ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 15:56:08 -0400, "Fred" said:


On 18-Sep-2009, David LaCourse wrote:

I'm going fishing on the Rapid for ten days.

This is the best post of this thread.
Have a good time,

I miss Northern Maine - We had great times

Do you know Chesuncook Lake?

Fred

Sure do. Ever heard of Fawn Lake in Montana? Ask Fortenberry about
it. He was there once.

Dave

ot health care
 

Giles wrote:
On Sep 18, 2:48 pm, Tim Lysyk wrote:


Why do so many Americans go to Mexico for cancer treatments?

And to Mexico.....and Canada.....for drugs?

g.
taking bets on whether or not you'll get a rational response,
Tim? :)


Gave up on that a long time ago.

Tim Lysyk

ot health care
 

In message 2009091807474016807-dplacourse@aolcom, David LaCourse
writes
On 2009-09-17 21:48:48 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

Do you think people in Canada or Great Britain do not get to select
their own doctors?

I don't know, but I do know they seem to have to wait longer for
certain procedures. Time was very important in my case. It had to be
done NOW and was. I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.



Pirates get the best - if they take off their eye patches first :-)
--
Bill Grey

ot health care
 

On Sep 18, 4:01*pm, Tim Lysyk wrote:
Giles wrote:
On Sep 18, 2:48 pm, Tim Lysyk wrote:

Why do so many Americans go to Mexico for cancer treatments?

And to Mexico.....and Canada.....for drugs?

g.
taking bets on whether or not you'll get a rational response,
Tim? * * * *:)

Gave up on that a long time ago.

Tim Lysyk

Not without ample reason.

g.

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 10:40:34 -0400, Lazarus Cooke
said:

In article ,
wrote:


Amazingly, the US manages to come even behind Cuba (5.82).

HOLY ****!! THAT IS AMAZING!! Um....why?


I think that it IS amazing.

Since you're a lawyer I'll answer what might be a rhetorical question.

I find it astonishing that of two countries right beside each other,
the rich one, with around $47,000 per head GDP, manages to have a worse
infant mortality rate than the poor one, with around $9,500 per head
GDP. Especially since the rich one regularly castigates the poor one's
government.

What proportion Republican voters do you think would get the right
answer if asked 'In which country has a newborn baby a better chance of
living - USA or Cuba'?

Lazarus

Lazarus, the difference between the IMR in the States and elsewhere
could be accounted for because lots of girls do not see a doctor. My
own neice did not see a doctor, trying to hide it from my brother. She
had the child and everything was ok, but she took a chance. There are
many young girls in the inner city that do not see doctors. I see them
every Tuesday and Thursday at the Food Pantry I help run. It is not
because they *can't* see a doctor; they simply choose not to. In the
States, it is illegal for a doctor to tell a minor child's parents that
she is pregnant. It's also illegal to tell them she is on birth
control. I would be curious to see the stats of IMR in the US before,
say, 1960.

You most certainly are wrong if you think that Cuba's health care is
better than the US, or any European country. Poor health care in the
US is not the cause for the IMR. I should think drugs, alcohol,
smoking, and life style are more the cause than anything else,
including fear of someone finding out about the pregnancy. Some of the
women I see are on drugs, and they couldn't care less about themselves
OR their children. If their health is bad, and from what I've seen it
is, their offspring hardly have a chance to survive They're 25 or so
and look like they're 50. Not a pretty thing.

Also, consider this (from my wife). Technology has increased so much
in our medicine that previous births that would have been stillborns or
naturally lost during the pregnancy are now making it, at least through
birth, but die because of the complications that would have naturally
aborted the child.

So, using the IMR to compare health care as a whole is not a very
accurate benchmark. IMO anyway.

Dave

ot health care
 

On Sep 18, 4:23*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-18 10:40:34 -0400, Lazarus Cooke
said:





In article ,
wrote:

Amazingly, the US manages to come even behind Cuba (5.82).

HOLY ****!! *THAT IS AMAZING!! *Um....why?

I think that it IS amazing.

Since you're a lawyer I'll answer what might be a rhetorical question.

I find it astonishing that of two countries right beside each other,
the rich one, with around $47,000 per head GDP, manages to have a worse
infant mortality rate than the poor one, with around $9,500 per head
GDP. Especially since the rich one regularly castigates the poor one's
government.

What proportion Republican voters do you think would get the right
answer if asked 'In which country has a newborn baby a better chance of
living - *USA or Cuba'?

Lazarus

Lazarus, the difference between the IMR in the States and elsewhere
could be accounted for because lots of girls do not see a doctor. *My
own neice did not see a doctor, trying to hide it from my brother. *She
had the child and everything was ok, but she took a chance. *There are
many young girls in the inner city that do not see doctors. *I see them
every Tuesday and Thursday at the Food Pantry I help run. *It is not
because they *can't* see a doctor; they simply choose not to. *In the
States, it is illegal for a doctor to tell a minor child's parents that
she is pregnant. *It's also illegal to tell them she is on birth
control. *I would be curious to see the stats of IMR in the US before,
say, 1960.

You most certainly are wrong if you think that Cuba's health care is
better than the US, or any European country. *Poor health care in the
US is not the cause for the IMR. *I should think drugs, alcohol,
smoking, and life style are more the cause than anything else,
including fear of someone finding out about the pregnancy. *Some of the
women I see are on drugs, and they couldn't care less about themselves
OR their children. *If their health is bad, and from what I've seen it
is, their offspring hardly have a chance to survive *They're 25 or so
and look like they're 50. *Not a pretty thing.

Also, consider this (from my wife). *Technology has increased so much
in our medicine that previous births that would have been stillborns or
naturally lost during the pregnancy are now making it, at least through
birth, but die because of the complications that would have naturally
aborted the child.

So, using the IMR to compare health care as a whole is not a very
accurate benchmark. *IMO anyway.

You see, Lazarus? Your mistake is (as it has always been) an abject
failure to realize and recognize that the true metric of whatever it
is that concerns you is davie's experience (um.....or his
interpretation thereof, anyway)......well, that and
what.....dicklet.....would or would not wager on.

Why, oh WHY!, can you people not see what is so plainly writ.....and
in your own language.....more or less?

g.

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 15:48:08 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

David LaCourse wrote:

If your health care is so great, Tim, and I have no recent experiences
to claim it is not, why do so many Canadians come to the US for
treatment. Could it be John Hopkins, Sloan Kettery, Mass General, Mass
Childrens, Mayo, etc.?

Most care is done within the country. Some folks go to the US for
procedures that cannot be done here either due to equipment or
personelle shortages, or the procedure isn't available where they live.
Canada is a big place, with not many people. If people go to the US for
legimate treatments, the costs are still covered by the provincial
governments, not the patients themselves. They still get the care, they
don't bear the direct costs.

Uh, Tim, there is no such thing as a free lunch Of course they pay,
through taxes, fees, etc. If Obama has his way, my health care costs
will go through the roof. Without tort reform (sorry Carolina guys),
the expense will always remain high. Except for the obvious blunder
(removing the left leg when the right one was the intended one), can
Canadians sue for what they *think* was malpractice? Do they? Do the
laws in Canada discourage such actions? They certainly don't in this
country.


Why do so many Americans go to Mexico for cancer treatments?

Because they are reaching for hope, because that is all they have.
Hope. They aren't cured in Mexico either. d;o(

Dave

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 16:15:40 -0400, Giles said:

taking bets on whether or not you'll get a rational response,

Taking bets on whether or not you're an asshole?

All those who think Wolfgoat is an asshole, raise your hand.

Wow. Look at that sea of hands waving in the air.

****stain.

Davey

ot health care
 

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 16:05:30 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

I'm glad you have the resources
to afford quality health care.

What "resourses", asshole? I have insurance the same as you. I looked
for the best doctor and easily found him.

Oh, how I hope we get socialized medicine as Obama wants it. You, Ken,
are a sick man. You will DIE when he gets his hands on you.

And no one needs to die because they do not have health care insurance.
My grandsons do not have insurance because they *chose not too*. They
get more pay because they do not have to contribute for their health
benefits.

You talk a great fight, Ken. What have you done for your community
latelly? Do you help the needy? Help the poor? Feed someone? Maybe
a family? Do you help those that have no health care find a doctor
that will treat them? Or do you sit on your fat ass complaining all
the time, complaining how ****ed up the US is. You need to live in
South or Central America. Pick a country. I recommend Panama. They'd
love your commie ass down there.

Davey
And Obama is a swarmy man who just happens to be a half-breed.