Health care reform rumors

[snopes]

Comment: I heard that a woman was denied dialysis due to the policy in
Canada not to treat those over 75 with dialysis.

[Nonny Mouse]

I heard that there was a huge multi-million dollar industry in the United States with a vested interest in making Canadian-style health care look bad.

Nonny

[Canuckistan]

There would be no "policy in Canada." Each province sets its own standards for health care. The federal government has little to do with that.

[Bettie Page Turner]

Thank the stars that in the US, care is given to everyone. Why, just last week I reviewed the chart of a woman of 86 years who was (praise the US!) still getting her dialysis to extend her life. Of course she was demented, contracted into a fetal position, had multiple decubitus ulcers and was in the hospital for a feeding tube placement.

[snopes]

Comment: A news items was stated yesterday confirming a study that people
with severe kidney disease in Canada had a 41% death rate. The same type
of study group in the USA ended up with a 31% death rate. The cause was
the wait or denial for special life saving meds that were made available
in the USA on a timely basis and not (to the same degree) in Canada:
Another nail in the coffin for socialized medicine.

[Canuckistan]

I'm pretty sure the "death rate" for both groups is, in fact, 100%.

[Nonny Mouse]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

I'm pretty sure the "death rate" for both groups is, in fact, 100%.

For what it's worth, I found the Canadian study, and the quoted percentage appears to be correct. None of the U.S. studies I found had a clearly stated mortality percentage associated with them. All I did was Google, though.

Nonny

[Canuckistan]

But as worded in the email, the term "death rate" is meaningless. Without a time frame, it's impossible to tell what that means. I guarantee you that in 150 years, all the people in that study will be dead!

And socialized medicine can't do a thing about it.

[Nonny Mouse]

Eureka!

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

Actual study results pretty much the opposite of commenter's claim.

Nonny

[Sylvanz]

Also left out of the OP is that all people that don't have health insurance and can't afford care, or are refused by their insurance carriers in the US will likely die without dialysis regardless of how old they are. I wonder why they always forget that part?

P&LL, Syl

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Sylvanz

Also left out of the OP is that all people that don't have health insurance and can't afford care, or are refused by their insurance carriers in the US will likely die without dialysis regardless of how old they are. I wonder why they always forget that part?

P&LL, Syl

I think, though I may be wrong on this, that the need for chronic dialysis can get one covered under Medicare, regardless of age. It is also considered a disabling condition for Social Security purposes.

[Troodon]

Originally Posted by Sylvanz

Also left out of the OP is that all people that don't have health insurance and can't afford care, or are refused by their insurance carriers in the US will likely die without dialysis regardless of how old they are. I wonder why they always forget that part?

P&LL, Syl

Because if I have health insurance, I won't be willing to accept even a small decrease in the quality of care that I will receive in order to provide care to those who would otherwise get none, especially since I see the lack of health insurance as something that is often correlated to a person's own actions and not entirely an "accident of birth".

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Troodon

Because if I have health insurance, I won't be willing to accept even a small decrease in the quality of care that I will receive in order to provide care to those who would otherwise get none, especially since I see the lack of health insurance as something that is often correlated to a person's own actions and not entirely an "accident of birth".

Your view of those with lack of health insurance is incredibly naive.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Troodon

I see the lack of health insurance as something that is often correlated to a person's own actions

Such as their failure to coerce their employers into paying them $80,000 per year?

[Nonny Mouse]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

Your view of those with lack of health insurance is incredibly naive.

Especially considering how very, very many of your fellow-countrymen have recently lost their health insurance through no fault of their own, and cannot afford to find new insurance because they've also lost their incomes through no fault of their own.

Nonny

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

Your view of those with lack of health insurance is incredibly naive.

Not only that, it's incredibly short-sighted. After all, if my neighbour isn't sick, I'm far less likely to catch what he doesn't have.

Also, my healthy neighbour can then be a productive member of society, thereby paying taxes, spending money on a variety of things (as opposed to just health care-related), and so on.

It very much seems like it's in my best interest to have everyone around me healthy.

[Sylvanz]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

Not only that, it's incredibly short-sighted. After all, if my neighbour isn't sick, I'm far less likely to catch what he doesn't have.

Also, my healthy neighbour can then be a productive member of society, thereby paying taxes, spending money on a variety of things (as opposed to just health care-related), and so on.

It very much seems like it's in my best interest to have everyone around me healthy.

What are you talking about? If all the dead beats die there's more stuff for you.

P&LL, Syl'one of those lowlife underinsureds'vanz

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Sylvanz

What are you talking about? If all the dead beats die there's more stuff for you.

Plus, if you had a right to bear arms, it wouldn't even be an issue.

[RivkahChaya]

I would be skeptical of any study that compared US and Canadian death rates from a particular cause, just because the healthcare situation almost guarantees that the condition will be underdiagnosed in the US, and the people less likely to be diagnosed will be the ones with the least access to good food, the ability to take time off from work to recuperate from co-morbid conditions, and the list goes on.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Troodon

Because if I have health insurance, I won't be willing to accept even a small decrease in the quality of care that I will receive in order to provide care to those who would otherwise get none,

As someone who has health insurance, I think I'd likely get a better quality of care under the Canadian system.

especially since I see the lack of health insurance as something that is often correlated to a person's own actions and not entirely an "accident of birth".

Methinks you'd be wrong.