It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Health Care News from Canada . . .

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Politicians first in line to cancer drugs: Report




“There is a big gap between what legislatures enjoy and what citizens enjoy. They get access to drugs, cancer medication much quicker than their constituents. They also get access to drugs that are not part of the public drug program


Source

This is somewhat timely as the debate continues with respect to US Healthcare reform.

The article clearly provides three interesting points:
Politicians get first dibs on treatment.
Politicians get better treatment than those they represent.
Private insurance may not cover the best treatment.

What is further interesting is the suggestion that since these elected officials get such treatement, they assume that is the same treatement their constituents get.

Think maybe this is the case in the US and that some of those who voted in favour of change simply did so on the basis that they assume it is an improvement?

Just askin' is all . . . .

[edit on 25-3-2010 by GoalPoster]




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I have a friend who has now been working for 10 years in US hospitals. 4 States / Cities - Florida, North Carolina, Nevada (Vegas), and now Texas (Houston). He says (or should I say understands) that the level of heath care won't improve but merely be available to more. He also says he thinks the drug companies stand to make good money (Wow - big shocker there!
)

From what he has experienced, his belief is that the US will still be l;agging behind Canada after this. I really don't know, it's not my profession but his, so I tend to believe him.

As for the politicians getting quicker and better health care, isn't that the case in every country?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
The oligarchs getting the best on the peoples dime is news?

Every politician and every government has its version of "let them eat cake." Once there is a person or group of people 'in charge' this is what happens.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   


He says (or should I say understands) that the level of heath care won't improve but merely be available to more.

That not possible. You can't add 30 million people to the system and expect the level of care to remain the same, it's going to decrease ... big time.

And our cancer survival rates are still light years ahead of Canada. Probably because we have more MRI machines in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania then you have in all of Canada. So much for UHC!



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
The Bill just passed strangely exempts all Congressmen, Senators, their staffers and the Executive administration including their staffers as well. IN other words, all of this talk about Americans "receiv[ing] the same healthcare as Congress is utter BullSh*t!


More about that here

Nope, WE THE PEOPLE receive this mandate, the politicians DO NOT! IN other words, we know what is good for you and we know what is better for us! That alone should make the bill unconstitutional as it does NOT allpy equally to all citizens as required under the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231


He says (or should I say understands) that the level of heath care won't improve but merely be available to more.

That not possible. You can't add 30 million people to the system and expect the level of care to remain the same, it's going to decrease ... big time.

And our cancer survival rates are still light years ahead of Canada. Probably because we have more MRI machines in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania then you have in all of Canada. So much for UHC!


Don't shoot the messenger, I was merely telling you what he thinks. BTW how exactly are you adding 30 Million people to the system? Or does the US just let the 30Million now without HC just die hospitals? I'd think not - they don't even do that in South Africa where I come from! Your logic is flawed there.

As for the cancer survival rates, I have no freaking idea. I told you, it's not my profession. I'm just chipping in with what I heard, peace.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


I agree with Chris on this... The number of hospitals and doctors does NOT increase, in fact, it will most likely DECREASE for the foreseeable future yet we are adding 30MILLION people to the system. If a theatre seats 100 people and 90 seats are already taken and we try to add 50 more people to the theatre, what happens??? A bunch of epople don't get seats, that's what happens!



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


I agree with Chris on this... The number of hospitals and doctors does NOT increase, in fact, it will most likely DECREASE for the foreseeable future yet we are adding 30MILLION people to the system. If a theatre seats 100 people and 90 seats are already taken and we try to add 50 more people to the theatre, what happens??? A bunch of epople don't get seats, that's what happens!


Ok, I obviously don't understand the US healthcare, so please can someone explain this to me:

If somebody doesn't have coverage, are they not treated / admitted to hospital at all? Are they just turned away at the door? Is the healthcare system and infrastructure based only on the amount of people in the US with coverage and not the entire population?

Because that is the only way I can understand yours and Chris's logic and analogy of movie theatre. Your capacity can only designed for those with coverage.... otherwise you'd have those empty seats available.

I'm just trying to understand this. Maybe my logic is off?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231


He says (or should I say understands) that the level of heath care won't improve but merely be available to more.

That not possible. You can't add 30 million people to the system and expect the level of care to remain the same, it's going to decrease ... big time.

And our cancer survival rates are still light years ahead of Canada. Probably because we have more MRI machines in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania then you have in all of Canada. So much for UHC!


Light years ahead?

Hardly.....


www.canada.com...





Canada ranked near the top in the international rankings, with an estimated five-year survival rate of 82.5 per cent. South of the border, the United States had a survival rate in all cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, but not all cancer patients south of the border fared equally

Yes your is better but not Light years better. I also would like to point out that last sentence. And then.......




Not only do people get good care, but the great majority of Canadians get good care, whereas in some other countries, particularly the U.S., there are considerable variations in the standard of care. The best care may be very good, but it is not quite as equitably distributed in the whole population.’’

So while some Americans enjoy the level of success for Cancer survival it is not across the board. The ones that can pay get the good care.






[edit on 25-3-2010 by Gargamel]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by GoalPoster
 


this is old news, even up here in the frozen tundra, i cant beleive i had to dogsled 14 miles to the nearest internet cafe just to read this thread -_-



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join