www.ditl.org

sunnyside wrote:

Rochey wrote: Source on that? In what way is US private healthcare better than UK or Canadian private healthcare?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it UK/Canadian private healthcare is a totally separate thing, and you can't just take your little ID card there and get anything. It's for pure out of pocket health care, using it is like not having any health insurance at all, which I don't think you're arguing for, so that seems a bit like a bait and switch.

Please feel corrected. The NHS is everything to all people. It will treat anything you can bring to it. You do not need to bring an ID card to get anything you simply turn up and you are seen to. This goes for emergency room stuff to general practice stuff (ie your family doctor) to see a specialist you need a referral from your GP. If s/he doesn't think you have x then he probably wont send you to see the specialist at least not without doing some investigations anyhow. The other thing about the NHS is that medications are available at a fixed cost. Currently I think it's about £8 per item. That goes for any medication, no matter what it's real cost it, and no matter what the quantity you are given. Also, the poor (on benifits), the young (still in school) and the old (pension age) get all meds for free.

Lets just get this straight there is no limit to what you can get treated for, any cancer, any transplant etc. A good example of this is the unit in our hospital. They are world leaders in brain surgery. They treat people on the NHS for free. They also have people fly in from the US to get private treatment in the unit. I know the people in the unit very well as we helped them run a study. It is that simple, there is no bait and switch.

In any case what I did find is evidence that the US system one average beats the UK and Canadian systems on average (at least for what they'd track).

Since so far all evidence anyone has found indicates a superior American system (at least for the 85% of the population with access), I'd say the onus is on you to show some high tech procedures or somesuch where UK or Canada wins out.

I don't understand what you mean by better. We have at least 100% of the population covered, I say at least as we will treat people from the EU if they're on holiday, as they will with us. There are world leading units within the NHS that Americans come to because the treatment is better, as there are units in the US that are better than those in the UK. Let's give you another example. In the hospital that has just been closed in Oxford (when we moved to our new site, they did all the work for Penicilin. Yes, it was discovered by Pasture but it was developed and tested in the UK by the NHS. There's a documentary about it if you want to go look. If it wasn't for that unit there would be no antibiotics.

The kids vs strangers comment is because of that. Even if you wouldn't admit the US system is better if we had a cure for all cancers, nobody in any of these discussions, Republican, Democrat, or reporter, is claiming that the Canadian or UK system of hospitals are better equipped or even equally equipped compared to US hospitals. Probably because they'd get totalled by the fairly easy to find MRI and other studies.

Therefore the choice many Americans feel the government is about it make is between the uninsured getting better care or their child getting rapid care instead of waiting weeks for treatments which may result in them dying when they otherwise wouldn't.

Again I'm done finding sources for you as you seem apt to simply ignore them. You find something where the UK or Canada comes out ahead. And no I'm not just talking about money. Cavemen have you beat there, and even in the US everybody has free access to caveman treatments (a little mud and leaves perhaps).

OK, you seem to have flipped now. I think I'll leave you in the corner dribbling.

What can you get in the US that you can't in Canada?

Insulin pumps...

At least their easier to get... if you willing to pay of course.

Obviously certain things are going to be easier to get if you have private healthcare in the US, but what about if you have private healthcare in Canada?

This I'm not sure on (and Kendall will probably correct me if I'm wrong) but I think its harder to get some brand name medications in Canada.

stitch626 wrote:This I'm not sure on (and Kendall will probably correct me if I'm wrong) but I think its harder to get some brand name medications in Canada.

Often generics have exactly the same ingredients and work just as well anyway.

Monroe wrote:

stitch626 wrote:This I'm not sure on (and Kendall will probably correct me if I'm wrong) but I think its harder to get some brand name medications in Canada.

Often generics have exactly the same ingredients and work just as well anyway.

False. Half the time, my family cannot take generic medications. Usage could kill us (or does nothing to help, so why take it).

For example, I cannot take any generic antibiotics.

Then there was when I used a generic allergy medicine (it was a while back so I can't remember which one), did nothing to help.

The difference is what they use to bind it together.

stitch626 wrote:This I'm not sure on (and Kendall will probably correct me if I'm wrong) but I think its harder to get some brand name medications in Canada.

No, it's not. Provided they have been approved for use then you can get brand name if you want. Pharmacists are required by law to offer the patient generic brands first though, as they are cheaper. And yes, you can get insulin pumps here.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

stitch626 wrote:This I'm not sure on (and Kendall will probably correct me if I'm wrong) but I think its harder to get some brand name medications in Canada.

No, it's not. Provided they have been approved for use then you can get brand name if you want. Pharmacists are required by law to offer the patient generic brands first though, as they are cheaper. And yes, you can get insulin pumps here.

Ah thank you Kendall. So its that they push the generics first.

As to the insulin pumps, I'm only going by relatives' reports, not personal experience. It seems many of the doctors (at least in their area) are very hesitant about them.

stitch626 wrote:
Ah thank you Kendall. So its that they push the generics first.

Yes, they have an obligation to ensure their patients aren't getting pooched financially.

As to the insulin pumps, I'm only going by relatives' reports, not personal experience. It seems many of the doctors (at least in their area) are very hesitant about them.

They are relatively new are they not and require a surgical procedure to work, correct? A great many doctors are reluctant to embrace new technologies or surgery if the person can function without them. I'm not an expert on diabetes so I can only comment in general terms.

I'm not an expert either, I'm just going by reletives info.

But yes, it is rather new (I think) and does require minor surgery (again, I think).


Also, you mention the need of the patient. Need as in, to survive, or need as in to have a better quality of life? Because there are many diabetics who don't need a pump to survive but it would make life much better.
Similar to a person who has a damaged hip and can't walk. They don't need hip surgery to survive, but it would make life better.

Both of which are available on the NHS, however they're (obviously) lower priority than operations to deal with life-threatening conditions.

stitch626 wrote:I'm not an expert either, I'm just going by reletives info.

But yes, it is rather new (I think) and does require minor surgery (again, I think).


Also, you mention the need of the patient. Need as in, to survive, or need as in to have a better quality of life? Because there are many diabetics who don't need a pump to survive but it would make life much better.
Similar to a person who has a damaged hip and can't walk. They don't need hip surgery to survive, but it would make life better.

Yes it might make the patients life better but you also have to weigh that with the risks of surgery. Any surgery carries the risk of harmful side affects that need to be weighed against the possible gain.

Cpl Kendall wrote:...Any surgery carries the risk of harmful side affects...

Such as death...

Tsukiyumi wrote:
Such as death...

Yeah but why let that get in the way of things?

As an example, the surgery to repair my ACLs has a success rate of only 30%, but there is always a chance I'd die during surgery... Risk/benefit analysis says no dice.

For now, at least. With stem cells, they could theoretically clone me some new ligaments; no rejection, and a much better chance of success. Then I might take that risk.