Danny Williams heading to U.S. for procedure on advice of his doctors

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Careful. The U.S. has a socialist president. Health care as you know it may change one day.

Just because he's coming to the U.S for a surgery doesn't mean he doesn't support the Canadian system. Maybe he found a doctor/facility in the States that is impeccable.

I know someone who came to the U.S for cancer treatment.

I'll be the first to say the U.S. is superbly technologically advanced when it comes to medicine. Does that mean its a better "system"?

The majority of the patients at Northern Vermont and Northern New York medical facilities are from Quebec or Ontario. we appreciate their support!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not exactly accurate. You might have meant to say unless you have insurance that covers them, or unless you are on a government medical program that covers them. Or you might have meant certain elective procedures. This does not sound like an elective procedure. In most cases, if the procedure is considered essential and not experimental, or in some cases to address a pre-existing condition on a client who has not had portable coverage in the preceeding year, insurance will cover it.

I meant exactly what I said - that certain procedures are not available under nationalized healthcare systems - as in the health service does not offer them (either because they don't have the equipment or because it costs too much), or the equivalent procedure that they do offer isn't state of the art.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I meant exactly what I said - that certain procedures are not available under nationalized healthcare systems - as in the health service does not offer them (either because they don't have the equipment or because it costs too much), or the equivalent procedure that they do offer isn't state of the art.

Yep.

There are exactly twice as many MRI machines in Burlington Vermont, population 50,000 than in Montreal, population 2 million. (and that doesn't count Plattsburgh, NY just across the lake) These cities are separated by a 1 hour drive, an international border and a Socialized Health System. If a Quebecois wants an MRI and doesn't want to wait a year or so, he drives 1 hour to Vermont and gets it done same day, even on a walk in basis at one place.

So, tell me...WHY does an area of 200,000 Americans within a one hour drive of Montreal have 4 times as many MRI machines as Montreal with 10 times the population? Are we just addicted to MRIs or is someone spending a LOT of money to accomodate a bigger market than Vermont and Northern New York would otherwise represent?

How can anyone not acknowledge this? How can anyone ignore this? How can anyne not see what happens when a population has government health care AND a way to avoid government health care?

The Newfee premier is having heart surgery, that means LIFE SAVING surgery. He wants the BEST! He comes to the USA Too bad if Micheal Moore doesn't like it (Why doesn't he go to Cuba?)

[GabiandVi 34]

I meant exactly what I said - that certain procedures are not available under nationalized healthcare systems - as in the health service does not offer them (either because they don't have the equipment or because it costs too much), or the equivalent procedure that they do offer isn't state of the art.

I was referring to the second part of your statement.

Of course they aren't available here either unless you can afford to pay for them (and that goes for the health tourists as well).

Same post by you.

That, your second line, isn't exactly accurate. You might have meant to say unless you don't have insurance or you are not covered by a governmental medical program, or unless it is a procedure for a pre-existing condition for a client who has had no portable insurance in the previous year. That would be accurate.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I was referring to the second part of your statement.

Of course they aren't available here either unless you can afford to pay for them (and that goes for the health tourists as well).

Same post by you.

That, your second line, isn't exactly accurate. You might have meant to say unless you don't have insurance or you are not covered by a governmental medical program, or unless it is a procedure for a pre-existing condition for a client who has had no portable insurance in the previous year. That would be accurate.

Well how all-encompassing can someone be in a single sentence?

[GabiandVi 34]

Well how all-encompassing can someone be in a single sentence?

But the point is that those procedures ARE available in our system, and the MAJORITY of Americans have access to them. Meanwhile, your statement was pretty "all-encompassing" implying the opposite, that the majority do not have access to them. Just wanted to correct the misrepresentation and point out the difference between the two systems.

[GabiandVi 34]

Careful. The U.S. has a socialist president. Health care as you know it may change one day.

Just because he's coming to the U.S for a surgery doesn't mean he doesn't support the Canadian system. Maybe he found a doctor/facility in the States that is impeccable.

I know someone who came to the U.S for cancer treatment.

I'll be the first to say the U.S. is superbly technologically advanced when it comes to medicine. Does that mean its a better "system"?

I suppose it depends on how you define better. Is it better to have a system where everyone has access to mediocre care, or a system where the best care is available? Certainly there are faults in both systems. Certainly the system here needs fixing. However, I wouldn't want the fix to result in only a handful of people being able to go abroad for the best care available. Where would everyone go for the best care if we didn't offer it?

One of the reasons the US is superbly technologically advanced in medicine is the system we have. We need to fill in the gaps and control some costs, no doubt, but nationalized medicine does not seem to be the way to go. For one thing, what nation with an equivalent population has even tried it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But the point is that those procedures ARE available in our system, and the MAJORITY of Americans have access to them. Meanwhile, your statement was pretty "all-encompassing" implying the opposite, that the majority do not have access to them. Just wanted to correct the misrepresentation and point out the difference between the two systems.

As you yourself said, that's not quite true.

No access unless you have insurance (even that isn't a guarantee), and if you don't have insurance or your coverage is denied you can still get treated. So long as you don't mind going bankrupt...

No to mention it costs more, generally (quite a bit more) for health coverage in this country than it does to pay the National Insurance tax in the UK.

[Peikko 1,575]

You'd be a bit of a fool if you thought excellence in medicine only exists in the US - there are excellent Doctors and care providers world wide. Of course Universal Health care systems do have to take pragmatic decisions they take decisions based on what resources are available and where but this is a two way street and don't think for one moment that the US doesn't benefit from the money that pours into US health care systems by the visitors from overseas.

Also, it's irrational to believe that simply removing the profit motive from vast swathes of the US system you would destroy all the excellent health care providers and Doctors and you would be left with mediocrity. Rubbish, those who pay extra for excellence now, would continue to pay extra for excellence in a different system.

I guess most people do not understand the economics of scale?

Edited February 4, 2010 by Madame Cleo