Anyone seen the movie yet?

Where do you live and how does your health care system works?
Do you think it is a good system? Or do you have other suggestions?

Let's go medical!

Anyone seen the movie yet?

Where do you live and how does your health care system works?
Do you think it is a good system? Or do you have other suggestions?

Let's go medical!

Nope, haven't seen it. Any good ?

I live in The Netherlands and the health care system is fabulous compared to most other countries. But is has become a lot more expensive in recent years due to population aging (or so they say).

nope haven't seen it yet.

In Canada the health care System is GREAT!

hooray for you, i want to move to canada when im older :)

I have seen it and I felt sorry for the Americans.
I don't understand why they don't revolt against the system. Big health care companies let people suffer and die, just to make more profit. Can you imagine????

At the other hand...the image he made of the European system was a bit too positive. It seemd like you never had to pay, wait or search for something.

Still I am convindes we (Belgians) have the best healthcaresystem in the world (togheter with Canada).

For exemple:
My grandma fainted in a (Belgian) restaurant last year. We dialed 911. The ambulance arrived in 5 minutes, the examination took 2 hours and it costed 0€...
The same thing happened this Summer, while visiting the US. We dialed 911, they arrived quiet fast, it took 6!!!!!! hours to get her examined, there was no doctor availble, no nurses and they took scanns of about every inch of her body without being able to say what was wrong. Most of the time she spent waiting in the hospital wich looked more like an aidcamp in a warzone.
The bill: 2000$!!!
Luckely we are fully covered and didn't had to pay a €...
And they told us the hospital was a renownd (cancer specialised) one....it gave me the kreeps!

I swear i posted a thread about this before.. I gave a copy to my english teacher and now the WHOLE 10th grade is doing it as a documentary study. And this is in Australia. Our health system is a two party system
If you want uber luxury and on demand specialist care, theres private insurance
But if you don't mind having a bed in a 6 bed room/ward, theres the public insurance,
However, there are bed shortages in the private sector, which means that the quality of care is lower.

Here are the other threads
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=68258
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69792
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72676

EDIT: Can we merge two of the threads together please ?

I have seen it and I felt sorry for the Americans.
I don't understand why they don't revolt against the system. Big health care companies let people suffer and die, just to make more profit. Can you imagine????
At the other hand...the image he made of the European system was a bit too positive. It seemd like you never had to pay, wait or search for something.
Still I am convindes we (Belgians) have the best healthcaresystem in the world (togheter with Canada).
For exemple:
My grandma fainted in a (Belgian) restaurant last year. We dialed 911. The ambulance arrived in 5 minutes, the examination took 2 hours and it costed 0€...
The same thing happened this Summer, while visiting the US. We dialed 911, they arrived quiet fast, it took 6!!!!!! hours to get her examined, there was no doctor availble, no nurses and they took scanns of about every inch of her body without being able to say what was wrong. Most of the time she spent waiting in the hospital wich looked more like an aidcamp in a warzone.
The bill: 2000$!!!
Luckely we are fully covered and didn't had to pay a €...
And they told us the hospital was a renownd (cancer specialised) one....it gave me the kreeps!

Don't feel sorry for us. We don't want gov healthcare. Everything the gov touches turns to cr@p. We have Britons and Canadians BEGGING us to take care of them because their socialized healthcare is cr@p: long lines, deadly infections... I do not want it. I'll keep my own.

We have Britons and Canadians BEGGING us to take care of them because their socialized healthcare is cr@p:

Unsubstantiated opinion.

long lines, deadly infections...

Unsubstantiated opinion.

We have Britons and Canadians BEGGING us to take care of them because their socialized healthcare is cr@p:
The comfortably well-off and the sponsored. For most it isn't an option, either because they can't afford it or because they've had no need to consider it.

Don't feel sorry for us. We don't want gov healthcare. Everything the gov touches turns to cr@p. We have Britons and Canadians BEGGING us to take care of them because their socialized healthcare is cr@p: long lines, deadly infections... I do not want it. I'll keep my own.

Wow could you link me an article please? I would love to see it!

Originally Posted by sandy
We have Britons and Canadians BEGGING us to take care of them because their socialized healthcare is cr@p:


Too bad you can't take care of your own citizens, 46 million of whom are uninsured. Tell me, how do you obtain health care in the U.S.A, if you aren't on Medicaid/Medicare?

Wow could you link me an article please? I would love to see it!

Me too..........Canadians begging you to take care of them?????? :rolleyes:We just swipe our healthcard and everything is paid! Where are all these long lines you are talking about, I haven't come across them.....:bugeye:

hooray for you, i want to move to canada when im older :)

its great for me my mom is candian all i need to do is declare my candian citzenship

Don't feel sorry for us. We don't want gov healthcare. Everything the gov touches turns to cr@p. We have Britons and Canadians BEGGING us to take care of them because their socialized healthcare is cr@p: long lines, deadly infections... I do not want it. I'll keep my own.

Could be true for some treathments...still why don't you take care of your own people first, intstead of treating foreigners....it is always the same with you guys...always going abroad instead of staying between your borders :)

The first survey of Britons opting for treatment overseas shows that fears of hospital infections and frustration of often waiting months for operations are fuelling the increasing trend, and you want the U.S. to adopt the same type of system? Canada is have the same thing happen in it's system, and they are even sending patients to the U.S. because they don't have the beds or timely treatment available for many problems.


Daily Mail Monday, October 29
Record numbers go abroad for health treatment with 70,000 escaping NHS
Record numbers of Britons are travelling abroad for medical treatment to escape the NHS - with 70,000 patients expected to fly out this year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490233

Record numbers go abroad for health treatment with 70,000 escaping NHS
Last updated at 09:47am on 28th October 2007

Record numbers of Britons are travelling abroad for medical treatment to escape the NHS - with 70,000 patients expected to fly out this year.

And by the end of the decade 200,000 "health tourists" will fly as far as Malaysa and South Africa for major surgery to avoid long waiting lists and the rising threat of superbugs, according to a new report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The findings come amid further revelations about the Government's mishandling of NHS policies, and ahead of official statistics that will embarrass ministers.

On Wednesday, figures are expected to show rising numbers of hospital infections. Cases of the superbug Clostridium difficile, which have risen five-fold in the past decade, are expected to increase beyond the 55,000 cases reported last year.

On the same day, statistics will show that vast sums have been spent on pay, with GPs' earnings rising by more than 50 per cent in three years to an average of more than £110,000.

New research shows that growing NHS bureaucracy has left nurses with little time to see patients – most spending long periods dealing with paperwork.

Katherine Murphy, of the Patients' Association, said the health tourism figures reflected shrinking public faith in the Government's handling of the NHS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiting times had fallen. Almost half of patients were treated within 18 weeks of seeing a GP. Most people who had hospital care did not contract infections.

They are bragging about the fact that Patients have to wait 18 WEEKS for treatment, OMG, :wtf::

Four and 1/2 Months for Treatment, you could end up very dead waiting for treatment.

Well waitings times are not universal for all conditions. Priority cases have very short waiting times, emergency cases are dealt with immediately. There are longer waits for less serious ops. They dont make you wait if your condition is immediately life threatening. Anyway 70,000 deciding to travel abroad compared with the 15 million who are treated a year is tiny.

Canada is starting to see the same thing happen with their system.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=c08b3dbc-c91a-4f69-a477-15f59d94f596

The patients from Golden are among the small but slowly growing number of Canadians flying to foreign countries for treatment -- a for-profit phenomenon known as medical tourism.

Frustration over the long list of 875,000 Canadians awaiting for surgery and other procedures is what is driving people to "outsource" their treatment overseas.

Well waitings times are not universal for all conditions. Priority cases have very short waiting times, emergency cases are dealt with immediately. There are longer waits for less serious ops. They dont make you wait if your condition is immediately life threatening. Anyway 70,000 deciding to travel abroad compared with the 15 million who are treated a year is tiny.

I would tend to believe heart surgery is a serious condition, wouldn't you?

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthandsocialcaretopics/Coronaryheartdisease/DH_4097430

More on reducing waiting times
Last modified date: 8 February 2007 The shorter the waiting time, the better the outcome for the patient. The NHS delivered a maximum six month wait for heart surgery in April 2004, a vast improvement on the situation in 1996 where some patients in England waited over two years for surgery. Waiting times have been reduced by investing in staff, buildings and equipment.
A new target has been set for reducing waiting times even further. From 2008 no-one should wait more than 18 weeks from GP referral to hospital treatment, including all diagnostic procedures and tests - for example MRI and CT scans and angioplasty. This target applies to acute elective hospital care, but primary care trusts are encouraged to agree local plans to reduce waiting for other types of treatment.

I would tend to believe heart surgery is a serious condition, wouldn't you?
Life threatening? How many died before getting surgery?

One number that I just read stated 110,000.

What, a year?

The NHS wins when its patients die - Telegraph
Simply set the length of the waiting list such that, by the time the operation is due, 4 out 10 prospective patients have died. The result is that, ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/10/13/do1302.xml

http://www.reform.co.uk/website/pressroom/bulletinarchive.aspx?o=14

2. Cancer care waiting times rise - in spite of more resources. A leaked survey by the Royal College of Radiologists has revealed that waiting times for cancer treatment are rising in England and Scotland. Only 32 per cent of patients were given radiotherapy within four weeks of being told they needed it, compared to 68 per cent in 1998. This can make the difference between life and death. 25,000 people die in Britain every year because we cannot meet the best European performance on cancer care. Since cancer care has been a leading spending priority, the report seriously undermines the Government's justification for threatened tax rises, that the intensive application of resources is the way to deliver improvements in the NHS.

Compare and contrast two health care systems, Which country will ...
The failings of Britain's healthcare system can no longer be blamed on .... in Britain, with around 100000 deaths from 300000 heart attacks every year. ...
http://www.econ.qmul.ac.uk/NHS_reforms.com/student_file/country%20comparison_Akuffo.doc

i haven't seen it but it's a sick movie: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=68745

i have a real cool doctor he does listen and tries hard to fix situations and is good at it havent seen many like him round i had one specialist say to me i was aneamic once a month and he wanted to put a camera down my throat to see why ..........i was like duh i bleed once a month he said that my iron levels were low i said more duh to him and left him so if ur happy with ur practioner then u should stay otherwise go seek another say like private medicare or have a chat with the office admin they open for suggestions how you feel bout things they human too itell em all the time when i got tooth problems
one dentist said thats why ur so mean u got a tooth ache .........i guess he was right too...but i still had a say and im happy with my practioner or doctor

The NHS wins when its patients die - Telegraph
Simply set the length of the waiting list such that, by the time the operation is due, 4 out 10 prospective patients have died. The result is that, ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/10/13/do1302.xml

http://www.reform.co.uk/website/pressroom/bulletinarchive.aspx?o=14

2. Cancer care waiting times rise - in spite of more resources. A leaked survey by the Royal College of Radiologists has revealed that waiting times for cancer treatment are rising in England and Scotland. Only 32 per cent of patients were given radiotherapy within four weeks of being told they needed it, compared to 68 per cent in 1998. This can make the difference between life and death. 25,000 people die in Britain every year because we cannot meet the best European performance on cancer care. Since cancer care has been a leading spending priority, the report seriously undermines the Government's justification for threatened tax rises, that the intensive application of resources is the way to deliver improvements in the NHS.

Compare and contrast two health care systems, Which country will ...
The failings of Britain's healthcare system can no longer be blamed on .... in Britain, with around 100000 deaths from 300000 heart attacks every year. ...
http://www.econ.qmul.ac.uk/NHS_reforms.com/student_file/country%20comparison_Akuffo.doc

Where are you getting this 100000 deaths from? And why are you linking to someones random essay on the internet?

yes buffolo i agree
is serious

Too bad you can't take care of your own citizens, 46 million of whom are uninsured. Tell me, how do you obtain health care in the U.S.A, if you aren't on Medicaid/Medicare?

It's not our job to provide healthcare for people. It's their responsibility.

You work. You save. You budget. You don't have kids you can't afford. You build a portfolio. You have a positive net worth. You live way below your means. You don't buy stuff you can't afford and then expect handouts. You have self-responsibility. You pay for your own stuff. You don't EVER expect ANYTHING from your government except protection from terrorists/invasions.

Or you work for a company that has insurance benefits.

Even for self-employed, insurance is not expensive. You can get a BlueCross policy for $100/month.

You can pay cash to doctors and hospitals for much reduced rates on services. Or you can be a criminal alien and get everything for free.

Where are you getting this 100000 deaths from? And why are you linking to someones random essay on the internet?

In the articles I cited.

in Britain, with around 100000 deaths from 300000 heart attacks every year. ...


waiting list such that, by the time the operation is due, 4 out 10 prospective patients have died.

sandy:

It's not our job to provide healthcare for people. It's their responsibility.


That's where the views of America and Australia differ. Australia believes that everyone should have the right to basic health care.

It's not our job to provide healthcare for people. It's their responsibility.

You work. You save. You budget. You don't have kids you can't afford. You build a portfolio. You have a positive net worth. You live way below your means. You don't buy stuff you can't afford and then expect handouts. You have self-responsibility. You pay for your own stuff. You don't EVER expect ANYTHING from your government except protection from terrorists/invasions.

Or you work for a company that has insurance benefits.

Even for self-employed, insurance is not expensive. You can get a BlueCross policy for $100/month.

You can pay cash to doctors and hospitals for much reduced rates on services. Or you can be a criminal alien and get everything for free.

that is the issue it is not decided personlly i believe heath care to be a right

It's not our job to provide healthcare for people. It's their responsibility.

You work. You save. You budget. You don't have kids you can't afford. You build a portfolio. You have a positive net worth. You live way below your means. You don't buy stuff you can't afford and then expect handouts. You have self-responsibility. You pay for your own stuff. You don't EVER expect ANYTHING from your government except protection from terrorists/invasions.

Or you work for a company that has insurance benefits.

Even for self-employed, insurance is not expensive. You can get a BlueCross policy for $100/month.

You can pay cash to doctors and hospitals for much reduced rates on services. Or you can be a criminal alien and get everything for free.



Sandy, I think you see things in a way that suits you the best...a black and white version of reality. The problem is that that is not the way it realy is. Reality is not black and white...it is grey.

Not everybody that works is able to save. I know hardworking people who are not able to save up extra money. And no, they don't buy things they don't need. They just pay their basic bills. And still they don't have an extra. So you say we shouldn't help these people? They don't have the right to have the same healthtreatment as you? We can just let them die when they are ill?
And your government is there to help ALL people out...to give everybody the same treatment that all people deserve.
They should take care of your health, your education, your environment and yes your safety...to be short of your wellbeing....and believe it or not wellbeing is not only wagging a guy with a bomb. It is just a part of it.

hahaha..if you don't expect anything from your government...why the heck would you pay taxes then???

Admittedly the UK's NHS does have it's failings, it had admittedly been run similar to how the London Tube was... Into the ground. The government in the past has been known for allowing that to happen, they did the same thing with the National railway which during the Conservative years became Privatised and sold off piece by piece.

I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing was on the cards of the NHS, where a poorly managed system gives way to privatisation and the hospitals end up sold off. Would the people stand for it? well the people are seen as 'Apathetic', where even if they are disgruntled their voices will NOT be heard. So the overall majority would have no say in what ever decisions are made (unless planned legislation changes occur rather than just back burn.)

I've seen how the NHS treated people in one particular hospital, it appeared to me at one point they were purposely filling the Beds with time wasters because they were easier to deal with using untrained or poorly trained staff rather than trying to deal with people that had serious health problems. Those people would be pushed onto other hospitals with better trained staff or management with different principles creating the whole Queue problem.

(It's a bit like having two lanes for traffic to flow, but one lane is closed off and all the lane changes cause a jam, or in the case of the hospital's all the people told to refer to a different hospital force a queue.)

Would it be possible to merge the threads ? we've had multiple debates on this already..

Oh, In America, the poor don't even get Basic healthcare, Here at least the poor can get their broken arm fixed without having to pay through the nose, like that woman with the ambulance bill. Sicko points out that private healthcare in AMERICA, is corrupt, and calls on federalized healthcare as a solution .
Sorry, just had to add my repeated 2 cents in again.

i think the case for universal health care is like the case for democarcy it isn't very good but it is still the best we have come up with

Just read this shocking article by Pilger.. Apparently, Brown in the UK may have US companies investing in NHS..

Sicko 2 (http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=461)

On 5 October, the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, approved a list of fourteen companies that will advise on and take over the “commissioning” of NHS services. They will be given influence, if not eventually control, over which treatments patients receive and who provides them. They are assured multimillions in profits.

What the ? , Can anyone, whose from the UK comment on this ? Is it actually happening ?


Oh and btw who was the senator in the movie pushing for the drug bill ?

In Ventura County, they set up a new test program for socialized health care for the first 10,000 people that make under 45k a year and it'll last for a minimum of 3 years, then depends on how it turns out. Four weeks into the program, only 3,500 people were signed up, and it's been about another 3 weeks, so if the same pace is/was happening, there outta still be room left for anyone that lives in the area here.

- N

hooray for you, i want to move to canada when im older :)

l am thinking about all i would have to do is declare my canadian citiezenship and prove it

Don't feel sorry for us. We don't want gov healthcare. Everything the gov touches turns to cr@p.

And here I thought you loved your Government and Bush. But here you are saying they are failures when it comes to providing the necessities for their own citizens.

It's not our job to provide healthcare for people. It's their responsibility.

As mountain stated, in Australia, it is part of the Government's job to ensure every single citizen has adequate health care.

You work. You save. You budget. You don't have kids you can't afford. You build a portfolio. You have a positive net worth. You live way below your means. You don't buy stuff you can't afford and then expect handouts. You have self-responsibility. You pay for your own stuff. You don't EVER expect ANYTHING from your government except protection from terrorists/invasions.
And if someone does not work or is not paid enough to have private health insurance? What then? Tough luck? Die?

Do you think health care should only be available to those who can afford it?

Also, Sandy, There have been many cases where treatments to those with health insurance were denied despite having been clinically proven..

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12660-simple-blood-test-spots-early-stage-lung-cancer.html


Simple blood test spots early stage lung cancer
19:15 18 September 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Roxanne Khamsi

Panacea Pharmaceuticals
Molecular Diagnostics in Cancer Therapeutic Development
American Association for Cancer Research

A simple blood test that identifies early lung cancer before it has had a chance to spread could save lives by alerting doctors to the need for treatment, researchers say.

The blood test looks for a telltale protein that is linked to tumour growth. In preliminary tests the process correctly identified 99% of patients with lung cancer at various stages of development.

Lung cancer claims the lives of 150,000 people each year in the US alone, making it the leading cause of cancer deaths. But doctors have lacked a means of accurately detecting lung tumours in the earliest stages.

Over the past decade, medical experts have explored the use of computed tomography (CT) body scans as a way to screen for lung cancer. But while patient advocacy groups say CT scans serve as a useful early detection tool, many chest physicians argue that they too often misidentify harmless scar tissue as cancer.

**********************************

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127080344.htm

Science News
Share Blog Cite
Print Email Bookmark
Cancer-resistant Mouse Developed By Adding Tumor-suppressor Gene
ScienceDaily (Nov. 28, 2007) — A mouse resistant to cancer, even highly-aggressive types, has been created by researchers at the University of Kentucky. The breakthrough stems from a discovery by UK College of Medicine professor of radiation medicine Vivek Rangnekar and a team of researchers who found a tumor-suppressor gene called "Par-4" in the prostate.
The researchers discovered that the Par-4 gene kills cancer cells, but not normal cells. There are very few molecules that specifically fight against cancer cells, giving it a potentially therapeutic application.
Rangnekar's study is unique in that mice born with this gene are not developing tumors. The mice grow normally and have no defects. In fact, the mice possessing Par-4 actually live a few months longer than the control animals, indicating that they have no toxic side effects.

*********************


There blood tests available now that can detect cancer & range from 83 to 99% in accuracy, most hospitals refuse to use them, the uk becuase there frightened it will detect to many cancers, & it will lead to alot more tests to find exactly where the cancer is.

There could be cures for cancer but the medical freaks who run the world the pharmaceutical companies they dont want cures that would put them out of business, 1 out of 5 lungs removed for lung cancer dont actually have any cancer cells in them.

ct scans are a joke there 100 times the radiation exposure of a normal xray, 7 yet doctors hand them out like sweeties in a sweet shop, there attitude is fuck mri's & ultrasound there harmless to the patient lets increase there chances of getting cancer in the future by giving them a ct scan for a sprained ankle or a pain in the chest.

I reckon you could cut down on cancers worldwide by 60% if doctors stopped the missuse of ct scanners, the only way you can diagnose cancer is either through a fine needle aspiration or a biopsie, the first method is cheepest of all.

All cancer research should be conducted by governments and not private comapanies, in the uk new cancer drugs are costing 50 thousand a year for a one or 3 patients to use them, drug companies are holding us to ransom for good health, in thailand they have the right idea they ignore patents on new drugs & say fuck you, then they make a cheap generic brand.

Now these drug company parasites have went public in the uk because the uk government only bought 1 chemo or radiothearapy machine off them last year, cheaky bastards actually have some association named after them.

In america they dictate the entire healthcare system & play a large part in electing the new president, i thinks its high fucking time we moved beyound any form of radiation or chemotherapy as treatment for cancer or to detect it, as these systems just cause more cancers in 2 or 5 years down the line in the patient.