snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 27 April 2009, 05:41 PM
Not_Done_Living's Avatar
Not_Done_Living Not_Done_Living is offline
 
Join Date: 02 September 2006
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 3,735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
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.

So this has nothing to do with Sociales medicine, and all about different testing requirments for medicine prior to availablity. (Note that medicine is not covered by our Health Care plan... unless we have supplemental insurance that covers medicine).

I wonder if this lifesaving drug also caused 10 other just as interuptive conditions to replace the one it fixed.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 27 April 2009, 11:02 PM
MisterGrey MisterGrey is offline
 
Join Date: 26 September 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 4,992
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".
Yeah, it's totally my own fault that I make >20,000 a year and that a significant portion of my income goes towards utilities, school, and other family members' medical bills.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 26 May 2009, 01:43 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
United Kingdom

Comment: A conservative friend of mine is spreading what I consider to be
a rumor.

Basically, she's saying that if you live in the UK, and are over the age
of 60, but need kidney dialysis that you cannot get the medical treatment
you need, due to some "cutoff age" dictated by their (the UK's) universal
health care system. (They will not perform kidney dialysis on anyone over
the age of 60.)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 26 May 2009, 01:54 AM
queen of the caramels's Avatar
queen of the caramels queen of the caramels is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Quebec
Posts: 4,586
Royalty

Just before my father died, he was on dialysis 3 times a week. He was 78 and had early stages of kidney cancer....
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 26 May 2009, 01:59 AM
Dropbear's Avatar
Dropbear Dropbear is offline
 
Join Date: 03 June 2005
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 7,237
Australia

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Comment: A conservative friend of mine is spreading what I consider to be
a rumor.

Basically, she's saying that if you live in the UK, and are over the age
of 60, but need kidney dialysis that you cannot get the medical treatment
you need, due to some "cutoff age" dictated by their (the UK's) universal
health care system. (They will not perform kidney dialysis on anyone over
the age of 60.)
Quote:
Costs of dialysis for elderly people in the UK
Grun, R. P.; Constantinovici, N.; Normand, C.; Lamping, D. L.
Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation, 2003; 18(10):2122-7
DOI PubMed Abstract WWW Corrections Journal Article - Original Research
BACKGROUND: Growing acceptance rates of elderly patients for dialysis requires a careful planning of renal services expansion. As little is known about the actual resource use in patients 70 years and over, we evaluated the entire range of costs related to treatment, hospitalization, medication and other health and social service use, and assessed the impact of socio-demographic and clinical factors on costs.
METHODS: Service use and costs were assessed in a 12-month prospective cohort study of 171 dialysis patients, 70 years of age and over, from four hospital-based renal units in London, UK.
RESULTS: Total costs ranged between 14,940 pounds and 58,250 pounds per annum. The average annual cost was 22,740 pounds [95% confidence interval (CI), 21,470-24,020 pounds]. The majority of costs were allocated to dialysis treatment and transport (70%), hospitalizations (12%) and medication (12%). Other health and social services accounted for only 6% of total costs. Dialysis and hospitalization costs were pound 68.4 per day on average. Univariate subgroup analyses showed no significant difference between patients on peritoneal dialysis (64.5 pounds) and haemodialysis (71.5 pounds, P = 0.13). Age 80 years and over and presence of peripheral vascular disease (PVD) were associated with higher daily costs of 73.3 pounds compared with 63.2 pounds in the 70-74 age group (P = 0.033) and 76.9 pounds vs 63.8 pounds in patients without PVD (P = 0.022), respectively. Proximity to death was associated with a nearly pound 40 increase in daily costs (96.8 vs 59.7 pounds; P < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analyses confirmed these findings and showed that age 80 years and over and presence of peripheral and cerebrovascular disease were significant predictors of costs. There was a large but marginally significant difference in costs in patients with cancer. We found no evidence that diabetes was associated with higher dialysis and hospitalization costs.
CONCLUSIONS: The costs of providing dialysis for patients 70 years and over are largely shaped by the treatment costs rather than by use of community health and social services. Though age above 80 and co-morbidity are associated with increased resource use, average treatment costs are not higher than estimates for dialysis patients in general. This suggests that there is no case for providing treatment to younger patients and denying it to elderly patients on grounds of cost.
From here

Dropbear
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 26 May 2009, 12:34 PM
snapdragonfly's Avatar
snapdragonfly snapdragonfly is offline
 
Join Date: 15 March 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterGrey View Post
Yeah, it's totally my own fault that I make >20,000 a year and that a significant portion of my income goes towards utilities, school, and other family members' medical bills.
Of course it is. Why, Rush Limbaugh himself has said that if you *really* want to make 250,000 a year, you can.

Apparently the only reason you aren't earning that much is because you just don't want to and would rather lie around whinging (while working your ass off for 20,000 a year) and waiting for the rest of us to support you.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 26 May 2009, 08:59 PM
FullMetal FullMetal is offline
 
Join Date: 19 December 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,376
Default

My grandfather in his late 80s, (87-89) was on dialysis, in fact when he passed, less than 12 hours before he was on the dialysis machine...

he did die of renal failure... he was just too far gone...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 21 June 2009, 04:25 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Canada

Comment: Is it true that people with cancer in England and Canada muswt
pay for their own chemo and/or radiation treatments?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 21 June 2009, 05:20 AM
Christie Christie is offline
 
Join Date: 28 November 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 30,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Comment: Is it true that people with cancer in England and Canada muswt
pay for their own chemo and/or radiation treatments?
No. I thought this was true for the US though if you didn't have insurance. I'd love to read that it's not.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 21 June 2009, 05:23 AM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,384
Canada

I know it is well known on this board, but my uncle went through two rounds of chemo and one of radiation and between the treatments and months in the hospital, he did not have to pay a thing.

Which was good because he had just retired and was on a fixed income. And to boot, once the cancer was diagnosed, there was not even a day's wait time until he started treatment.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 21 June 2009, 01:46 PM
rswarrior
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My neighbour went through chemo. While he didn't have to pay for the treatments, he did have to pay his own way, plus hotel, meals, gas, after treatment medication and such, for the 2.5 hour drive to another city to have the chemo done. This happened two to three times week at first. None of those expenses were covered, and he was not able to stay in the hospital for the treatments. This was in British Columbia.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 21 June 2009, 01:57 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Roll eyes

Quote:
Is it true that people with cancer in England and Canada must pay for their own chemo and/or radiation treatments?
Are the liars even trying anymore?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 21 June 2009, 03:51 PM
Christie Christie is offline
 
Join Date: 28 November 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 30,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
Are the liars even trying anymore?
They could point out that most Canadians must pay for their own dental and optical care and pay for their own prescription drugs unless they have insurance. Of course since this is also true for most Americans I guess it's not nearly as much of a "gotcha".
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 21 June 2009, 04:28 PM
queen of the caramels's Avatar
queen of the caramels queen of the caramels is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Quebec
Posts: 4,586
United Kingdom

My father was treated with chemo for prostate and then spine cancer and didn't have to pay a penny for treatment.

He even had free transport to and from the hospital he was being treated at.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 22 June 2009, 01:50 AM
lynnejanet's Avatar
lynnejanet lynnejanet is offline
 
Join Date: 17 December 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christie View Post
They could point out that most Canadians must pay for their own dental and optical care and pay for their own prescription drugs unless they have insurance. Of course since this is also true for most Americans I guess it's not nearly as much of a "gotcha".
Except that there are programs through social assistance to provide medications and dental care to those who are impoverished. So that wouldn't really hold up either.

Not that these people have done any research, at all.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 22 June 2009, 01:56 AM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christie View Post
No. I thought this was true for the US though if you didn't have insurance. I'd love to read that it's not.
Only if you live.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 22 June 2009, 06:49 PM
Winged Monkey's Avatar
Winged Monkey Winged Monkey is offline
 
Join Date: 21 March 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
Only if you live.
Yeah, a good friend of mine owes 20K in credit card bills for her cancer treatments, but had to quit getting them 'cause it was that or eat. She may live a few more years, and hopefully in that time she can get a good lawyer job, but it's not gonna be pretty, and with the lapse in health coverage it's not as if getting new insurance will cover the cancer. Point is people who get sick, and don't happen to be lucky, in the US expend their financial resources and then die painful horrible deaths. This is okay I guess, as students, the underemployed, the self-employed, the and those who simply don't have a good health plan are less worthy people, not like the phantom sickly Canadian elderly. Yeah capitalism! Up Social Darwinism! Public health is the path to the Stalinist Gulag!


-Winged Monkey
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 22 June 2009, 06:51 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Icon81

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winged Monkey View Post
This is okay I guess, as students, the underemployed, the self-employed, the and those who simply don't have a good health plan are less worthy people, not like the phantom sickly Canadian elderly. Yeah capitalism! Up Social Darwinism! Public health is the path to the Stalinist Gulag!
Have you ever seen a dead Soviet? I certainly haven't (unless you count that wax figure of Lenin).
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 22 June 2009, 07:34 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

I saw that when I was ten, in 1977. Lenin was short. I was quite surprised by how short he was. My mother told me that a lot of people think it's a wax figure, and not really Lenin, but I think if it were fake, they would have added a few inches.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 22 June 2009, 09:10 PM
Tweetilynn's Avatar
Tweetilynn Tweetilynn is offline
 
Join Date: 01 September 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rswarrior View Post
My neighbour went through chemo. While he didn't have to pay for the treatments, he did have to pay his own way, plus hotel, meals, gas, after treatment medication and such, for the 2.5 hour drive to another city to have the chemo done. This happened two to three times week at first. None of those expenses were covered, and he was not able to stay in the hospital for the treatments. This was in British Columbia.
Even if you're insured in the US, you would still have to pick up these additional costs. Are you saying that because he could have been treated closer to home, but wasn't due to the socialized healthcare?
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 02:36 AM.


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