One in four cardiac patients die while waiting (in the UK)
Difficult to evaluate that claim without further information. Anyone know more?
1 posted on
05/26/2002 11:28:10 AM PDT by
LarryLied
To: *Socialized Medicine
Check the
Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
To: LarryLied
I think there should be some kind of a warning label:
"Warning: Socialized medicine may be hardardous to your health. Potential side effects include - death."
3 posted on
05/26/2002 11:40:55 AM PDT by
grundle
To: LarryLied
I don't know about that Larry, but all anyone has to do is look at Oregon' "Universal Health Plan"...DISASTER. Thousands approved that don't qualify. Thousands more unable to get legitamate treatment..BUT we managed to give a heart transplant to a convicted felon/illegal alien.
4 posted on
05/26/2002 12:01:08 PM PDT by
AuntB
To: LarryLied
If there is anything in this world one can trust to be uniformly meaningless and inaccurate, it is health statistics. Even if anybody bothered to define their terms with a modicum of precision there is no possible way to meaningfully gather and report health data and there never will be. Why any nation bothers to flush money down that rat hole is beyond me. That being said, all these nations with single-payer health care systems are taxing their citizens at rates not all that much higher than what we are paying. What I want to know is what in God's Holy Name do we have to show for it?
To: LarryLied
Although a brief search didn't bring up the article, I did read something quite recently about this. I don't specifically remember the one-in-four number, but something similiar about the absurd waiting period for heart-related conditions.
To: LarryLied; all
"The result, of course, is substandard care. Take breast cancer. The National Cancer Institute reports that women on Medicaid are three times more likely to die from it than women who aren't on Medicaid. The Institute also found that women on Medicaid were 41 percent more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer "at a late stage"......
Statistical interpretations such as these really tick me off. Let's face it......people who are on Medicaid are generally not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Women who don't seek diagnosis/treatment until cancer is "at a late stage" are always going to have a higher death rate than those who take responsibility for their own health and seek medical care in a timely fashion. "Substandard care".......GRRRRRRRRRR!!!
12 posted on
05/26/2002 1:20:49 PM PDT by
freedox
To: LarryLied
I have no healthcare because I got laid off 2 months ago and am not yet eligible at my new job. I do not want Medicare and do not like being used as a pawn in the socialists' scheme. I am not one of these folks who are dying in the street w/o insurance.
To: LarryLied
When I was in in Vancouver, BC last week, our tour driver told us that the Dr's were on strike because they are not getting paid enough and that the best Doctors are fleeing to America. He also said that they (the citizens) benefits were getting smaller and smaller and that it was reaching a crisis level.
30 posted on
05/26/2002 7:23:56 PM PDT by
Hildy
To: LarryLied
I lived in the UK and worked as a junior doctor in the NHS some time ago.
During my sojurn there, my landlady came to see me one evening because she had developed a hard lump in her neck.
The lump was quite worrisome, and needed a biopsy. She had been given an appointment for seven months in the future.
I, being a good Yank, offered to bring her to work with me the next day and sort it out.
Her response? "Oh, my, NO! That wouldn't be right!"
How many Americans do you think share her views on the appropriateness of timely diagnosis?
Just a little over a year ago, my dentist diagnosed me as having Early Peridontitis. In March of 1998, I had one of my wisdom teeth removed. I still have a couple of wisdom teeth that have been decaying on the bottom for the last couple of years that I've had an appointment scheduled for June to remove.
I can gurantee you that had Bill Clinton's health care plan been law now I would most likely have been denied this appointment by the goverment because of my political beliefs.(conservative).
Here are my thoughts on this subject.
I've heard all about the health care plans in England and Canada. I've heard about people in certain other countries being denied access to life saving medical treatments by goverments in those countries becasue of their political or religious beliefs.
The idea of goverment playing God as is the case in England and Canada may be appealing to some people but it is not very appealing to me and I can assure you I'm in the majority because I've talked to millions of other people on message boards like this about this subject. Goverment does not always know what's best for us.
I would much rather have the free enterprise system of doing things run our health care system than have goverment run it. That way people can access life saving medical care quikcer and faster.
If others want Mrs. X42 and Mr. Chappaquidick running their health care that's fine and dandy. As for me, however this conservative Republican does not want Hillary or Ted or the Demorats having jurisdiction over his medical care. NOSIREE BUB!!
Regards....
45 posted on
05/27/2002 11:58:39 AM PDT by
E.G.C.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson