OT: Waiting list for Mammograms in BC
BillB
My wife's team of medical specialists have been pestering her to get a
mammogram for quite some time. For some reason she has been putting it
off. I feel a little guilty for not putting more pressure on her myself.
Anyway, she was watching some program about breast cancer yesterday, and
all of a sudden exclaimed, "That's it! I am booking a mammogram."
She looked up the number for the screening program and called in.
She has to wait until MAY 4TH!! That's socialist medicine for you! Hurry
up and wait!
Then I checked and found this article:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=202
"Women face waits as long as five months to obtain mammography services
in the United States, according to a report from the Institute of
Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies. The
average wait for mammograms in major urban areas is six weeks or more."
Strange, huh?
New And Improved Bea Foroni
But the death panels! What about the death panels?
susan
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:VpHBn.161414$EE6....@newsfe23.iad...
Thats stange, yes. I had an regular check up last week, the doctor noted
it had been 18 months since last mammogram so I went and got one THE SAME
DAY.
Then I found this article
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2010/04/16/pei-mammography-waits-584.html
MacDonald says some women 50 to 74 years old were waiting up to three years
between mammograms, a year longer than recommended.
BillB
> But the death panels! What about the death panels?
One thing I find amusing in a macabre sort of way, for all this whining
about people having to wait weeks or months for certain medical services
in Canada (and elsewhere), 9 times out of 10 the problem is caused by
the patient's own years of procrastination in dealing with the problem.
BillB
>> "Women face waits as long as five months to obtain mammography services in
>> the United States, according to a report from the Institute of Medicine
>> and National Research Council of the National Academies. The average wait
> Thats stange, yes. I had an regular check up last week, the doctor noted
> it had been 18 months since last mammogram so I went and got one THE SAME
> DAY.
That's great. You are fortunate to have what amounts to a walk-in
mammography clinic in your town. If that is typical, they must have a
lot of excess capacity, which is of course wasteful on a macroeconomic
level. But hey, if you are spending 18% of GDP on health care, you can
afford to be wasteful here and there.
Regardless, you aren't suggesting the Institute of Medicine and National
Research Council of the National Academies are wrong about the six week
average wait in major urban areas, or that some women are waiting up to
five months, are you?
> Then I found this article
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2010/04/16/pei-mammography-waits-584.html
>
> MacDonald says some women 50 to 74 years old were waiting up to three years
> between mammograms, a year longer than recommended.
Some woman are waiting an extra 12 months? I wonder why only some are.
It's not like PEI is very geographically diverse, at only 100 miles long
and 25 miles wide. Oh well, it does say they are tackling the problem,
right? I don't have any experience with PEI. I know they don't have
anywhere near the medical infrastructure of the other provinces. Their
largest city is 30,000 people and the whole province is only 140,000
people. Anyone who is worried about waiting six months too long should
probably consider driving across the Confederation Bridge to Moncton,
NB. Inconvenient, I know, but that's the price you pay to live in an
idyllic but tiny island province in the most economically depressed
region in Canada.
I checked the average for all of BC. They said they try to keep it under
eight weeks, which they consider "timely service." I guess if that's too
long you should try planning ahead and booking your appointment a little
sooner. Personal responsibility, and all that. Or you could move with
the privileged to Vancouver, and you might just get in next week.
susan
no special clinic, Bill, Just enough machines to accomodate the public.
Mine was fine, btw, and I hope your wifes is also.
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:IYJBn.94395$kj3....@newsfe08.iad...
Bill T
(i.e., getting a mammogram just because you are 45) likely saves very
few lives. Screening does do some good, but it is not like an otherwise
healthy woman is horribly wrong in skipping mammography altogether.
It's better than screening for prostate cancer, I suppose, which has
been shown to save zero lives.
Breast (and prostate) cancers kill a lot of people, and it seems obvious
that if we can detect them early and intervene, we can save lives. It
doesn't work that way, for good biological reasons.
In a rational health care system, breast and prostate cancer screenings
would be way down on the list to spend money.
BillB
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:U%JBn.138399$sx5....@newsfe16.iad...
> well, doing no further research, your article is dated 2004 - mine is
> 2010.
I didn't notice that. I just grabbed the first one that popped up. That is a
little dated. Although, grabbing the second one suggests that things aren't
getting much better, at least some urban centers. Could be getting worse:
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2008/11/update-northwes.html
> no special clinic, Bill, Just enough machines to accomodate the public.
Getting an appointment the same day suggests a little more than "just enough
machines." More like an embarrassment of riches, if you ask me. They must
have extra machines with technologists sitting there twiddling their thumbs
waiting for people to show up. Great for the consumer, but not so great on a
macroeconomic level. But the US can afford it. You guys are loaded.
I wonder if poor people get the same level of access to mammograms and other
similar diagnostics? It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to shorten
lines quite a bit if you just turned a lot of people away (or encouraged
them to not show up in the first place). That's probably what the 9 month
waits in Chicago are all about. They are probably giving those filthy poor
people a cut-rate price.
> Mine was fine, btw, and I hope your wifes is also.
Good to hear. Breast cancer is a nasty disease.
Irish Mike
> Dear Irish Mike:
>
> My wife's team of medical specialists have been pestering her to get a
> mammogram for quite some time.
Did I miss something? Did we suddenly become friends? What makes you
think I have the slightest interest in your wife's tits, or how she takes
care of them? You think socialized medicine is so great, you use it.
I'll stick with my American "Cadillac" health care program. At least
until Obama taxes it our of existence.
Irish Mike
�Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn�t
pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for,
protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend
our sunset years telling our children and our children�s children what it
was once like in the United States where men were free.� ~ Ronald Reagan
-----�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
BillB
"Bill T" <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:2AKBn.21982$Ma3....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Ya, that's kind of what I figured. My wife might be a bit of a special case
though. She's a bit of a minor medical miracle, being a nearly five year
survivor of stage 3b ovarian cancer (in spite of her intimate involvement
with "socialized medicine"). She's been poked, prodded, and photographed
more than Paris Hilton.
BillB
"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:ri3ka7x...@recgroups.com...
> Did I miss something? Did we suddenly become friends? What makes you
> think I have the slightest interest in your wife's tits, or how she takes
> care of them? You think socialized medicine is so great, you use it.
> I'll stick with my American "Cadillac" health care program. At least
> until Obama taxes it our of existence.
The other day you were posting about waiting lists for various procedures in
Canada. I thought that meant you were interested in that sort of thing, and
would want to add to your (ahem) knowledge. I guess you prefer to get your
inaccurate information third hand from right-wing hacks. My mistake. Sorry
to bother you.
susan
"BillB"
>I guess you prefer to get your inaccurate information third hand from
>right-wing hacks.
As opposed to left-wing geniuses?
susan
"BillB"
> Getting an appointment the same day suggests a little more than "just
> enough machines." More like an embarrassment of riches, if you ask me.
> They must have extra machines with technologists sitting there twiddling
> their thumbs
Bill - we are smart enough down here to be able to perform more than one
task.
BillB
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:RoLBn.45928$0_7....@newsfe25.iad...
>>I guess you prefer to get your inaccurate information third hand from
>>right-wing hacks.
>
> As opposed to left-wing geniuses?
I am very much a centrist (although probably a touch left of centre). I just
appear left-wing from where you sit.
Bill T
> Ya, that's kind of what I figured. My wife might be a bit of a special
> case though. She's a bit of a minor medical miracle, being a nearly five
> year survivor of stage 3b ovarian cancer (in spite of her intimate
> involvement with "socialized medicine"). She's been poked, prodded, and
> photographed more than Paris Hilton.
Well, I wish her the best. It is a really tough situation to be in, but
5 years is a very good road-sign.
I grew up in Canada, and it pisses me off to hear Americans denigrate
the Canadian health-care system. Yes, In the US, with good insurance,
you can get your hip replaced, or your cataracts removed, 2 weeks from
now. In Canada, you will have to wait a few months.
If you need emergency care, the Canadian system will take care of you as
efficiently as the U.S., regardless of your insurance status.
Bill T
Cancer screening is a big, big money-maker in the US. Some hospitals
already offer free screening for prostate. I am surprised that more are
not offering free tests.
In case it is not clear: prostate cancer screening has been shown to
save zero lives. But... upon finding the cancer, the patient must
undergo biopsy, and then surgical removal of prostate (big bucks),
likely with a robot (big, big bucks), or radiation (less bucks, but
still up there.)
Breast cancer? Best evidence is that screening saves lives, but not many.
Screening is different from diagnostic tests. If you have reasons to
suspect cancer, then you must get tested.
susan
no - the way you constantly degrade right-wingers it's very obvious where
you stand. There are a lot of very smart people on the right, and a lot of
very stupid people on the left - and vice versa.
risky biz
Strange, maybe, but the government here isn't oppressing us like in
Canada. Here, oppression has been outsourced to the health insurance
companies and has proven to be quite effective even though three times
more expensive.
______________________________________________________________________�
Beldin the Sorcerer
However, the further to either extreme, the more likely there is
intellectual dysfunction
>
>
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:ri3ka7x...@recgroups.com...
>
>> Dear Irish Mike:
>>
>> My wife's team of medical specialists have been pestering her to get a
>> mammogram for quite some time.
>
> Did I miss something? Did we suddenly become friends? What makes you
> think I have the slightest interest in your wife's tits, or how she takes
> care of them? You think socialized medicine is so great, you use it.
> I'll stick with my American "Cadillac" health care program. At least
> until Obama taxes it our of existence.
Now this is Mike, being his idiotic asshole self.
We all care about Bill's wife's health,
We all wish her the best.
Cancer isn't a game, and nobody here is asshole enough to wish anyone's
loved ones die.
BillB
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:V5MBn.161429$EE6.1...@newsfe23.iad...
> no - the way you constantly degrade right-wingers it's very obvious where
> you stand. There are a lot of very smart people on the right, and a lot
> of very stupid people on the left - and vice versa.
The fact that I attack right-wing views more than left-wing views (which is
very true) does not mean I am left-wing, although I know you are far from
alone in thinking that. Maybe I just think extreme right-wing ideology is
far more dangerous? (I do)
The fact is that my political views are not at all consistent with left-wing
ideology. I have never voted, but if I did it certainly wouldn't be for the
NDP or the Green Party. For the most part, I think left wingers are
naive but pretty harmless, and their heart is in the right place. They just
aren't the type of people I would attack. I would much rather attack
selfish, xenophobic people.
If I had to vote in Canada, it would usually be for the Liberals, which
is a far more centrist party than their name suggests. Aside from a few
specific issues (admittedly, some of them pretty big), I think the
Conservatives have done a pretty damn good job running Canada during their
tenure. I like having an economist as Prime Minister. I think Harper is an
intelligent, careful, level-headed, no nonsense leader. I'd take Harper over
Obama any day.
Jerry Sturdivant
"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:ri3ka7x...@recgroups.com...
> On Apr 27 2010 5:02 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> Dear Irish Mike:
>>
>> My wife's team of medical specialists have been pestering her to get a
>> mammogram for quite some time.
> Did I miss something?
When didn't you?
> Did we suddenly become friends? What makes you
> think I have the slightest interest in your wife's tits, or how she takes
> care of them? You think socialized medicine is so great, you use it.
THAT'S what you missed. It's not socialized medicine and you can't show
where it is.
> I'll stick with my American "Cadillac" health care program.
Until they drop you. Then you'll better understand what you 'missed,'
Jerry 'n Vegas
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6gXBn.279331$wr5.2...@newsfe22.iad...
>
>
> "Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ri3ka7x...@recgroups.com...
>> On Apr 27 2010 5:02 PM, BillB wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Irish Mike:
>>>
>>> My wife's team of medical specialists have been pestering her to get a
>>> mammogram for quite some time.
>
>> Did I miss something?
>
> When didn't you?
>
>
>> Did we suddenly become friends? What makes you
>> think I have the slightest interest in your wife's tits, or how she takes
>> care of them? You think socialized medicine is so great, you use it.
>
> THAT'S what you missed. It's not socialized medicine and you can't show
> where it is.
It's socialized medicine there.
Christ alfucking mighty
mo_charles
> > you stand. There are a lot of very smart people on the right, and a lot
> > of very stupid people on the left - and vice versa.
>
> The fact that I attack right-wing views more than left-wing views (which is
> very true) does not mean I am left-wing, although I know you are far from
> alone in thinking that. Maybe I just think extreme right-wing ideology is
> far more dangerous? (I do)
giving the government control of anything is dangerous, and that's the
left's default position.
> The fact is that my political views are not at all consistent with left-wing
> ideology. I have never voted, but if I did it certainly wouldn't be for the
> NDP or the Green Party. For the most part, I think left wingers are
> naive but pretty harmless, and their heart is in the right place. They just
> aren't the type of people I would attack. I would much rather attack
> selfish, xenophobic people.
>
> If I had to vote in Canada, it would usually be for the Liberals, which
> is a far more centrist party than their name suggests. Aside from a few
> specific issues (admittedly, some of them pretty big), I think the
> Conservatives have done a pretty damn good job running Canada during their
> tenure. I like having an economist as Prime Minister. I think Harper is an
> intelligent, careful, level-headed, no nonsense leader. I'd take Harper over
> Obama any day.
fewer lawyers in government has to be a good thing.
mo_charles
________________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Iceman
> > > no - the way you constantly degrade right-wingers it's very obvious where
> > > you stand. There are a lot of very smart people on the right, and a lot
> > > of very stupid people on the left - and vice versa.
>
> > The fact that I attack right-wing views more than left-wing views (which is
> > very true) does not mean I am left-wing, although I know you are far from
> > alone in thinking that. Maybe I just think extreme right-wing ideology is
> > far more dangerous? (I do)
>
> giving the government control of anything is dangerous, and that's the
> left's default position.
The attacks on civil liberties lately have been coming from the right
(Patriot Act, Guantanamo, detention without trial, warrantless
surveillance), tolerated by the center (Obama), and have been
challenged by the left.
The left position is to try and regulate private powers that would
otherwise be unaccountable. Without government involvement, you get
massive pollution, unsafe workplaces, racial discrimination,
fraudulent investments. And certain things can't happen without
government control, like mass transit - a private company can't dig
its own subway.
The Democrats' health care plan is far from government control, and
Canada's plan is kind of a public-private hybrid, but government-run
health care works well in countries like France and Germany - they
have higher life expectancies than the US, and spend in most cases
about half the percent of GNP on health care that the US does.
> > The fact is that my political views are not at all consistent with left-wing
> > ideology. I have never voted, but if I did it certainly wouldn't be for the
> > NDP or the Green Party. For the most part, I think left wingers are
> > naive but pretty harmless, and their heart is in the right place. They just
> > aren't the type of people I would attack. I would much rather attack
> > selfish, xenophobic people.
>
> > If I had to vote in Canada, it would usually be for the Liberals, which
> > is a far more centrist party than their name suggests. Aside from a few
> > specific issues (admittedly, some of them pretty big), I think the
> > Conservatives have done a pretty damn good job running Canada during their
> > tenure. I like having an economist as Prime Minister. I think Harper is an
> > intelligent, careful, level-headed, no nonsense leader. I'd take Harper over
> > Obama any day.
>
> fewer lawyers in government has to be a good thing.
Less corporate influence is what we need. Time for some real campaign
finance reform.
johnny_t
> Less corporate influence is what we need. Time for some real campaign
> finance reform.
Under a country that both recognizes Corporations as citizens, and the
first amendment, you are not ever ever going to be able to do that.
Money is speech.
But carry on!
--
If it doesn't fit on a bumper
sticker, Republicans can't un
Clave in RGP
BillB
>I like having an economist as Prime Minister. I think Harper is an
> intelligent, careful, level-headed, no nonsense leader. I'd take Harper
> over Obama any day.
Meet Canada's Prime Minister, Conservative Stephen Harper: