMC went so far as to warn her to take her son elsewhere for care, suggesting that concerns over the quality of health care were well known among at least some of the hospital's staff.

This is how government healthcare treats its veterans?

Does the average citizen want "free" healthcare, if this is the result?

According to the article, one has to wonder why a simple background check, checking prior employed history, checking references were not done to see if this surgeon was fit in the first place.

And who are IL.'s senators?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

There are virtually no people falling through the cracks.

---

Hello No:

Actually, there are about 47 MILLION people who fall through the cracks. I don't know why the righty's can't count.

The Wolverine thinks if you're uninsured and you have cancer, you'll get treatment at your local emergency room. If that wasn't so wrong and sad, it would be funny.

You DO know what they'll do to the cancer patient with NO insurance when he shows up at the emergency room, don't you?? They'll send him home to die. IF that's not a crack, I don't know what is.

excon

A friend of mine was schuttled from here to there when she had cancer and no insurance. The clinics here stopped treating her and sent her to the medical center run by the state's medical school - cheaper and in some cases, free. Well, it was only good for some of what she needed but she needed surgery and chemo and rehab. She ended up in a hospital 300 miles from her home. Not all hospitals honor Hill-Burton anymore but there are still some that are obligated: Hill-Burton Facilities

When all her medical care was done - the bills totaled $178,644.00. Do you know what happened? She and her husband filed bankruptcy.

excon,

Not only is that not true, but it has been proven again and again in caselaw.

A hospital cannot "send someone home to die" regardless of ability to pay. Having worked in severral hospitals in administrative capacities, and having a brother who is a doctor, I can tell you unequivocally that they do not send patients with cancer home to die. If they do, they are risking a major lawsuit that will bankrupt the hospital.

I have a friend, who, like you, is an ex-convict. He is suffering from a very rare form of cancer called Castlemans Disease. There are roughky 1,000 known cases worldwide, and he has the rarest form of it, which is maybe 100 people worldwide. He has no insurance. He has no job. He is an ex-con with a sex-crimes background, currently on parole, with an @$$hole for a PO. He is on the national sex-crimes registry as a sex-offender. He spends about 50% of his time in hospitals. He does not qualify to be in any study groups for Castlemans Disease where he would get free care because he has too many other medical complications that disqualify him as a study candidate (heart disease, kidney disease, endocrine system problems, diabetes, etc.).

But he gets some of the best care in the country. Despite being a sex offender, despite being unable to pay, despite having about 24 months to live, he is given some of the best treatment available in the world. If anyone were a candidate to be "sent home to die" it would be this guy. But that is NOT what is happening. He is being cared for by some of the best doctors in every area of medicine, and in some of the best hospitals in the nation. Why? Because hospitals cannot and do not just "send people with cancer home to die". It doesn't happen. People who need care, get care. They may not be able to pay, but they get their care anyway.

So the 47 million people who "fall through the cracks" that you mention are only falling though the cracks of health INSURANCE, not health care. The care they get. It's the insurance that they don't have.

Elliot

Nohelp4U,

One thing that I forgot to mention about Castlemans disease (and the specific version that my friend has) is that there is no cure. I believe that qualifies as "no hope" and "nothing they can do". They have given him a timetable, and it is less than 2 years. But they are still treating him. They aren't sending him home.

Elliot

Yeah that is what I mean N0 cure! When it comes down to the very final days they will send you home to spend a couple weeks to a couple months before you die until it gets T00 unbearable whether you have insurance or N0T.
They are not suppose to turn anybody away that needs health care. Although I know at least 3 people banned from some hospitals but that was because of BAD behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello No:

Actually, there are about 47 MILLION people who fall through the cracks. I dunno why the righty's can't count.

The Wolverine thinks if you're uninsured and you have cancer, you'll get treatment at your local emergency room. If that wasn't so wrong and sad, it would be funny.

You DO know what they'll do to the cancer patient with NO insurance when he shows up at the emergency room, don't you???? They'll send him home to die. IF that's not a crack, I dunno what is.

excon

---

FAQ on EMTALA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

inthebox agrees: look up EMTALA

---

Hello in:

I did. It says that hospitals are required to provide emergency treatment. It doesn't require them to provide long term treatment.

I haven't changed my position.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello in:

I did. It says that hospitals are required to provide emergency treatment. It doesn't require them to provide long term treatment.

I haven't changed my position.

excon

---

I'm told I “must spread some reputation' before agreeing with you; anyway, I agree. A person can become unconscious from high blood pressure and the hospital will treat them until it is stable. Then they release you with the advice you see a doctor.

There are however free clinics [government funded by the way] available most places and they charge on a sliding scale based on a persons income.