Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46   ^
Old Wed, Dec-01-04, 12:36
cc48510 cc48510 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,018
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 320/220/195 Male 6'0"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Pensacola, FL
Default

Quote:
Scared of being able to afford the best health care in the world


"Best Health Care System in the World" ? ROTFLMAO. Now, I've heard it all. Cananda and England give free medical care, but that hardly makes it the "Best." Here in the US, you can get treated quickly, because the Hospitals/Doctors have an actual incentive to treat you: Money. I've heard horror stories about people in Canada and England having to wait months or years for even basic medical care. One guy my dad talked to from Canada claimed that he was injured and they made him wait weeks/months to get treated. In a US Hospital you might have to wait a few hours if they're really backed up and it doesn't require immediate treatment (GSW, MVA, etc...,) but you can always get treated the SAME day.

Do they even let you pay for your own medical care, or do you have a Hillary Clinton type system where its illegal to pay for medical care ? In such a system, you're royally screwed if the Gov't decides that such-and-such isn't medically necessary. At least, here in the US, if my insurance deems something unnecessary, I can get it anyways. I just have to pay for it out of my own pocket.

There's stories out there of kids with handicaps coming to the US from Canada because Canada deems their treatment medically unnecessary. So, don't give me this garbage about it being a perfect system. It may be seemingly free (though, you still end up paying for it via taxes,) but its far from perfect.

Quote:
Your wheat board doesn’t influence your gov. ???? your drug companies don’t influence your gov???


Damn straight, they do...That's one thing we can agree on.

Quote:
I have a tourism business and hear sad horrible stories by the hundreds from Americans who have lost lots due to a health issue and envy our system. Before you bash…get your facts….and hope like hell you never get an illness that costs you lots and you end up living in the street as your gov didn’t have the intelligence to develop a health care system that works for all no matter what your income level or status in life is.


The US has Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare for that kind of stuff. If you are indigent/unemployed, you can even quite often get basic treatment without paying a dime. I remember my mom telling me that when she had my brother, they had people coming in getting treatment and not paying a dime. Now, if you want some major surgery (not basic treatment) you have to pay for it, but that is the incentive for DRs to do the job quickly and properly. If they take months, people go elsewhere and they lose money. Its capitalism at work.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #47   ^
Old Wed, Dec-01-04, 12:44
LukeA's Avatar
LukeA LukeA is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,326
 
Plan: gluten free atkins maint.
Stats: 250/155/180 Male 6 foot 3 inches
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Default

Still glad I don't live in america for the reason that I would not be alive to type right now if i had been growing up. I had so many health problems. My parents and family were extremelly poor at that time, and without canada's health care, i wouldnt have been able to afford life saving elective surgeries.

The thing with the united states health care is sure that it is quite good for the people who can afford it, but for those of us who cannot they are once again left in the dark. Heck there was even a post on this board today from an american who's sick, and can't afford to go to a doctor.
Reply With Quote
  #48   ^
Old Wed, Dec-01-04, 13:05
carrottop carrottop is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 390
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 200/190/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default

Honestly, if I had to choose between smoking marijuana everyday and consuming the huge amount of manmade transfats that are used in so many foods, I would choose marijuana as the less dangerous health risk. To me it only makes sense to ban man made trans fats. They are carginogens that have no redeeming value. Nitrites at least help to preserve meat but there are plenty of substitutes for man made trans fats.

BTW, you should read Dr. Pescatore about canola oil. He has nothing good to say about it.

If people want a healthy choice they should choose butter or one of the high Omega 3 monounsaturated oils. Here is canola's profile compared to macadamia nut oil:

Canola oil:
omega-6 to omega-3 ratio = 2.4:1
Smoke point = 350 degrees

Macadamia nut oil:
omega-6 to omega-3 ratio = 1:1
Smoke point = 400-450 degrees (varies with quality)

The above is from The Hampton Diet.

Frankly, I hope high fructose corn syrup is next on the hit list.
Reply With Quote
  #49   ^
Old Wed, Dec-01-04, 15:51
cc48510 cc48510 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,018
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 320/220/195 Male 6'0"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Pensacola, FL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeA
Still glad I don't live in america for the reason that I would not be alive to type right now if i had been growing up. I had so many health problems. My parents and family were extremelly poor at that time, and without canada's health care, i wouldnt have been able to afford life saving elective surgeries.


One of the worst misconceptions about the US is that we leave poor people to die. While it does vary somewhat by state (some states give more services than others,) there are federal programs to help the poor.

We give them Welfare (though they're placing more restrictions on that because alot of people abused the system,) Food Stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, etc...If you're a kid or a disabed adult, you can pretty much count on getting most, if not all of your basic medical needs covered should your family be unable to afford it.

Surgeries are questionable. I'm not sure how far they'd go for free. But, life-saving emergency surgery (for example, let's say you get shot and need immediate emergency surgery)...I don't think they (a county hospital) would turn anyone away, whether they could afford it or not. I don't know what they'd do in a John Q (re: Transplant Surgery) type situation, though. Somehow, I just don't see them letting the kid die.
Reply With Quote
  #50   ^
Old Wed, Dec-01-04, 15:57
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

Canada may not be the best, but I certainly wouldn't hold up the American model as a shining example. There is something very fundamentally wrong about health care being run for profits. We have been discussing the myriad and far reaching effects of that approach here in this forum since the beginning.

Quote:
Do they even let you pay for your own medical care, or do you have a Hillary Clinton type system where its illegal to pay for medical care? In such a system, you're royally screwed if the Gov't decides that such-and-such isn't medically necessary. At least, here in the US, if my insurance deems something unnecessary, I can get it anyways. I just have to pay for it out of my own pocket
.
In theory it's supposed to be illegal to pay for services that are available in the public sector. It's considered queue jumping. In practice however there are lots of private clinics that offer various services. It's not quite prevalent yet. However I believe that if something is not available in the public sector, you can offer the service in a private clinic. Oh..and not insignificantly, it is potentially covered by your own medical insurance. It is a common benefit for employees to have medical insurance that covers most of the things that are not covered by the private sector... up to a limit of course.

I can see both sides in this matter. A commonly shared belief is that a private sector would ease queues by allowing people get their health care elsewhere.

However, that's more or less a fallacy. There are only so many resources to go around. What would happen is that all the good doctors would be draw to the money (they are only human after all) and would join the private sector. The public sector would end up with the leftovers. That would create a sort of charity ward kind of medicine. But worse, it would create what they call a two-tier system; One system for the rich and one for the poor. That is what why the government is resisting privatization.

Last edited by Angeline : Wed, Dec-01-04 at 16:03.
Reply With Quote
  #51   ^
Old Wed, Dec-01-04, 15:58
LukeA's Avatar
LukeA LukeA is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,326
 
Plan: gluten free atkins maint.
Stats: 250/155/180 Male 6 foot 3 inches
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cc48510
One of the worst misconceptions about the US is that we leave poor people to die. While it does vary somewhat by state (some states give more services than others,) there are federal programs to help the poor.

We give them Welfare (though they're placing more restrictions on that because alot of people abused the system,) Food Stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, etc...If you're a kid or a disabed adult, you can pretty much count on getting most, if not all of your basic medical needs covered should your family be unable to afford it.

Surgeries are questionable. I'm not sure how far they'd go for free. But, life-saving emergency surgery (for example, let's say you get shot and need immediate emergency surgery)...I don't think they (a county hospital) would turn anyone away, whether they could afford it or not. I don't know what they'd do in a John Q (re: Transplant Surgery) type situation, though. Somehow, I just don't see them letting the kid die.


I visit the states all the time, and most of my family lives there. I do know that they dont "leave poor people to die", but they sure as hell do not do nearly enough. It is much to hard to get those food stamps, and government assistance. My little second cousin and her dad nearly starved to death and had to beg on the streets because the government refused to help them because her dads EXWIFE made to much money!!! And sorry in some states it is policy to let them die in some circumstances in hospitals rather than pay. Rather some states do the medical care first, then come after you with a huge bill, and many people end up near bankruptcy.
Reply With Quote
  #52   ^
Old Wed, Dec-01-04, 16:05
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Quote:
One of the worst misconceptions about the US is that we leave poor people to die. While it does vary somewhat by state (some states give more services than others,) there are federal programs to help the poor.


You should watch Dr. G, Medical Examiner sometime. You might come away with a different opinion. She's the coroner in Orange County CA and she talks about her various cases. A lot of the people she autopsies are poor and homeless and die of things that are easily diagnosed and treated. Very eye-opening show. I'm totally addicted to that show now. It doesn't show the actual autopsy, but you do hear bones breaking and such as she opens up the chest cavity, or saws off the top of the skull! Ew! But she's really fascinating.

One thing that show did was open my eyes to the dangers of untreated high blood pressure. Wow!
Reply With Quote
  #53   ^
Old Wed, Dec-01-04, 16:12
carrottop carrottop is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 390
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 200/190/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default

Yes they do leave poor people to die. Next time you visit the states stop by a homeless shelter. People die of more than lack of medical. They also die of exposure, malnutrition, and lack of proper medical care. They die of having their home heating supply cut off. They die of being evicted on to the street in the middle of winter. They die because they couldn't stay sober and are turned away from shelters. They die because they are abused by spouses and parents and the protection system fails them. They die because there are not enough foster homes or they die in inappropriate foster homes. They fail to get that lump looked at because they cannot afford a doctor's visit. They die because in a million ways because the welfare system actively discourages them from seeking the assistance they so desperately need.

Here is an example: A friend of mine was living in a transitional living center for mentally ill women. She became ill after being put on an antipsychotic called Geodon. She went to the hospital with virus like symptoms including achiness up and down her arms. The hospital refused to treat her because "it was all in her head." But really I think it was because she had no medical insurance. They sent her back to the transitional living center where that evening she died in the bathroom of a heart attack. The staff at the transitional living center did not take her back to the hospital before her death -- despite her pleas to return -- because it was "all in her head." Powerless people die in the U.S. everyday. The profit system grinds them up and spits them out!

Last edited by carrottop : Wed, Dec-01-04 at 16:24.
Reply With Quote
  #54   ^
Old Wed, Dec-01-04, 16:22
carrottop carrottop is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 390
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 200/190/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cc48510


We give them Welfare (though they're placing more restrictions on that because alot of people abused the system,) Food Stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, etc...If you're a kid or a disabed adult, you can pretty much count on getting most, if not all of your basic medical needs covered should your family be unable to afford it.


So do you know any disabled adults living on $540 a month, getting supplemental food stamps (supplemental means not enough) and on the waiting list for public housing which is estimated to be two years long. I do!

Do you know any disabled adults with severe hearing problems who go to vocational assistance to get surgerical device so they can hear and be productive in the real world or work and yet are told there is no money to help them. I do!

Do you know of any disabled children who cannot get the help they need medically until their parents give them up to the foster care system so they can qualify for medical assistance? I do!

This sort of care is vile.
Reply With Quote
  #55   ^
Old Thu, Dec-02-04, 02:48
woodpecker woodpecker is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 265
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 185/180/165 Male 68 inches
BF:25
Progress: 25%
Location: Nova Scotia
Default

Stop Knocking US Health Care

from the Edmonton Journal (editorial)

There are eight developed countries that spend more public money on health care than Canada does — about one-quarter of all developed nations. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Switzerland, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Denmark, Iceland and Belgium all spend more tax dollars than we do. Sweden doesn't. Nor do France, Britain or Japan.

Sorry? You say that's only seven higher spenders, not eight. You're right. I forgot the other developed nation where governments spend more public money per capita on "free" health care than in Canada: the United States. According to the Friends of State Monopoly Health Care, the U.S. is the Great Satan, the cruelest, most heartless nation on the planet because it refuses to consign all of its citizens to treatment via socialized medicine. Yet federal and state governments in the U.S. spend about $2,200 US per capita each year providing the poor and the elderly with health care. Canada's federal and provincial governments together spend just under $1,900 US providing all of us with medicare, according to the OECD. Admittedly, it costs more money in the U.S. than in Canada to provide similar medical procedures.

This is not, though, because their system with multiple, for-profit insurers is less efficient or more bureaucratic than our single-payer, government-run system. Or because profits are evil. Rather, it costs more because care in the U.S. is provided faster, which takes more staff or more modern equipment, or both.

Health care also costs more in the U.S. because doctors there pay higher malpractice-insurance premiums, and because equipment is replaced for newer models much more often. More pre-procedure testing is performed, too, to eliminate the guesswork before treatments and surgeries are undertaken. And it costs more because their richer market will bear higher prices. But the OECD numbers have already factored in the higher American costs. Its relative international spending levels are calculated on a purchasing power parity basis. So when the OECD says the U.S. spends 20 per cent more per capita on public health care than Canada does, it is wrong to sneer and insist the difference means nothing because that extra money is sucked up in profits or higher administrative costs. The totals have already been adjusted to account for such differences.

What's more, the $1,900 per capita that Canadian governments spend has to be stretched to cover our entire population. The $2,200 spent by American governments only has to be made to cover those over 65, the indigent and the uninsured — less than half their population. Indeed, they spend nearly seven per cent of their GDP on "free" care for less then 50 per cent of their people (the rest are covered by private insurance), ' while we spend 6.5 per cent on care for 100 per cent of Canadians.

We, as a nation, may never choose to adopt American-style health care, but we should at least stop portraying American care as for the rich only, and accept that there are other ways to show compassion than herding everyone in the country onto the same Soviet-style bus. Despite the outrageous propaganda and misinformation in the new movie John Q, in which star Denzel Washington plays a working-class father who cannot afford a heart transplant for his son and is forced to hold a hospital hostage until the uncaring doctors and administrators will do the operation, the poor in the U.S. are treated, and they are often treated better and faster than the average Canadian.

I came across another intriguing set of facts on health care the other day. The Canadian Institute for Health Information says Canada experienced a 17 per cent decline in the number of licensed practical nurses per capita between 1989 and 1998. There was a 7.2 per cent drop in the number of registered nurses per capita and a 0.5 per cent decline in physicians. And, as other recent studies on the brain drain have indicated, some of this decline is attributable to cuts in health-care spending in the early to mid-1990s.

But the CIHI also reports there was a four per cent rise in the number of dentists over the same period, a 13 per cent rise in pharmacists, and increases of 25 to 59 per cent in the ranks of psychologists, physiotherapists, chiropractors and dental hygienists. It is not a coincidence that all of the health professions that witnessed declines in the 1990s are ones that derive all or most of their income from the public purse, while those that expanded are paid mostly from private sources (individuals or private insurers). If Canadians want more and better health care, faster, we must free ourselves from government health monopoly.

*******

I think both systems are suffering from an overdose of prescription drugs. You only have to look at the statins to see that. About half the people around me over 40 are taking them. The average 60 year-old takes something like 10 different pills, some to counteract the side-effects of other pills. I think medical schools should be branching off into preventative nutrition and other natural health specializations.

Pasteurized milk alone is estimated to cost Canadians $billions in resultant medical costs (and $billions in subsidies). The same is true in the US, including the subsidies. How soon will the NDP do something about the dairy industry here that is killing Canadians left, right and centre? How about some warning labels on milk cartons? This whole industry is geared to satisfy the producers at the expense of consumers. The market and health care systems in both countries have failed miserably on this one item alone. The latest Swedish study (just 2 days ago) identified milk as a risk factor in ovarian cancer. It has aready been associated with breast and prostate cancer - along with such things as obesity, diabetes, asthma, allergies, skin diseases, infant colic, SIDS, serious bacterial outbreaks (yes) and a host of other serious problems. Raw (unpasteurized) milk (which I have never tried) appears to be quite safe by comparison.

Last edited by woodpecker : Thu, Dec-02-04 at 03:58. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote
  #56   ^
Old Thu, Dec-02-04, 13:58
LukeA's Avatar
LukeA LukeA is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,326
 
Plan: gluten free atkins maint.
Stats: 250/155/180 Male 6 foot 3 inches
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woodpecker
Stop Knocking US Health Care

from the Edmonton Journal (editorial)

There are eight developed countries that spend more public money on health care than Canada does — about one-quarter of all developed nations. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Switzerland, Norway, Germany, Luxembourg, Denmark, Iceland and Belgium all spend more tax dollars than we do. Sweden doesn't. Nor do France, Britain or Japan.

Sorry? You say that's only seven higher spenders, not eight. You're right. I forgot the other developed nation where governments spend more public money per capita on "free" health care than in Canada: the United States. According to the Friends of State Monopoly Health Care, the U.S. is the Great Satan, the cruelest, most heartless nation on the planet because it refuses to consign all of its citizens to treatment via socialized medicine. Yet federal and state governments in the U.S. spend about $2,200 US per capita each year providing the poor and the elderly with health care. Canada's federal and provincial governments together spend just under $1,900 US providing all of us with medicare, according to the OECD. Admittedly, it costs more money in the U.S. than in Canada to provide similar medical procedures.

This is not, though, because their system with multiple, for-profit insurers is less efficient or more bureaucratic than our single-payer, government-run system. Or because profits are evil. Rather, it costs more because care in the U.S. is provided faster, which takes more staff or more modern equipment, or both.

Health care also costs more in the U.S. because doctors there pay higher malpractice-insurance premiums, and because equipment is replaced for newer models much more often. More pre-procedure testing is performed, too, to eliminate the guesswork before treatments and surgeries are undertaken. And it costs more because their richer market will bear higher prices. But the OECD numbers have already factored in the higher American costs. Its relative international spending levels are calculated on a purchasing power parity basis. So when the OECD says the U.S. spends 20 per cent more per capita on public health care than Canada does, it is wrong to sneer and insist the difference means nothing because that extra money is sucked up in profits or higher administrative costs. The totals have already been adjusted to account for such differences.

What's more, the $1,900 per capita that Canadian governments spend has to be stretched to cover our entire population. The $2,200 spent by American governments only has to be made to cover those over 65, the indigent and the uninsured — less than half their population. Indeed, they spend nearly seven per cent of their GDP on "free" care for less then 50 per cent of their people (the rest are covered by private insurance), ' while we spend 6.5 per cent on care for 100 per cent of Canadians.

We, as a nation, may never choose to adopt American-style health care, but we should at least stop portraying American care as for the rich only, and accept that there are other ways to show compassion than herding everyone in the country onto the same Soviet-style bus. Despite the outrageous propaganda and misinformation in the new movie John Q, in which star Denzel Washington plays a working-class father who cannot afford a heart transplant for his son and is forced to hold a hospital hostage until the uncaring doctors and administrators will do the operation, the poor in the U.S. are treated, and they are often treated better and faster than the average Canadian.

I came across another intriguing set of facts on health care the other day. The Canadian Institute for Health Information says Canada experienced a 17 per cent decline in the number of licensed practical nurses per capita between 1989 and 1998. There was a 7.2 per cent drop in the number of registered nurses per capita and a 0.5 per cent decline in physicians. And, as other recent studies on the brain drain have indicated, some of this decline is attributable to cuts in health-care spending in the early to mid-1990s.

But the CIHI also reports there was a four per cent rise in the number of dentists over the same period, a 13 per cent rise in pharmacists, and increases of 25 to 59 per cent in the ranks of psychologists, physiotherapists, chiropractors and dental hygienists. It is not a coincidence that all of the health professions that witnessed declines in the 1990s are ones that derive all or most of their income from the public purse, while those that expanded are paid mostly from private sources (individuals or private insurers). If Canadians want more and better health care, faster, we must free ourselves from government health monopoly.

*******

I think both systems are suffering from an overdose of prescription drugs. You only have to look at the statins to see that. About half the people around me over 40 are taking them. The average 60 year-old takes something like 10 different pills, some to counteract the side-effects of other pills. I think medical schools should be branching off into preventative nutrition and other natural health specializations.

Pasteurized milk alone is estimated to cost Canadians $billions in resultant medical costs (and $billions in subsidies). The same is true in the US, including the subsidies. How soon will the NDP do something about the dairy industry here that is killing Canadians left, right and centre? How about some warning labels on milk cartons? This whole industry is geared to satisfy the producers at the expense of consumers. The market and health care systems in both countries have failed miserably on this one item alone. The latest Swedish study (just 2 days ago) identified milk as a risk factor in ovarian cancer. It has aready been associated with breast and prostate cancer - along with such things as obesity, diabetes, asthma, allergies, skin diseases, infant colic, SIDS, serious bacterial outbreaks (yes) and a host of other serious problems. Raw (unpasteurized) milk (which I have never tried) appears to be quite safe by comparison.


Yes, the united states does spend more per capita than canada! But it is because the whole cost of living there is increased! If you actually compare everything, it is much less in comparison.

"And, as other recent studies on the brain drain have indicated, some of this decline is attributable to cuts in health-care spending in the early to mid-1990s."
Most losses of nurses have been attributed to the much higher wages in the united states. I don't disagree with that, as my own mom quit being a nurse altogether up here because of the lack of good wages. We all need to write our mp's and press for change on that issue.
Reply With Quote
  #57   ^
Old Thu, Dec-02-04, 13:59
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

We have quite a nurse shortage in CA.
Reply With Quote
  #58   ^
Old Thu, Dec-02-04, 15:41
cc48510 cc48510 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,018
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 320/220/195 Male 6'0"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Pensacola, FL
Default

Quote:
They die because they couldn't stay sober and are turned away from shelters.


Then, they should stay Sober. If they're spending all their money on liquor, and can't stay Sober, its no wonder they can't get a job and earn a living. Noone wants to hire a drunkard, and for good reason. If they would sober up long enough, they could seek (and get) some assistance.

Quote:
They die because they are abused by spouses and parents and the protection system fails them.


That's not the fault of medical care, and socialized medicine wouldn't change anything. That's because we've convinced ourselves that a piece of paper from a judge will somehow keep a violent person from coming after you. There was a student when I was in HS (she wasn't in any of my classes and I never met her) whose Mother's Boyfriend killed the entire family in their beds. They had a Restraining Order, but little good it does. What they needed was to practice their 2nd Amendment rights, something Canada no longer allows their citizens to do. The system can't protect them. But, they can protect themselves, unless they're in DC, MD, NJ, NY, RI, MA, IL, CA, PR, or USVI.

Quote:
They die because there are not enough foster homes or they die in inappropriate foster homes.


Again, that's a problem with DCF, not something that would be magically cured by socialized medicine. That could be fixed now if they'd just clean house down at DCF and do a better job of checking out Foster Parents.

Quote:
They fail to get that lump looked at because they cannot afford a doctor's visit.


They don't get it looked at because they chose not to or believe they can't, or because they convince themselves its no big deal. People die all the time because they didn't get something checked out. But, you can't blame the system for that. They need to try. They can go to a cheap or in some cases free clinic and get stuff checked out. If they're indigent, the Gov't would probably pay for it.

If they aren't, the cost of one quick visit to a dermatologist (or for that matter any Doctor) is not prohibitive. Drugs and Major Surgeries (or frequent trips to the Doctor - Hypochondria) are the only thing that would be cost prohibitive. And, you don't need either of those to get a lump checked out.

When I was a kid, I went to the Doctor several times a year, and other than getting stitches (once,) having my adenoids removed, and X-Rays (a couple times) which was probably covered anyways, I don't think any of those were all that expensive. My parents probably paid more for food every month (on average) than they would have had to pay for medical care for me, had they not been insured. I think the most expensive drug I ever had to take for more than a few weeks was probably Amoxicillin. Nowadays, I don't have to go to the Doctor very much at all. I think I've only been sick once (and that went away after about 24 Hours) since starting Atkins 2 years ago.

My Brother OTOH was expensive. But, he was severely disabled. I don't think they ever paid the bills to the Doctor/Hospital who left him disabled. They bugged 'em for awhile for the money...But, eventually wrote it off. They (my parents) sued the Doctor at one point (for malpractice,) but it got thrown out on a technicality. The lawyer was one of those who takes the case for free, and takes x% if you win, so they didn't end up having to pay anything for it...and the Doctor/Hospital quit bugging them. I don't feel to sorry for the lawyer (who lost money on that case) as he won a big case on contingency several years later and is now a multi-millionare.

Quote:
Here is an example: A friend of mine was living in a transitional living center for mentally ill women. She became ill after being put on an antipsychotic called Geodon. She went to the hospital with virus like symptoms including achiness up and down her arms. The hospital refused to treat her because "it was all in her head." But really I think it was because she had no medical insurance. They sent her back to the transitional living center where that evening she died in the bathroom of a heart attack. The staff at the transitional living center did not take her back to the hospital before her death -- despite her pleas to return -- because it was "all in her head." Powerless people die in the U.S. everyday. The profit system grinds them up and spits them out!


The hospital probably assumed that since she was I presume Schizophrenic (seeing as she was on Antipsychotics) that it was in her head. That's Doctor error and can happen anywhere. its probably just as likely to happen in Canada. I suspect given the same Doctors, but a Canadian style system, the result would have been the same (all in her head.) I can't say she would have gotten any better care in the US being as that she was in a home (basically gov't funded medical care.)

But had she been a private citizen paying for it herself, I can garantee you she would have got better service than she ever could have got in Canada. The Doctor might have actually checked it out if she'd paid for it herself. But, that's exactly why a Canadian-Style system isn't any better, because there's no incentive for a Doctor to try his best when he's working under a Gov't Run Health Care System. You have problems with your system, just like we do. So, don't act like its perfect.
Reply With Quote
  #59   ^
Old Thu, Dec-02-04, 20:20
LukeA's Avatar
LukeA LukeA is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,326
 
Plan: gluten free atkins maint.
Stats: 250/155/180 Male 6 foot 3 inches
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Default

"You have problems with your system, just like we do. So, don't act like its perfect."

Nobody in the entirety of this thread did such a thing, so sorry but you still sound like you are talking out of your ass.

I'm done argueing, I have to go schedule a free doctors appointment for my asthma.
Reply With Quote
  #60   ^
Old Thu, Dec-02-04, 22:50
carrottop carrottop is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 390
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 200/190/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cc48510
Then, they should stay Sober. If they're spending all their money on liquor, and can't stay Sober, its no wonder they can't get a job and earn a living. Noone wants to hire a drunkard, and for good reason. If they would sober up long enough, they could seek (and get) some assistance.


You might study up a little on alcoholism. There is not just one type of alcoholism but several. Some studies have indicated that at least one particular type is very difficult to combat via willpower. People familiar with drug and alcohol treatment recognize the limitations of the treatment system. Access to the system costs money. Stay sober often requires medication for mental illnesses. Medication costs money.

I believe alcoholism is a disease. You obviously don't.

Quote:
Again, that's a problem with DCF, not something that would be magically cured by socialized medicine. That could be fixed now if they'd just clean house down at DCF and do a better job of checking out Foster Parents.


The reason there are inappropriate foster parents is that foster parents are not paid enough. Raise the pay and you get a better class of people and also the incentive to do better background checks.

Abused children are overrepresented in all types of mental illness because of the abuse itself. If the U.S. would spend more money educating parents on parenting, and taking appropriate, proactive measures in instances of abuse, and treating with better medical care these diseases that arise in childhood and adolescence, they would save money in the long run now spent in a myriad of programs. Instead U.S. is focused on the inexpensive model of "family preservation" in part because they don't to pay adequately for mental health care for parents and children and adequate funding in terms of foster care and adoption for children and the adjunct health care that properly goes along with saving these children.

You have obviously chosen not to address my point about children be surrendered by their parents to foster care so that they can get their children treatment that the parents cannot otherwise afford. I don't seeing breaking up functioning families in this manner in order to afford health care to be anything but dreadful. In my opinion, decent health care should be an entitlement.

Quote:
They don't get it looked at because they chose not to or believe they can't, or because they convince themselves its no big deal. People die all the time because they didn't get something checked out. But, you can't blame the system for that. They need to try. They can go to a cheap or in some cases free clinic and get stuff checked out. If they're indigent, the Gov't would probably pay for it.


Not true. People are so intimidated by the system that they do not realize that they can get free or affordable health care. In the state I live in adults -- no matter how poor -- do not get free health care on the basis of poverty alone.

Quote:
If they aren't, the cost of one quick visit to a dermatologist (or for that matter any Doctor) is not prohibitive. Drugs and Major Surgeries (or frequent trips to the Doctor - Hypochondria) are the only thing that would be cost prohibitive. And, you don't need either of those to get a lump checked out.


Not at all sure why you bring up Hypochondria here. Completely baffling. Care to explain?

Quote:
When I was a kid, I went to the Doctor several times a year, and other than getting stitches (once,) having my adenoids removed, and X-Rays (a couple times) which was probably covered anyways, I don't think any of those were all that expensive. My parents probably paid more for food every month (on average) than they would have had to pay for medical care for me, had they not been insured. I think the most expensive drug I ever had to take for more than a few weeks was probably Amoxicillin. Nowadays, I don't have to go to the Doctor very much at all. I think I've only been sick once (and that went away after about 24 Hours) since starting Atkins 2 years ago.


When people cannot afford food they are bound to see medical care as secondary. There are many people who cannot afford an adequate diet. Food Stamps are Supplemental. They are not intended to meet all of a family's needs nor are they adequate to do so. I knew a woman who receive $128 a month to feed herself and her three teenage sons. All three sons were disabled. This sort of thing leads to further ill health, which leads to a greater need for medical care. Many people in these forums spend more than $128 a month on meat alone. I am sure you believe people should not live on starches or you wouldn't be posting in this forum.

Quote:
My Brother OTOH was expensive. But, he was severely disabled. I don't think they ever paid the bills to the Doctor/Hospital who left him disabled. They bugged 'em for awhile for the money...But, eventually wrote it off. They (my parents) sued the Doctor at one point (for malpractice,) but it got thrown out on a technicality. The lawyer was one of those who takes the case for free, and takes x% if you win, so they didn't end up having to pay anything for it...and the Doctor/Hospital quit bugging them. I don't feel to sorry for the lawyer (who lost money on that case) as he won a big case on contingency several years later and is now a multi-millionare.


I am sorry your brother is disabled. I am not sure how this paragraph is relevant to health care.

Quote:
The hospital probably assumed that since she was I presume Schizophrenic (seeing as she was on Antipsychotics) that it was in her head. That's Doctor error and can happen anywhere. its probably just as likely to happen in Canada. I suspect given the same Doctors, but a Canadian style system, the result would have been the same (all in her head.) I can't say she would have gotten any better care in the US being as that she was in a home (basically gov't funded medical care.)


The doctors knew her diagnosis. It was not schizophrenia. My point was that the poor and the disabled receive substandard medical care in the U.S. She was denied care IMO because she had no insurance. She died because she was poor.

Quote:
But had she been a private citizen paying for it herself, I can garantee you she would have got better service than she ever could have got in Canada. The Doctor might have actually checked it out if she'd paid for it herself. But, that's exactly why a Canadian-Style system isn't any better, because there's no incentive for a Doctor to try his best when he's working under a Gov't Run Health Care System. You have problems with your system, just like we do. So, don't act like its perfect


Which system are you referring to when you say "your system?" You mistake me. I am a United States citizen. Born and reared in the U.S. and well acquainted with the deficiencies of the system.

BTW, I think discussion of health systems are related to health with is related to diet, which is an appropriate discussion in this forum. Everyone should probably be eating low to moderate carbs. Everyone should be able to afford to.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Stronger Proof That Trans Fats Are Bad" gotbeer LC Research/Media 0 Tue, Apr-13-04 11:06
Trans fat labeling rule took decades NickFender LC Research/Media 0 Wed, Oct-08-03 10:51
"No Hiding Most Trans Fats" gotbeer LC Research/Media 0 Fri, Jul-18-03 16:38
Suit Seeks to Ban Kids From Eating Oreos due to trans fats tamarian LC Research/Media 43 Fri, May-30-03 22:03
The Skinny on Fats & Breast Cancer DrByrnes LC Research/Media 2 Tue, Jul-16-02 14:21


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:46.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.