Subject:
|
Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:28:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1136 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Kollross wrote:
>
> > A long wait for an MRI is not uncommon. This is due to the lack of facilities.
> > Several private clinics have opened where you can have one done but you have to
> > pay big bucks. Professional athletes and people with more money than god have
> > the option of getting a MRI there.
>
> That's kind of how the knucklehead had characterized it. In my view, it's a
> question of most-widespread benefit. If 90% of the population has access to
> good health care, then that's great, even if access to certain procedures is
> limited.
It would depend on which procedures, right?
This columnist is no doubt biased and has chosen a nice sounding factoid from a
friendly source:
http://www.forbes.com/columnists/business/forbes/2004/1011/037.html
"Canada's Fraser Institute points out that patients in that country (which is
still held up as a model for health care by many Americans) must wait more than
three weeks for an appointment with a cardiologist and then another two weeks or
so for urgent bypass surgery"
Is that true in Canada as alleged? Does anyone know if it is possible to predict
whether it would be true here?
> On the other hand, I've never needed an MRI, so that service is, to
> date and in practical terms, irrelevant to me.
When you need it, you (often but not always) really need it though, don't you?
> I'd rather have my routine medical costs covered, even if it means that
> an uncommon procedure is made less accessible to me.
That seems counterintuitive to me. (except inasmuch as I'd rather win the
lottery than work, and I personally like free stuff of all sorts even if getting
it is distortive to the market)
Aren't routine costs just that, routine? As in, expected? Wouldn't it make more
sense for an insurance scheme to cover unexpected or catastrophic costs, rather
than routine ones, and for people to pay routine costs directly (and thus have
some direct market influence over the cost and quality of things like flu shots,
wart removals, earwax cleaning and so forth)?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Sure, but today my access to certain procedures is limited by my income and my insurance, so I don't know that it's any better in practice. (...) Well, then we're back to the brain surgeon vs. hole-digger, aren't we? (...) Yeah, I'm not sure (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) That's kind of how the knucklehead had characterized it. In my view, it's a question of most-widespread benefit. If 90% of the population has access to good health care, then that's great, even if access to certain procedures is limited. On (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
