stranger little Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 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. Hahahahha sooo true. This woman is a half-truth crusader!!! Dolla Dolla bills yeaaaalllllllllll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 ...Then the Mayo Clinic showed that that Diagnosis was wrong and it was a cyst.... Gee, that's sure an encouraging thought....let's wait several years and The Mayo Clinic will finally get it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Gee, that's sure an encouraging thought....let's wait several years and The Mayo Clinic will finally get it right. In several years the Baby Boom generation will end, a lot of nurses will become unemployed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 She did not have a brain tumour!!! I know, that's the point I was trying to make. A brain tumor, or even a cyst causing real problems would be operate on right away, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I know, that's the point I was trying to make. A brain tumor, or even a cyst causing real problems would be operate on right away, period. And the best brains don't need much money to understand that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Then the Mayo Clinic showed that that Diagnosis was wrong and it was a cyst Exactly. She had to have the Mayo Clinic diagnose it correctly. But until then, she was under the impression she had brain cancer. Which is why she left for treatment immediately, instead of waiting 5 - 6 months. I'm not sure how those facts help your ridiculous argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Exactly. She had to have the Mayo Clinic diagnose it correctly. But until then, she was under the impression she had brain cancer. Which is why she left for treatment immediately, instead of waiting 5 - 6 months. I'm not sure how those facts help your ridiculous argument. Some false impressions cannot be dealt with by neurologists but by psychiatrists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Shady, do you honestly believe that someone with serious brain cancer would have to wait six months? If you do, then you're delusional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Shady, do you honestly believe that someone with serious brain cancer would have to wait six months? If you do, then you're delusional. Which of these facts is wrong? 1) She was told by our healthcare system that she had a brain tumor. 2) She was then told by our healthcare sytem that it would be 5 - 6 months for further treatment. But the bigger question is still, why should the government have any business telling us how and when we get treated for sickness or disease? Especially when one is willing to pay for their own care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) 1) She was told by our healthcare system that she had a brain tumor.2) She was then told by our healthcare sytem that it would be 5 - 6 months for further treatment. We don't know if either of those things are true. We have no way of knowing. There is evidence provided by doctors that it isn't true though. They have already said what would happen in an emergency case. Canadians have decided what type of system they want. The government has simply carried out their wishes. Edited August 18, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Exactly. She had to have the Mayo Clinic diagnose it correctly. But until then, she was under the impression she had brain cancer. Which is why she left for treatment immediately, instead of waiting 5 - 6 months. I'm not sure how those facts help your ridiculous argument. That's just not true. You are perpetrating the same lies that Holmes did. She knew since 1998 that she had a slow growing cyst on her pituitary gland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 That's just not true. You are perpetrating the same lies that Holmes did.She knew since 1998 that she had a slow growing cyst on her pituitary gland. No she didn't, otherwise she wouldn't have hocked her house to get a proper diagnosis and treatment. Half-ass hindsight from her previous "doctors" doesn't count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I don't find her wrd to be very convincing. One question though, where does the 1998 number come from Tango? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 No she didn't, otherwise she wouldn't have hocked her house to get a proper diagnosis and treatment. Half-ass hindsight from her previous "doctors" doesn't count. It takes a blinded Canadian woman to save the human face of the USA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 It takes a blinded Canadian woman to save the human face of the USA! Blinded by Canada ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Blinded by Canada ??? Blinded by her fear of death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Blinded by her fear of death. Yeah, what a jerk, she didn't wanna die. How selfish. Anyways, she was definitely blinded by the misdiagnosis of the Canadian healthcare system, which told her she had a brain tumor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 We don't know if either of those things are true. We have no way of knowing. 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. Mayo Clinic Canadians have decided what type of system they want. The government has simply carried out their wishes. That's not true. People want changes made. All one has to do is look at the Quebec supreme court case, and others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) She didn't have a brain tumor and we still don't have any evidence from her doctors that they thought it was a tumor. A serious brain tumor would not have you waiting 6 months. There is no way. People outside of Quebec want a more public system (in Quebec they're split). You don't. You're not on the same page as most people. Non brain tumor head and neck cancer can be done in as little as 29 days on average (and in no time if serious). Brain tumors would be handled even more quickly in serious cases. http://www.waittimes.net/waittimes/en/wt_s...IN=0&Mod=14 Edited August 18, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 An overwhelming 83 per cent of doctors believe there is an “urgent” need to fix Canada's health-care system, but they are split on whether a fundamental transformation is required, or if necessary improvements can be made by tinkering with the current system. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1255045/ If it was a perfect as smallc says, doctors wouldn't see a need to urgently fix it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 People outside of Quebec want a more public system (in Quebec they're split). I don't see Quebec being split at all on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) If it was a perfect as smallc says, doctors wouldn't see a need to urgently fix it. Where did I say it was perfect? If you would point that out to me, it would be great. Doctors are as evenly split as people when it comes to private and public solutions. A fix doesn't have to mean pay for private care as one doctor on the news explained to day. The system works, but it doesn't always work well. The Canadian people like the system. Every system has problems though, and you can never fix everything. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. 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 Where di I say it was perfect? Doctors are as evenly split as people when it comes to private and public solutions. A fix doesn't have to mean pay for private care as one doctor on the news explained to day. The system works, but it doesn't always work well. The Canadian people like the system. Every system has problems though, and you can never fix everything. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. About taxing what is unhealthy to fix our healthcare system!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I mean, here's the thing. The CMA has always opposed universal healthcare. They opposed medicare in the 1960s and the Canada Health Act in the 1980s. That said, many doctors that want change (such as the person who will become CMA president next year) strongly support the system that we have. They simply want improvements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I mean, here's the thing. The CMA has always opposed universal healthcare. They opposed medicare in the 1960s and the Canada Health Act in the 1980s. That said, many doctors that want change (such as the person who will become CMA president next year) strongly support the system that we have. They simply want improvements. What caused their reversal!? 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.