http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070701/ap_on_he_me/sicko_us_fact_check;_ylt=AtKJncP4MpKg3V3hNJ1cVYvMWM0F
"Moore's 'Sicko' gives accused little say
By KEVIN FREKING and LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writers
Sun Jul 1, 1:52 AM ET
...
But one aspect missing from the film is the defense. Do not expect to hear anyone speak well of the care they received in the U.S. On the other hand, patients and doctors from Canada, Britain, France and Cuba marvel at their health care.
...
Moore also takes on the notion that universal health coverage leads to longer waits in hospital emergency rooms and to see doctors.
He visited a crowded emergency room in Canada and asked patients how long they had to wait. One said 20 minutes; a second said 45 minutes. "I got help right away," a third said.
Yet a recent report from the Commonwealth Fund indicates that wait times in the U.S. are clearly shorter than they are in Canada.
In all areas measured, the U.S. fared better than Canada. For example, 24 percent of Canadians waited four hours or longer to be seen in the emergency room versus 12 percent in the U.S. The difference was more acute when it came time to see a specialist. Fifty-seven percent of Canadians waited four weeks or longer to see a specialist versus 23 percent in the U.S.
The Commonwealth Fund also monitored wait times in Britain, which has universal health care. The wait times for emergency room care were comparable to those in the U.S.. There was a big difference when it came time to see a specialist — 60 percent in Britain waited four weeks or longer.
The film concludes with a trip to Cuba where Moore seeks care for a group of workers who have experienced health problems after responding to 2001 terrorist attacks. They are greeted with open arms at a hospital in Havana and given what appears to be top-notch care that they could not get in the U.S. The question left for viewers to ponder is whether Cubans are given such red carpet treatment, too. "
Originally posted by zeeblebotMaybe wait times are shorter in the US because....say....a fair percentage of the US population (about 50 million uninsured) doesn't have the ability to see a doctor?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070701/ap_on_he_me/sicko_us_fact_check;_ylt=AtKJncP4MpKg3V3hNJ1cVYvMWM0F
"Moore's 'Sicko' gives accused little say
By KEVIN FREKING and LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writers
Sun Jul 1, 1:52 AM ET
...
But one aspect missing from the film is the defense. Do not expect to hear anyone speak well of the care they ...[text shortened]... left for viewers to ponder is whether Cubans are given such red carpet treatment, too. "
When I was a student in Germany for a year I could always see a doctor much faster than in the US, and I only ever had to fill out those damn forms just one time.
Soothfast is roughly right.
It's like comparing waiting lists in France and England. England has (or had, I'm talking 2 years ago now) longer waiting lists than France.
So, some people will say: "Hey...that commie NHS doesn't work."
However, per head of the population, France spent 2x as much money on health (insurance) than Britain did.
Where the waiting lists two times longer? Of course they weren't.
In the US immiedate health care for those with coverage is good.
For those without coverage...there's nothin'.
For those with chronic disorders it becomes increasingly barbaric.
That's the difference.
Originally posted by shavixmirI agree... the unfortunate saps with chronic disorders are continually fed more and more drugs and are guinea pigs for many new therapies/treatments.
Soothfast is roughly right.
It's like comparing waiting lists in France and England. England has (or had, I'm talking 2 years ago now) longer waiting lists than France.
So, some people will say: "Hey...that commie NHS doesn't work."
However, per head of the population, France spent 2x as much money on health (insurance) than Britain did.
Wher ...[text shortened]... ose with chronic disorders it becomes increasingly barbaric.
That's the difference.
Originally posted by lepomisI pay $925/ mo. for a pretty good health care plan ( 2 people). That's approx $11,000/yr. plus a copay to see a primary physician, plus Specialist and emergency room. It gives me full coverage.
I agree... the unfortunate saps with chronic disorders are continually fed more and more drugs and are guinea pigs for many new therapies/treatments.
If the US went to a National Healthcare System how much would it cost me in taxes per year to get the SAME coverage?
I can now see my Primary Physician within a day or two or go immediately to the Emergency room Hosp. I can get an appt. with a Specialist within a week unless it's a real emergency. I can get a heart scan and have open heart surgery within 48hrs or sooner if i,m on my last breath.
How would Nat'l Health care compare to this? Our system is draining my savings, but for now i can still afford it until i get on Federal supplied Medicare.
I pity the poor and even middle class that can't afford any health care. I've been there!
Originally posted by smw6869If you think of nationalized healthcare as just another insurance company, the cost of your coverage should be the same... if the same services are supplied. The only way to make it cheaper is to either pay the doctors less or give you less coverage.
I pay $925/ mo. for a pretty good health care plan ( 2 people). That's approx $11,000/yr. plus a copay to see a primary physician, plus Specialist and emergency room. It gives me full coverage.
If the US went to a National Healthcare System how much would it cost me in taxes per year to get the SAME coverage?
I can now see my Primary Physician within ...[text shortened]...
I pity the poor and even middle class that can't afford any health care. I've been there!
Right now many doctors in the US consider Medicare and Medicaid patients as charity cases... if all patients where like that, the doc would go find some other way to make a living.
As far as waiting goes... I have never noticed a problem if it was an emergency. If your looking to get your knee replaced... then you might a have to wait to get in.