Shady Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 You're asking for a lot....she is not required to gamble with your opinion. Yep, she should be a good Canadian, keep quiet, and roll the dice. Vision loss, seizures, diabetes insipidus, no big deal. She shouldn't have the choice to have it taken care sooner than 5 - 6 months, even if she wants to pay with her own money. We need to spread the misery equally, and make her wait, and give her no other options. Who cares if there's a 22% chance that some symptoms won't be reversable, even with surgery. Who cares if the longer the tumor's in place, the increased chance of it leading to other problems. We're trying to preserve the great Tom Douglas' health scheme, which is to be totally subservient to the government for your healthcare, and therefore, your life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 You're asking for a lot....she is not required to gamble with your opinion. It is not an opinion that blindness is not a death sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Yep...not only do some people want to shut her up They want her to shut up because she's lying. Lying about having cancer, lying about the risk to her life, lying about the risk to her sight, and lying about being denied care. If someone was telling the truth, there's be something to discuss. She (and you) want a discussion centred around a strawman. I prefer reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 It is not an opinion that blindness is not a death sentence. It is if you're driving a car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 It is if you're driving a car. There is a brake pedal on cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 And I suppose these people lied as well... Top court strikes down Quebec private health-care ban As a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, patients have suffered and even died in some cases Take your McCarthyism elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 It is if you're driving a car. She wouldn't be close to blind before she couldn't legally drive a car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 And I suppose these people lied as well... Top court strikes down Quebec private health-care ban As a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, patients have suffered and even died in some cases Take your McCarthyism elsewhere. No one has denied that this happens but Shona Homles lied Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 They want her to shut up because she's lying. Lying about having cancer A tumor is the name for a swelling or lesion formed by an abnormal growth of cells. By definition, a tumor is cancer. And a tumor is what she had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 She wouldn't be close to blind before she couldn't legally drive a car. That wasn't the point.....how much disability should she endure just to satisfy the political gods? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Top court strikes down Quebec private health-care banAs a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, patients have suffered and even died in some cases These deaths have to be compared to the deaths that would have occurred if no public option were ever imposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 A tumor is the name for a swelling or lesion formed by an abnormal growth of cells. By definition, a tumor is cancer. And a tumor is what she had. No she had a Cyst Cyst: A cyst is a closed sac having a distinct membrane and division on the nearby tissue. It may contain air, fluids, or semi-solid material. A collection of pus is called an abscess, not a cyst. Once formed, a cyst could go away on its own or may have to be removed through surgery. Tumour: A tumor or tumour is the name for a swelling or lesion formed by an abnormal growth of cells (termed neoplastic).[1] Tumor is not synonymous with cancer. A tumor can be benign, pre-malignant or malignant, whereas cancer is by definition malignant. Learn to read I've been through this a dozen times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) And I suppose these people lied as well... Top court strikes down Quebec private health-care ban As a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, patients have suffered and even died in some cases Take your McCarthyism elsewhere. Different province. In 2005 RAMQ in Quebec was a mess. Ontario's system is much better. Quebec is too now apparently. They've done some things on both the private and public side that are quite innovative from what Ive heard. Oh, and you can argue about health care all you want. The trick is though, we can dismiss you if we want, because we've made our choice. We have our rights too. Edited August 18, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) Different province. In 2005 RAMQ in Quebec was a mess. Ontario's system is much better. Quebec is too now apparently. They've done some things on both the private and public side that are quite innovative from what Ive heard. The situation in Quebec was very simple: because Ottawa was fighting to balance its budgets, Quebec was constrained to accept huge cut in its transfer payments. Edited August 18, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Different province. In 2005 RAMQ in Quebec was a mess. Ontario's system is much better. Quebec is too now apparently. They've done some things on both the private and public side that are quite innovative from what Ive heard. Quebec does everything differently than the rest of Canada, who would their approach to healthcare be any different. Distinct society, distinct healthcare. My Canada may include Quebec, but I sure don't include them in any discussion of how taxation or social services operate in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Quebec does everything differently than the rest of Canada, who would their approach to healthcare be any different. Distinct society, distinct healthcare. My Canada may include Quebec, but I sure don't include them in any discussion of how taxation or social services operate in Canada. French is certainly a linguistic barrier preventing Quebecers to be too readily seduced by the American way-of-life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Quebec does everything differently than the rest of Canada, who would their approach to healthcare be any different. Distinct society, distinct healthcare. My Canada may include Quebec, but I sure don't include them in any discussion of how taxation or social services operate in Canada. They operate differently, as they are entitled to. That said, they are starting to take some of the better ideas from other provinces and other countries. Their waits are supposed to be decreasing substantially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 That said, they are starting to take some of the better ideas from other provinces and other countries. Like what for example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Learn to read I've been through this a dozen times. I did. In fact, I read a link posted by you. Her family doctor in Canada ordered an MRI, and a brain tumor was detected. But it would take months for her to get on the appointment calendar of a neurologist or endocrinologist in Canada. Maybe it's you who needs to learn to read. However, the real question, is why should the government dictate when anybody receives treatment for a serious medical issue? Socialized medicine costs us our freedoms, and gives the government much too much power over our lives. Literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I did. In fact, I read a link posted by you. Her family doctor in Canada ordered an MRI, and a brain tumor was detected. But it would take months for her to get on the appointment calendar of a neurologist or endocrinologist in Canada. Maybe it's you who needs to learn to read. However, the real question, is why should the government dictate when anybody receives treatment for a serious medical issue? Socialized medicine costs us our freedoms, and gives the government much too much power over our lives. Literally. Then the Mayo Clinic showed that that Diagnosis was wrong and it was a cyst Dr. Naresh Patel, neurosurgeon, diagnosed Holmes as having a Rathke's cleft cyst (RCC). The rare, fluid-filled sac grows near the pituitary gland at the base of the brain and eventually can cause hormone and vision problems. She had a Cyst. Also the government has no say what so ever as to when you get treatment your doctor does. before you debate Canadian healthcare at least learn the first thing about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 However, the real question, is why should the government dictate when anybody receives treatment for a serious medical issue? Like if our democracy was a dictatorship! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I'm sorry, but if she had a brain tumor...if they even really though that she had one, she ould never wait six months if it was thought that tumor would cause problems. To think that she would is completely crazy. Emergency care happens immediately in Canada the same as it does in the US. I have watched it happen several times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) I'm sorry, but if she had a brain tumor...if they even really though that she had one, she ould never wait six months if it was thought that tumor would cause problems. To think that she would is completely crazy. Emergency care happens immediately in Canada the same as it does in the US. I have watched it happen several times. She did not have a brain tumour!!! And she damn well knew it. She lied to the US media and people. She was diagnosed in 1998 with a slow growing cyst on her pituitary gland. Edited August 18, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) She did not have a brain tumour!!! And she damn well knew it. She lied to the US media and people. She was diagnosed in 1998 with a slow growing cyst on her pituitary gland. In 1998!!! Fuck that makes it even worse. Were did it say 1998? Edited August 18, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 She did not have a brain tumour!!! And she damn well knew it. She lied to the US media and people. She was diagnosed in 1998 with a slow growing cyst on her pituitary gland. Also, a Rathke's cleft cyst is congenital. Pre-existing conditions have no meaning to us, but if we had American health care, she'd quite likely have been denied coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.