Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 10:04 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

AT&T, Inc. Message Board

  • faretz faretz Jul 17, 2009 9:51 AM Flag

    ARE YOU WILLING TO WAIT 18 WEEKS FOR SURGERY... IF YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT..

    >>Wait times for surgery in Canada at all-time high: study
    Last Updated: Monday, October 15, 2007 | 10:33 AM ET
    The Canadian Press

    A typical Canadian seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007, an all-time high, according to new research published Monday by independent research organization the Fraser Institute.

    "Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada.

    Total waiting times increased in six provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Total waiting times increased in six provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
    (CBC)

    The survey measures median waiting times to document the extent to which queues for visits to specialists and for diagnostic and surgical procedures are used to control health-care expenditures.

    "It's becoming clearer that Canada's current health-care system cannot meet the needs of Canadians in a timely and efficient manner, unless you consider access to a waiting list timely and efficient," Esmail added.

    The 2007 survey found the total median waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 18.3 weeks from 17.8 weeks observed in 2006. This was primarily due to an increase in the first waiting period, between seeing the general practitioner and attending a consultation with a specialist.

    Total waiting times increased in six provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. This masked the decreased waiting times in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.<<

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • How do you know that to be true? The health care company and insurance company know this will change they way they have raped the american people. some doctor now have 8mo. wait. don't let them fool you any more people. the GOP want the company to rape you. they have no plan at all to help every day people!

    • Your full of it! Your sources are BS!
      Your using this T board for you BS!
      You believe anything your told!
      You fit RIGHT in with scare tactic BS.
      Not one source is listed with any proof.
      Take your BS to a church meeting you mooron.

    • What a contrast- truth backed by facts, and lies backed by BS. Obviously, government sponsored health care is the way to go, because the lies are all in opposition- and most from the right. Must be force of habit. Better lose that and learn to debate instead of spinning if you ever want to win another election.

    • That's a nice summary. I'm not sure you're going to get through, but an excellent effort.

    • True; it's not just the republican party. But the idea is an option to, not a replacement of, the existing healthcare system. If you like what you have, then great! It's not the government system or nothing at all- it's whatever you choose. That's the deal. It's the medical industry that is lobbying to FORCE people to have insurance- and not government insurance either. That way, they get more money. It's not about your health anymore- it's about their profits. That's why we need an alternative. That's why I'd like to see it at least tried before screaming bloody nurder.

    • LOL! This could last weeks.

      "Hang nail clippers easier to find in Paris, Texas than in Ipswich, England"

      Holistic studies, such as the one I linked to, show no difference between waiting times in developed nations. If Taiwan can do it, why can't we?

    • Now you're making an argument! Well done!

      The simplest way to explain it, is that the government ends up paying for everyone's health care anyway. The only difference is whether medical conditions are caught early in a doctor's office, or once they've progressed in an emergency room. The former is cheaper, and that is a big part of the current cost of our medical system. Hospitals receive alot of public money for serving those without insurance, more money than they would likely receive for serving those with public insurance.

      The more fundamental way to explain it, is that our medical system is anything but a free market. Fundamentally, Insurance companies need a large and stable amount of capital to function, and within a stable environment. An insurance company that fails cannot pay doctors or hospitals. So doctors, hospitals and the insurance companies themselves have lobbied government to create a stable environment that ensures the survivability of insurance companies. Government already largely controls the health care system. What appears to be a private insurance industry is actually a handful of highly protected companies that have a guaranteed customer base through the employer mandated systems.

      What you are seeing now is not so much a debate over whether the healthcare system will be government controlled, but over who controls it. Right now, groups like the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association control the system for their own benefit. They control the cost of the medical system for their own profits. (The AMA, for instance, controls coding of procedures for Medicare)

      This system largely feeds on profits from large companies in other industries, and off of taxpayers. Non-healthcare industries (and taxpayers) have largely tried to minimize costs by limiting the number of people with access to healthcare. However, this has failed and costs have continued to rise. So now, non-healthcare industries (with the help of taxpayers) are trying to break the control that the healthcare industries have on the healthcare system.

      A universal government system would allow non-healthcare industries (and taxpayers) to control the healthcare system directly, and to lower their costs for providing healthcare to employees. A public option provides competition that non-healthcare industries (and taxpayers) hope to control, and through which they would lower costs. Universal healthcare without a public option leaves insurance industries, hospitals and doctors in complete control of their own pricing, without real competition, and with captive customers.

      That might be a bit too much insight into the realities of our government system for you to handle, but those are your three choices. It is mainly a battle between industries for control of government. I prefer option number two because I like competition. The last one is basically a huge transfer payment from taxpayers to the insurance industry and providers, though it appears to you to be "private."

    • Seems thats the way it is in other countries sowhy should you think the wait period should be shorter in the USA? If the waiting period is shortened in the USA it will have to be shortened everywhere so your complaint is not a valid concern.
      Your Dismissed!

    • It is. But we aren't there yet, dk; and if we can (okay, so I'm an optimist) get government to pay back even part of what they took from ss, then we'll scrape by. It may fail I grant you the possibility exists. But this is by no means a foregone conclusion. Even if it happens, we can still fix it after the fact. When a car runs out of gas, you can still refill the tank- you don't trash it and take a cab to thge dealership for a new one. So what caused this? It seems pretty clear to me: what can one reasonably expect from three or four republican presidencies that cut the tax base to the bone? A surplus? The rich broke it for profit. Let the rich fix it for survival.

    • And try this:

      http://marshallbrain.blogspot.com/2006/05/british-vs-american-health-care.html

      It's no less biased than some of your sources...

    • View More Messages
 
T
32.81-0.3700(-1.12%)Jan 27 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Apple Inc.
NASDAQTue, Jan 27, 2015 4:00 PM EST
Horizon Pharma plc
NASDAQTue, Jan 27, 2015 4:00 PM EST
Yahoo! Inc.
NASDAQTue, Jan 27, 2015 4:00 PM EST