Health Outcomes in Canada v US

[Chris]

my very first post on these boards back in 2008....unfortunately some of the links dont work anymore cause its from 7 or so months ago, however the facts are there.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/59791-universal-health.html


""Ontario recorded the shortest waiting time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment), at 15 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada"

25 weeks to see your MD. We complain about having to wait 45 minutes in the doctor's office.

How about the wait tile from the MD to a specialist?

"The First Wait: Between General Practitioner and Specialist Consultation

The waiting time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks), Manitoba (8.2 weeks), and British Columbia (8.8 weeks).

The longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in New Brunswick (14.7 weeks), Newfoundland (13.5 weeks), and Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks)." "

No link.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Andrew2382]

ooo wait found the new link...they moved it

here you go

eat a dick

Wait times for Canadians needing surgery hit an all time high of more than 18 weeks in 2007

Total Waiting Time

Ontario recorded the shortest waiting time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment), at 15 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada.

The First Wait: Between General Practitioner and Specialist Consultation

The waiting time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks), Manitoba (8.2 weeks), and British Columbia (8.8 weeks).

The longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in New Brunswick (14.7 weeks), Newfoundland (13.5 weeks), and Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks).

The Second Wait: Between Specialist Consultation and Treatment

The waiting time between specialist consultation and treatment—the second stage of waiting—increased to 9.1 weeks from 9 weeks in 2006. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits were found in Ontario (7.3 weeks), Alberta (8.9 weeks), and Quebec (9.4 weeks), while the longest waits were in Saskatchewan (16.5 weeks), Nova Scotia (13.6 weeks), and Manitoba (12.0 weeks).

Waiting by Specialty

Among the various specialties, the shortest total waits (between referral by a general practitioner and treatment) occurred in medical oncology (4.2 weeks), radiation oncology (5.7 weeks), and elective cardiovascular surgery (8.4 weeks). Patients waited longest between a GP referral and orthopaedic surgery (38.1 weeks), plastic surgery (34.8 weeks), and neurosurgery (27.2 weeks).

Between 2006 and 2007, large increases occurred in the waits for internal medicine (additional 4.9 weeks), gynaecology (additional 2.1 weeks), urology (additional 1.9 weeks), and otolaryngology (additional 1.8 weeks). Smaller increases were noted in the wait times for radiation oncology (up by .7 weeks) and elective cardiovascular surgery (up by .4 weeks). These increases were offset by improvements for patients receiving treatment in neurosurgery (4.5 week decrease), ophthalmology (2.5 week decrease), orthopaedic surgery (2.2 week decrease), medical oncology (.7 week decrease), plastic surgery (.6 week decrease), and general surgery (.5 week decrease).

Waiting for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Technology

As in past years, patients also experienced significant waiting times for various diagnostic technologies across Canada: computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound scans.

The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia had the shortest wait for CT scans (4 weeks), while the longest wait occurred in Manitoba (8 weeks). The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks). The median wait for ultrasound was 3.9 weeks across Canada. Alberta and Ontario displayed the shortest wait for ultrasound (2 weeks), while Prince Edward Island and Manitoba exhibited the longest ultrasound waiting time (10 weeks).

 

[KittenKoder]

Chris only likes to look at a tiny portion of a picture, big pictures confuse him. He also neglects that all these places pay outrageous taxes compared to the US.

 

[Chris]

You are quoting a right wing think tank? Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,haaaa!!!!

The "Fraser Institute".....

The Institute has been a source of controversy from the beginning. Some charge that Michael Walker, an economist from the University of Western Ontario, helped set up the institute after he received financial backing from forestry giant MacMillan-Bloedel, largely to counter British Columbia's NDP government.[4] then led by Premier Dave Barrett. The relationship, though, was short-lived as MacMillian-Bloedel broke ties with the Institute when it published a book opposing wage and price controls.[citation needed] The CEO of MacMillian-Bloedel at the time supported wage and price controls.

Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have claimed the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method. Institute supporters claims their research is peer-reviewed both by internal and external experts.[5] The Institute's Environmental Indicators (6th Ed) has an academic article devoted to its flaws: McKenzie and Rees (2007), "An analysis of a brownlash report", Ecological Economics 61(2-3), pp505-515.

In 2002, a study by Neil Brooks of the left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives claimed the Institute's widely promoted Tax Freedom Day, described as the date each year when the average Canadian's income no longer goes to paying government taxes, included flawed accounting. The Brooks study stated that the Institute's methods of accounting excluded several important forms of income and inflated tax figures, moving the date nearly two months later in the year.[6] The Institute counters that Professor Brooks confuses the aggregate tax burden with the tax burden borne by those who actually pay tax.[citation needed]

In 1999, the Fraser Institute was attacked by health professionals and scientists[citation needed] for sponsoring two conferences on the tobacco industry entitled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." Critics charged the Institute was associating itself with the tobacco industry's many attempts to discredit authentic scientific work.
In 2004, the Institute published a Crime & Drug Policy paper suggesting the prohibition on marijuana cannot be sustained with the present technology of production and enforcement.[7]
Fraser Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Andrew2382]

lmao

coming from someone where 90% of your links are from moveon, the huffington post or ourfuture.org?

god you are just fucking stupid.

and also from your own link you fucking tard

The relationship, though, was short-lived as MacMillian-Bloedel broke ties with the Institute when it published a book opposing wage and price controls

and the Institute published a Crime & Drug Policy paper suggesting the prohibition on marijuana cannot be sustained with the present technology of production and enforcement.[7]????

OK AND? Guess what...they are fucking right. The prohibiton of marijuana can't be sustained with the present technology....wanna know how I know.

CAUSE WEED IS THE MOST COMMONLY USED DRUG IN THE FUCKING WORLD!

 

[Chris]

lmao

coming from someone where 90% of your links are from moveon, the huffington post or ourfuture.org?

god you are just fucking stupid.

and also from your own link you fucking tard

The relationship, though, was short-lived as MacMillian-Bloedel broke ties with the Institute when it published a book opposing wage and price controls

and the Institute published a Crime & Drug Policy paper suggesting the prohibition on marijuana cannot be sustained with the present technology of production and enforcement.[7]????

OK AND? Guess what...they are fucking right. The prohibiton of marijuana can't be sustained with the present technology....wanna know how I know.

CAUSE WEED IS THE MOST COMMONLY USED DRUG IN THE FUCKING WORLD!

Pro tobacco, pro weed, and anti healthcare.

It all fits together!

 

[Andrew2382]

lol so being realistic and having common fucking sense and saying that whatever techniques countries are using for marijuana prohibition isn't realistic and can't work with the means we have is being pro weed? God you get dumber with every post you fucking write


And once again you havent got a clue...come back to me when you read their report on tobacoo...it wasn't about being pro tobacco it was abput the PRO'S AND CON'S OF TOBACCO REGULATION

you fucking idiot

 

[Political Junky]

More info:

Hoover Institution - Hoover Digest - Here’s a Second Opinion

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America’s health care system.

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.

3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:

Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).

Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.

More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).

Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”

6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”

8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.

10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

For notes, charts and other stuff:

http://www.[B]ncpa[/B].org/pub/ba649

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is an American non-profit conservative think tank partially financed by the insurance industry. NCPA states that its goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, education and environmental regulation.

The NCPA was founded by its current president, John C. Goodman, in 1983. Its first offices were at the University of Dallas. It now has a Dallas office and a Washington, D.C. office. Its revenue in 2006 was $5.1 million. The NCPA website says that 62% of its income comes from foundations, 21% from corporations, and 17% from individuals. Its foundation sponsors include the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Earhart Foundation and the Armstrong Foundation.

In 2007, the NCPA compiled a point-by-point rebuttal to Michael Moore's film Sicko.

John C. Goodman is a libertarian economist and founder and president of the Dallas based, conservative think-tank the National Center for Policy Analysis. The Wall Street Journal called Goodman the "father of Health Savings Accounts.

He is the author of nine books, including Patient Power: The Free-Enterprise Alternative to Clinton's Health Plan (ISBN 1-882577-10-8) which was instrumental in defeating Hillary Clinton's health care plan in 1993.
wiki

Hoover did wonders for the American people, as I recall.
The name Hoovervilles ring a bell?

 

[Toro]

ooo wait found the new link...they moved it

here you go

eat a dick

Wait times for Canadians needing surgery hit an all time high of more than 18 weeks in 2007

Total Waiting Time

Ontario recorded the shortest waiting time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment), at 15 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada.

The First Wait: Between General Practitioner and Specialist Consultation

The waiting time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks), Manitoba (8.2 weeks), and British Columbia (8.8 weeks).

The longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in New Brunswick (14.7 weeks), Newfoundland (13.5 weeks), and Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks).

The Second Wait: Between Specialist Consultation and Treatment

The waiting time between specialist consultation and treatment—the second stage of waiting—increased to 9.1 weeks from 9 weeks in 2006. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits were found in Ontario (7.3 weeks), Alberta (8.9 weeks), and Quebec (9.4 weeks), while the longest waits were in Saskatchewan (16.5 weeks), Nova Scotia (13.6 weeks), and Manitoba (12.0 weeks).

Waiting by Specialty

Among the various specialties, the shortest total waits (between referral by a general practitioner and treatment) occurred in medical oncology (4.2 weeks), radiation oncology (5.7 weeks), and elective cardiovascular surgery (8.4 weeks). Patients waited longest between a GP referral and orthopaedic surgery (38.1 weeks), plastic surgery (34.8 weeks), and neurosurgery (27.2 weeks).

Between 2006 and 2007, large increases occurred in the waits for internal medicine (additional 4.9 weeks), gynaecology (additional 2.1 weeks), urology (additional 1.9 weeks), and otolaryngology (additional 1.8 weeks). Smaller increases were noted in the wait times for radiation oncology (up by .7 weeks) and elective cardiovascular surgery (up by .4 weeks). These increases were offset by improvements for patients receiving treatment in neurosurgery (4.5 week decrease), ophthalmology (2.5 week decrease), orthopaedic surgery (2.2 week decrease), medical oncology (.7 week decrease), plastic surgery (.6 week decrease), and general surgery (.5 week decrease).

Waiting for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Technology

As in past years, patients also experienced significant waiting times for various diagnostic technologies across Canada: computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound scans.

The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia had the shortest wait for CT scans (4 weeks), while the longest wait occurred in Manitoba (8 weeks). The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks). The median wait for ultrasound was 3.9 weeks across Canada. Alberta and Ontario displayed the shortest wait for ultrasound (2 weeks), while Prince Edward Island and Manitoba exhibited the longest ultrasound waiting time (10 weeks).

Here is the updated link for 2008.

Surgical wait times down but Canadians still waiting more than 17 weeks for treatment

The Fraser Institute is a right-wing libertarian think tank but their work is pretty good. Attacking the institute as opposed to the statistics discredits those who are making the counter argument.

Has anyone ever done a study on wait times in the US?

 

[editec]

My wait time to see most specialist at the VA has been, thus far, about two weeks.

Far better, I note than the wait times I dealt with when I had private insurance and used private medicine.

 

[Old Rocks]

ooo wait found the new link...they moved it

here you go

eat a dick

Wait times for Canadians needing surgery hit an all time high of more than 18 weeks in 2007

Total Waiting Time

Ontario recorded the shortest waiting time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment), at 15 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada.

The First Wait: Between General Practitioner and Specialist Consultation

The waiting time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks), Manitoba (8.2 weeks), and British Columbia (8.8 weeks).

The longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in New Brunswick (14.7 weeks), Newfoundland (13.5 weeks), and Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks).

The Second Wait: Between Specialist Consultation and Treatment

The waiting time between specialist consultation and treatment—the second stage of waiting—increased to 9.1 weeks from 9 weeks in 2006. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits were found in Ontario (7.3 weeks), Alberta (8.9 weeks), and Quebec (9.4 weeks), while the longest waits were in Saskatchewan (16.5 weeks), Nova Scotia (13.6 weeks), and Manitoba (12.0 weeks).

Waiting by Specialty

Among the various specialties, the shortest total waits (between referral by a general practitioner and treatment) occurred in medical oncology (4.2 weeks), radiation oncology (5.7 weeks), and elective cardiovascular surgery (8.4 weeks). Patients waited longest between a GP referral and orthopaedic surgery (38.1 weeks), plastic surgery (34.8 weeks), and neurosurgery (27.2 weeks).

Between 2006 and 2007, large increases occurred in the waits for internal medicine (additional 4.9 weeks), gynaecology (additional 2.1 weeks), urology (additional 1.9 weeks), and otolaryngology (additional 1.8 weeks). Smaller increases were noted in the wait times for radiation oncology (up by .7 weeks) and elective cardiovascular surgery (up by .4 weeks). These increases were offset by improvements for patients receiving treatment in neurosurgery (4.5 week decrease), ophthalmology (2.5 week decrease), orthopaedic surgery (2.2 week decrease), medical oncology (.7 week decrease), plastic surgery (.6 week decrease), and general surgery (.5 week decrease).

Waiting for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Technology

As in past years, patients also experienced significant waiting times for various diagnostic technologies across Canada: computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound scans.

The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia had the shortest wait for CT scans (4 weeks), while the longest wait occurred in Manitoba (8 weeks). The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks). The median wait for ultrasound was 3.9 weeks across Canada. Alberta and Ontario displayed the shortest wait for ultrasound (2 weeks), while Prince Edward Island and Manitoba exhibited the longest ultrasound waiting time (10 weeks).

Here is the updated link for 2008.

Surgical wait times down but Canadians still waiting more than 17 weeks for treatment

The Fraser Institute is a right-wing libertarian think tank but their work is pretty good. Attacking the institute as opposed to the statistics discredits those who are making the counter argument.

Has anyone ever done a study on wait times in the US?

Well, there would have to be two tiers in that study. Those that have very good insurance, through their jobs, as I do, and those that have no insurance. Often those with no insurance get a cursory look, and aspirin, a big bill, and are sent home to die. That is simple a fact of life in the US at present.

 

[editec]

ooo wait found the new link...they moved it

here you go

eat a dick

Wait times for Canadians needing surgery hit an all time high of more than 18 weeks in 2007

Total Waiting Time

Ontario recorded the shortest waiting time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment), at 15 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada.

The First Wait: Between General Practitioner and Specialist Consultation

The waiting time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks), Manitoba (8.2 weeks), and British Columbia (8.8 weeks).

The longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in New Brunswick (14.7 weeks), Newfoundland (13.5 weeks), and Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks).

The Second Wait: Between Specialist Consultation and Treatment

The waiting time between specialist consultation and treatment—the second stage of waiting—increased to 9.1 weeks from 9 weeks in 2006. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits were found in Ontario (7.3 weeks), Alberta (8.9 weeks), and Quebec (9.4 weeks), while the longest waits were in Saskatchewan (16.5 weeks), Nova Scotia (13.6 weeks), and Manitoba (12.0 weeks).

Waiting by Specialty

Among the various specialties, the shortest total waits (between referral by a general practitioner and treatment) occurred in medical oncology (4.2 weeks), radiation oncology (5.7 weeks), and elective cardiovascular surgery (8.4 weeks). Patients waited longest between a GP referral and orthopaedic surgery (38.1 weeks), plastic surgery (34.8 weeks), and neurosurgery (27.2 weeks).

Between 2006 and 2007, large increases occurred in the waits for internal medicine (additional 4.9 weeks), gynaecology (additional 2.1 weeks), urology (additional 1.9 weeks), and otolaryngology (additional 1.8 weeks). Smaller increases were noted in the wait times for radiation oncology (up by .7 weeks) and elective cardiovascular surgery (up by .4 weeks). These increases were offset by improvements for patients receiving treatment in neurosurgery (4.5 week decrease), ophthalmology (2.5 week decrease), orthopaedic surgery (2.2 week decrease), medical oncology (.7 week decrease), plastic surgery (.6 week decrease), and general surgery (.5 week decrease).

Waiting for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Technology

As in past years, patients also experienced significant waiting times for various diagnostic technologies across Canada: computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound scans.

The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia had the shortest wait for CT scans (4 weeks), while the longest wait occurred in Manitoba (8 weeks). The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks). The median wait for ultrasound was 3.9 weeks across Canada. Alberta and Ontario displayed the shortest wait for ultrasound (2 weeks), while Prince Edward Island and Manitoba exhibited the longest ultrasound waiting time (10 weeks).

Here is the updated link for 2008.

Surgical wait times down but Canadians still waiting more than 17 weeks for treatment

The Fraser Institute is a right-wing libertarian think tank but their work is pretty good. Attacking the institute as opposed to the statistics discredits those who are making the counter argument.

Has anyone ever done a study on wait times in the US?

Well, there would have to be two tiers in that study. Those that have very good insurance, through their jobs, as I do, and those that have no insurance. Often those with no insurance get a cursory look, and aspirin, a big bill, and are sent home to die. That is simple a fact of life in the US at present.

They get ASPIRIN?!!

Those parasites don't deserve aspirin.

 

[Immanuel]

Well, there would have to be two tiers in that study. Those that have very good insurance, through their jobs, as I do, and those that have no insurance. Often those with no insurance get a cursory look, and aspirin, a big bill, and are sent home to die. That is simple a fact of life in the US at present.

That is not technically correct. They get minimal services to keep them alive, they get bills they won't/can't pay and our insurance costs go up to cover the doctor's losses and then they are sent home.

However, you are correct the way the poor are treated is criminal if you ask me.

Healthcare Reform is necessary. The only problem is that Government controling health care is more likely to make things worse rather than better.

Immie

 

[Andrew2382]

well I have been on both sides of the fence. I have always had insurance and the wait time for me to see a specialist has never been more then 10-14 days. Sure there are cases where you have to wait much longer...for example my son was put on the autism spectrum on the very low end.

He has a pediatric neurologist that he can see in 4 days if i call....we made an appointment with a guy down here called doctor tushman who is some world renowned doctor when it comes to Autism and such and it took 6 weeks. TBH I liked the original doctor more.

When I switched jobs there was a time frame of about 3 weeks I didnt have insurance...in that time I developed a kidney stone and went to the hospital cause the pain was unbearable.

I got no different treatment then if I had normal insurance...They kept me there for 5 hours, I got a catscan, and pain meds and I passed it. However, the bill was really high, just over 2 grand it cost me

 

[Chris]

Some healthcare experiences I've had....

My mother had a stroke that rendered her completely unconscious. She was in a for profit hospital. After about ten days her coverage was about to run out, so they dumped her to a non profit hospital an hour away. I went to the administrator to ask about it. She gave me some bullshit excuse, but it was obviously all about the money. Then my father, who was 80 at the time, had to drive an hour each way to visit her. She died within a week.

Years later my father called me and said he wasn't feeling well. I said, Dad, how many drugs are you taking? He said, six. I said, Dad, stop taking the drugs and see if you feel any better. He did and recovered nicely. That was five years ago.

This year my father, who is now 89, calls me and tells me he wasn't feeling well, so he went to the doctor. Over the course of time, the doctor ordered 3 CAT scans for him and couldn't figure out what was wrong. The doctor wanted to order a fourth CAT scan, but my father said, no. My father figures the cost of the scans was $20,000. Now my father feels fine.

 

[Andrew2382]

so dont listen to doctors?

got it

 

[Harry Dresden]

I love how the right lies.

Every other industialized nation has a national healthcare system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay admin costs, marketing costs, and profit for 150 different insurance companies.

In America the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door.

Is this a great country or what?

Chris you are absolutely right...one payer is the only way to go....thats why i use Blue Shield....the only Ins. Co. i need....your a genius...i dont see why no one else can see that....

 

[Harry Dresden]

You are quoting a right wing think tank? Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,haaaa!!!!

The "Fraser Institute".....

The Institute has been a source of controversy from the beginning. Some charge that Michael Walker, an economist from the University of Western Ontario, helped set up the institute after he received financial backing from forestry giant MacMillan-Bloedel, largely to counter British Columbia's NDP government.[4] then led by Premier Dave Barrett. The relationship, though, was short-lived as MacMillian-Bloedel broke ties with the Institute when it published a book opposing wage and price controls.[citation needed] The CEO of MacMillian-Bloedel at the time supported wage and price controls.

Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have claimed the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method. Institute supporters claims their research is peer-reviewed both by internal and external experts.[5] The Institute's Environmental Indicators (6th Ed) has an academic article devoted to its flaws: McKenzie and Rees (2007), "An analysis of a brownlash report", Ecological Economics 61(2-3), pp505-515.

In 2002, a study by Neil Brooks of the left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives claimed the Institute's widely promoted Tax Freedom Day, described as the date each year when the average Canadian's income no longer goes to paying government taxes, included flawed accounting. The Brooks study stated that the Institute's methods of accounting excluded several important forms of income and inflated tax figures, moving the date nearly two months later in the year.[6] The Institute counters that Professor Brooks confuses the aggregate tax burden with the tax burden borne by those who actually pay tax.[citation needed]

In 1999, the Fraser Institute was attacked by health professionals and scientists[citation needed] for sponsoring two conferences on the tobacco industry entitled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." Critics charged the Institute was associating itself with the tobacco industry's many attempts to discredit authentic scientific work.
In 2004, the Institute published a Crime & Drug Policy paper suggesting the prohibition on marijuana cannot be sustained with the present technology of production and enforcement.[7]
Fraser Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

oh so your link is the unbiased link.....oh thanks Chris....your a fucking genius....

 

[Harry Dresden]

lmao

coming from someone where 90% of your links are from moveon, the huffington post or ourfuture.org?

god you are just fucking stupid.

and also from your own link you fucking tard

The relationship, though, was short-lived as MacMillian-Bloedel broke ties with the Institute when it published a book opposing wage and price controls

and the Institute published a Crime & Drug Policy paper suggesting the prohibition on marijuana cannot be sustained with the present technology of production and enforcement.[7]????

OK AND? Guess what...they are fucking right. The prohibiton of marijuana can't be sustained with the present technology....wanna know how I know.

CAUSE WEED IS THE MOST COMMONLY USED DRUG IN THE FUCKING WORLD!

Pro tobacco, pro weed, and anti healthcare.

It all fits together!

you got it Chris....dam i dont know why i did not get this sooner.....what else you got?....

 

[Chris]

lmao

coming from someone where 90% of your links are from moveon, the huffington post or ourfuture.org?

god you are just fucking stupid.

and also from your own link you fucking tard

The relationship, though, was short-lived as MacMillian-Bloedel broke ties with the Institute when it published a book opposing wage and price controls

and the Institute published a Crime & Drug Policy paper suggesting the prohibition on marijuana cannot be sustained with the present technology of production and enforcement.[7]????

OK AND? Guess what...they are fucking right. The prohibiton of marijuana can't be sustained with the present technology....wanna know how I know.

CAUSE WEED IS THE MOST COMMONLY USED DRUG IN THE FUCKING WORLD!

Pro tobacco, pro weed, and anti healthcare.

It all fits together!

you got it Chris....dam i dont know why i did not get this sooner.....what else you got?....

Every other industrialized nation has a national healthcare system.

Why?