Do what you want, mates. You got a very big lesson to learn, but then there is no turning back.
had you been truly dissatisfied with canadian health care previously, you would not have waited as you did to receive the treatment you got. you would have gone south and got the superior care you believed existed there
and that you continued to remain in canada after receiving what you found to be inferior medical attention tells me that you elected to not seek out paid medical care in the lower 48
the point being, if medical care was so much better in the USA, why the hell would you elect to get it from canadian medical providers
my conclusion is that either your decision making skills are very flawed, or - like many here in the USA - you were unable/unwilling to pony up for the medical attention available to you in the states
Medizin: „Welcher Patient geht leer aus?“ - News - FOCUS Online
Medicine "Which patient gets nothing?"
Transplant surgeon Eckhard Nagel of the National Ethics Council explains the pressure to ration of medical care
FOCUS: German health politicians will assert that full coverage of the population would remain with cutting-edge medicine. In contrast, the National Ethics Council now proposes a new public debate about rationing. Is this really necessary?
Nagel: Claiming anyone at any time can acquire high-performance medical treatment possible, I think, is a dangerous suppression of reality. Rationing is commonplace in medicine and will increase in future. Even today patients waiting for major operations, such as not enough places for their intensive care available must also be decide in transplantation medicine, which patient receives a saving organ and which no seats and possibly die on the waiting list. This dilemma is seen but not enough.
FOCUS: Why has so far been no public discussion about rationing?
Nagel: The allocation of limited health goods due to cost is a very sensitive issue to which our society is ill prepared. Politicians have made the experience that they prefer to conceal this uncomfortable truth. Otherwise they run the risk of being punished as a bearer of bad news - for example at the ballot box. Nevertheless, I believe it is their duty to clarify the problem, even if there is no easy exit strategy.
FOCUS: Can we avoid the limited allocation, as we raise more money for the health care system?
Nagel: At the moment already. But medical progress has no foreseeable limits. We are always faced with the question of what we can afford yet. Is it even possible, as previously granted to all health goods in accordance with the principle of equality? Or treatment should depend on the purse of the patient, his age or his social embeddedness? Must pay an injured person's treatment out of pocket when he caused the accident itself? Such scenarios must be addressed, and that takes an ethical debate.
FOCUS: Must 85-year-old's fear that they will not receive artificial hip or heart valve?
Nagel: I think not. But of course, remain ethical dilemma decisions when conflicts are not enough. We just have to try to the best of all strategies. This decision process has to be transparent. The only way people get the feeling that they are taken into consideration, even if they do not approve of this.
FOCUS: What do you fear, when politicians and citizens continue to ignore that rationing is necessary?
Nagel: This can be fatal, under which the patients - and all of us - eventually suffer unnecessarily. As will be discussed today about the cost of health only in the short term and with hot button words, emotionalizes the situation. This is an unfortunate way to kick start the discussion, because it causes anxiety. Citizens feel existentially delivered.
MEDICAL ETHICS AND
Eckhard Nagel, 46, health scientist at the University of Bayreuth.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
How can he afford to pay his Canadian health insurance, and then go off insurance to the U.S., not to mention the time/travel costs to the U.S.?
10 years ago I could not have afforded expensive treatment abroad if my U.S. insurance, that I pay routinely for, didn't cover it. Why would you suggest he's lying?
Why not start surmising them?
1. had you been truly dissatisfied with canadian health care previously, you would not have waited as you did to receive the treatment you got. you would have gone south and got the superior care you believed existed there2. and that you continued to remain in canada after receiving what you found to be inferior medical attention tells me that you elected to not seek out paid medical care in the lower 483.the point being, if medical care was so much better in the USA, why the hell would you elect to get it from canadian medical providers4. my conclusion is that either your decision making skills are very flawed, or - like many here in the USA - you were unable/unwilling to pony up for the medical attention available to you in the states
C'mon , Justabubba. Try for ten!
[QUOTE=Grant;1059378978]don't need for ten
There are endless possibilities, Justabubba.
Why not start surmising them?
C'mon , Justabubba. Try for ten!
you have posted enough for me to safely conclude you have no idea what you are griping about
I am friends with a German couple in Costa Rica and about two months after they arrived one of them went to see a private clinic about his back, help he had been waiting for for several years in Germany.
On his arrival they examined him, the next day an MRI, the day after the operation, and three days later (if i recall) his release. This was about 8 years ago. It cost him $4,200 and he hasn't had a problem since. This from a guy about 40 who was walking bent to one side over 50% of the time.
I spent some time in a public hospital in Costa Rica and after that I made sure anyone working for me had private care, and I paid for it. It was inhumane and absolutely undignified for the people being treated there!
My only experience with government run health care has been in Canada, the UK and Costa Rica, though I see no reason why my friend would lie about German health care.
From my limited understanding of health care in the US it seems that they need more competition between insurance providers and also tort reform. 'Obamacare' is not health care 'reform' at all. It is a complete (and corrupt, i believe) makeover.
Last edited by Grant; 03-29-11 at 03:55 PM.
Everyone dislikes Harper, Everyone dislikes Ignatieff, who does that leave, Jack Layton, aww yeah. Liberals are asses, so are the Conservatives, NDP ftw.
"After all, you know, there are worse things in life than death. I mean, if you've ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman, you know exactly what I mean."