snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 26 April 2009, 05:23 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Canada Health care reform rumors

Comment: I heard that a woman was denied dialysis due to the policy in
Canada not to treat those over 75 with dialysis.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 26 April 2009, 05:29 PM
Nonny Mouse's Avatar
Nonny Mouse Nonny Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 30 April 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 14,286
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26 April 2009, 05:36 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Canada

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 26 April 2009, 05:42 PM
Bettie Page Turner Bettie Page Turner is offline
 
Join Date: 28 July 2005
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 3,890
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 26 April 2009, 05:52 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Icon81

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 26 April 2009, 06:01 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Roll eyes

I'm pretty sure the "death rate" for both groups is, in fact, 100%.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26 April 2009, 06:25 PM
Nonny Mouse's Avatar
Nonny Mouse Nonny Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 30 April 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 14,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26 April 2009, 06:37 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Icon102

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 26 April 2009, 06:42 PM
Nonny Mouse's Avatar
Nonny Mouse Nonny Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 30 April 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 14,286
Default

Eureka!

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

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

Nonny
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 26 April 2009, 06:42 PM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,968
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 26 April 2009, 06:47 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanz View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 26 April 2009, 06:48 PM
Troodon Troodon is offline
 
Join Date: 06 January 2004
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 8,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanz View Post
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".
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 26 April 2009, 06:53 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troodon View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 26 April 2009, 06:57 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Roll eyes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troodon View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 26 April 2009, 06:58 PM
Nonny Mouse's Avatar
Nonny Mouse Nonny Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 30 April 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 14,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 26 April 2009, 06:59 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Soapbox

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 26 April 2009, 07:15 PM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 26 April 2009, 07:21 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Fight

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanz View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 26 April 2009, 08:52 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 26 April 2009, 09:41 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troodon View Post
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.


Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.