On Health Care

[Guest American Woman]

I don't see it as any more medically necessary than a boob job. Maybe some girl has low confidence and is unhappy because she thinks her breasts are too small and would psychologically benefit from having them augmented. Maybe she's so messed up about it that she's even thinking of suicide over the issue. Too freaking bad, that's a cosmetic surgery and shouldn't be covered by taxpayers.

Sex change operations aren't "cosmetic surgery." They aren't trying to "improve" their appearance. It's not a matter of "low confidence," but rather not identifying with the physical attributes one is born with. I gave the example of the boy who was medically altered into a girl - and never felt like a girl. It's more a matter of one's hormones/chemical make-up not matching the physical aspects one is born with.

[Zachary Young]

People should pay for their own health care. This idea that you can get something for free is absurd. Nothing is free in this world. When you get something for free it ends up costing you a heck of a lot more than when you pay for it yourself. Half of the taxes in Ontario go to health care. If we paid for our own health care we could get rid of half of the taxes. Actually we should just get rid of all the taxes. If something is worth having then people will pay for it voluntarily. The idea that we should rob the public to pay for things is absurd - it's immoral, it's impractical, it has all the justice of a mugging.

[Bonam]

Sex change operations aren't "cosmetic surgery." They aren't trying to "improve" their appearance. It's not a matter of "low confidence," but rather not identifying with the physical attributes one is born with. I gave the example of the boy who was medically altered into a girl - and never felt like a girl. It's more a matter of one's hormones/chemical make-up not matching the physical aspects one is born with.

Umm, for that example, sounds like some hormone pills/shots would be an easier solution than a surgery. I'm sure drugs that stimulate different hormone production glands to function properly could also be used.

[Guest American Woman]

Umm, for that example, sounds like some hormone pills/shots would be an easier solution than a surgery. I'm sure drugs that stimulate different hormone production glands to function properly could also be used.

In the example I gave, surgery was performed to make a boy a girl because of the botched circumcision. He had the surgery to make him a girl because of the botched circumcision, but even though he was given hormones throughout his development, told he was a girl, was a girl physically, mentally he always thought he was a boy. He didn't know he was born a boy, so his gender identity as a boy is something he was born with.

[Bob]

Bob :

Certainly there is a lot a person can do to reduce their own risk of unhealth. They can eat a good diet, high in vegetables, fish, nuts, berries, some meat. They can not smoke, not drink, not engage in highly dangerous activities. They can limit their exposure to toxins. Now I don't think anyone should be FORCED to live a healthy lifestyle, but there is no small degree of moral hazard here in subsidizing the unhealthy life styles of others. If someone engages in high risk behaviour their insurance premiums will reflect that. But certainly I agree there are many diseases which cannot be prevented. And I wouldn't want to live in a society where anyone, for any reason, did not get medical care. Just because I don't want the government to supply health care to everyone doesn't mean I don't want everyone to have health care, or that I For a second think if we had a market in health care anyone would go without. We have a market in food, but who is starving to death? In reality we are much more likely to see shortages in health care in a socialized system like we have now. How long are those wait times to see a specialist again? To say nothing of opportunity costs. Who knows how far medical technology could have advanced if we unleashed the free market, if we didn't have the parasitic burden of the state making our economy sluggish?

Live the healthiest lifestyle imaginable, and you'll still have reasonable odds of acquiring a dread disease. This fantasy of being able to live healthfully and have a 99%+ chance of staying healthy until death is just a fantasy you cling to because you're still young and perhaps haven't yet (knock on wood) been afflicted with a chronic condition. You're greatly overstating an individual's ability to reduce the likelihood of falling ill through lifestyle choices.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Canada sends people to the U.S. so it doesn't have to "waste resources." We are the safety net. What do you think would happen if those people couldn't be sent to the States? Canada would have to put out the money to accommodate them. Instead of spending the money, they rely on the U.S.

Yes...this is certainly the case. Provinces utilize the excess capacity of the US health care system on a routine basis...the latest fave being gastric bypass surgery for obese Canadians. Irony can be found in outsourced third trimester abortions from Quebec (in Kansas) to neo-natal care beds from BC in the state of Washington. Canadians of means don't wait any longer than they have to.

[Bonam]

In the example I gave, surgery was performed to make a boy a girl because of the botched circumcision. He had the surgery to make him a girl because of the botched circumcision, but even though he was given hormones throughout his development, told he was a girl, was a girl physically, mentally he always thought he was a boy. He didn't know he was born a boy, so his gender identity as a boy is something he was born with.

I'm talking about your example of someone with a hormonal problem.

I don't know about your example of the boy you mention, musta missed it. Anyway, it sounds like the whole problem with the example of the boy was he had some horribly screwed up unnecessary surgery. Of course if someone was mistakenly mutilated, they should have access to procedures to restore them to how they were/should be. That's a completely different scenario.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Bonam

[Squeakbox]

I'm talking about your example of someone with a hormonal problem.

I don't know about your example of the boy you mention, musta missed it. Anyway, it sounds like the whole problem with the example of the boy was he had some horribly screwed up unnecessary surgery. Of course if someone was mistakenly mutilated, they should have access to procedures to restore them to how they were/should be. That's a completely different scenario.

Wow - okay... Ya, let's restore a burnt penis that has evaporated from this kid's body. Oh don't worry - it'll grow back!

Tell me when god comes to make that miracle come to life.

That story, however, was a life-lesson example of what NOT to do with someone. Except, for the boy, it may not have been any better if he remained a boy, wondering where his penis is.

I don't think the result would've been any different, but the parent's dealt with it the wrong way.

Also, Bonam, I don't mean to be rude - but you have a lot of assumptions on things.

I understand you have your opinions, but I'm beginning to realize that you have a lot of views that are true in some aspects, but it's just not reality.

Being mutated/disfigured is one thing, but technology is not advanced enough to replace a penis.

[Bonam]

Being mutated/disfigured is one thing, but technology is not advanced enough to replace a penis.

What? If the technology is there to turn a woman into a man, that is, give her a penis (among other changes), then it's certainly also there to give back a penis to a man who lost one.

[Squeakbox]

What? If the technology is there to turn a woman into a man, that is, give her a penis (among other changes), then it's certainly also there to give back a penis to a man who lost one.

You're talking about connecting nerve-endings to something sensitive to sensations, maybe they can repair one if it's fractured or broken:

http://www.rcsed.ac.uk/journal/vol43_2/4320009.htm

That doesn't happen very often either, but especially when they incinerate a penis, how, pray tell, do you fix that?

[Bonam]

You're talking about connecting nerve-endings to something sensitive to sensations, maybe they can repair one if it's fractured or broken:

http://www.rcsed.ac.uk/journal/vol43_2/4320009.htm

That doesn't happen very often either, but especially when they incinerate a penis, how, pray tell, do you fix that?

I'm not an expert on medical procedures of this type, so I can't answer the question adequately without spending a lot of time doing some research. However, it seems obvious to me that if you can have a gender change surgery which adds/removes/changes a variety of organs, restoring one of these organs to someone who lost it through trauma should also be possible. To what extent it would be "sensitive" I don't know. In any case, medical technology is rapidly advancing and that which is difficult or impossible today may well be routine in the near future.

My original point had nothing to do with this, however. Rather, the point was that if someone loses a sex organ, having a surgery to have it restored, if it is possible, should obviously be a part of what is covered under health care. That is a far cry from a gender change, however.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm talking about your example of someone with a hormonal problem. I don't know about your example of the boy you mention, musta missed it.

I didn't give an example of someone with hormonal problems; I don't know if gender identity is hormonal or chemical or part of our DNA make up. I gave the example of the boy-turned-girl to show that gender identity isn't necessarily as easy as giving hormone supplements.

Anyway, it sounds like the whole problem with the example of the boy was he had some horribly screwed up unnecessary surgery. Of course if someone was mistakenly mutilated, they should have access to procedures to restore them to how they were/should be. That's a completely different scenario.

That wasn't my point. My point was to illustrate that people are apparently born with gender-identity, and since he was given hormone treatments, evidently that's not a 'fix.' He was given hormone treatments to the point where he grew breasts; he had a female body, given female hormones, and yet even as a young child he didn't think he was a girl.

There are all kinds of things that can go 'wrong' during fetal development, and who's to say that gender identity isn't one of them? That's entirely different from someone wanting bigger breasts to boost their self esteem.

[Guest American Woman]

You're talking about connecting nerve-endings to something sensitive to sensations, maybe they can repair one if it's fractured or broken:

http://www.rcsed.ac.uk/journal/vol43_2/4320009.htm

That doesn't happen very often either, but especially when they incinerate a penis, how, pray tell, do you fix that?

They did actually give him surgery to construct a penis once they could see that surgically altering him, giving him hormones, and raising him as a girl didn't work.

I found an article about the man; it sounds as if in some ways he was used as an experiment. Very sad all the way around.

link

[CANADIEN]

For Shona Holmes, simple pleasures such as playing with her dog or walking in her plush garden are a gift.

That's another Canadian who "won" - thanks to the Mayo clinic. She had to go to the States for treatment because she couldn't get in to see a specialist in Canada in due time.

"They said to me that you had a brain tumor and it was pressing on your optic chasm and that it needed to come out immediately," Holmes said.

Holmes is Canadian, but the "they" she refers to are doctors at the Mayo Clinic in the United States, where she turned after specialists in her own government-run health care system would not see her fast enough.

"My family doctor at that time tried to get me in to see an endocrinologist and a neurologist," Holmes recalled. "It was going to be four months for one specialist and six months for the other."

Even with the warning from U.S. doctors in hand, Holmes said she still couldn't get in to see Canadian specialists.

Reality check: Canada's government health care system

I am well aware of the problems of the Canadian health care system. It is a need of reform, seriously. But I for one are not in favour of changing for worse

Had Ms. Holmes been an American, she would have had one chance in four of being underinsured or having no insurance at all (that was before the Obama reform, but it's no secret that the Republicans will can it the moment the have an opportunity to do so). Even with a full insurance, there is a good possibility that coverage would have been denied to her if there were any hint of a pre-existing condition, even one remotely related to what she was suffering from. All of which would have seriously undermined her capacity to get treatment. Or she could have bankrupted herself (more than half of bankruptcies in the USA are caused by medical expenses).

I mentioned earlier how a friend of mine was grateful that she was a Canadian when she had cancer. Now that she has beaten the desease, she can still count on her coverage if there is anything that happens to her that would warrant seeing a doctor. In comparison, this happened to someone who had the exact same kind of cancer.

most experts acknowledge that people who have cancer or have recently beat it have a tough time finding individual coverage — a fact Angela Clay of Atlanta discovered the hard way.

Clay, 33, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma eight years ago, while she was living in South Carolina. She survived, thanks to a regimen of chemotherapy, radiation and stem cell treatment, for which she was covered through her job at the time. After she moved to Atlanta in 2001, she had coverage through her job as a teacher in a day care center.

Then another center offered her an assistant manager position in 2004 — a step up with better pay but no benefits. Clay figured she'd simply buy insurance. "I'd go online once a month and fill out applications," she says. The numerous insurers she has tried turned her down, she says, and one told her she had to be in remission for 10 years to receive health insurance. "I've got more than two years to go," Clay says.

Clay still has no coverage and so must put off nonemergency medical care, including the follow-up she needs to be sure the cancer hasn't returned. "I'm very worried," she says. "I know I need checkups for my health. It makes me feel vulnerable." She sees a doctor only for emergencies, such as a severe boil she developed in January. (She's still paying off the $800 it cost to have the doctor drain it, at $20 a month.) Clay fears the stress of living without insurance will further harm her health. "It's hard for me to focus because I have this on my mind," she says.

link

Edited September 18, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Guest American Woman]

I am well aware of the problems of the Canadian health care system. It is a need of reform, seriously. But I for one are not in favour of changing for worse.

That's the way I feel, as an American.

Had Ms. Holmes been an American, she would have had one chance in four of being underinsured or having no insurance at all (that was before the Obama reform, but it's no secret that the Republicans will can it the moment the have an opportunity to do so).

What difference would it have made if she didn't have insurance? Having coverage in Canada didn't help her. She still had to pay for it. So what would have been different if she had been an American without insurance? I guess the biggest difference if she had been an American would have been that she would have had a three to one chance of having insurance - which are much better odds than the one you mentioned.

As for Republicans canning Obama's insurance requirement the moment they have the opportunity to do so - I can only hope they do; and I'm not a Republican. His requirement doesn't do anything towards solving the problems that most uninsured Americans face.

Even with a full insurance, there is a good possibility that coverage would have been denied to her if there were any hint of a pre-existing condition, even one remotely related to what she was suffering from. All of which would have seriously undermined her capacity to get treatment. Or she could have bankrupted herself (more than half of bankruptcies in the USA are caused by medical expenses).

Define "good possibility." I know of people with brain tumors who were treated without question. I've never heard of anyone being refused, much less for a pre-existing condition just remotely related to it. Perhaps you could provide an example? If not, your "could haves" in that regard means nothing.

And I have to wonder, how could she have had a greater likelihood of bankrupting herself if she were American?? She had to receive treatment in America and PAY for it. Having health coverage in Canada didn't help her at all.

I mentioned earlier how a friend of mine was grateful that she was a Canadian when she had cancer. Now that she has beaten the desease, she can still count on her coverage if there is anything that happens to her that would warrant seeing a doctor. In comparison, this happened to someone who had the exact same kind of cancer.

link

If your friend can see a specialist in good time, then great. But wait times can be deadly. That's the point I was making - not that it's not available.

I realize situations such as the one you linked to occur sometimes in the U.S. but it seems as if so many Canadians are in denial about the state of their healthcare. These Canadians say, 'yes, U.S. health care is good if you are covered' and my response, the point of my post, is, 'yes, Canadian health care is good if you can be seen in a timely manner.'

Both systems fail a certain number of people, but to hear so many Canadians tell it, yours is flawless. 'It serves everyone, no one is denied' seems to be all that matters to them. Also, there is no credit given to the fact that the Canadian health care service does save money by sending people to the U.S. when the facilities/services aren't available in Canada.

I think a lot of Canadians take so much pride in their health care because it give them some sense of superiority over the United States because we don't have national health coverage. It seems to be trotted out quite often - even at hockey games when the U.S. beat Canada: At least we have health care! How ridiculous would it look if an American were to hold up a sign saying "At least we have enough neo natal facilities and specialists!" after a hockey loss to Canada. My point is: I think your government gets away with a system that you recognize needs reform because too many Canadians are content to be perfectly happy with it because they take such pride in it in comparison to the U.S. I doubt if they'd be as happy with it if the comparison didn't exist. But as long as we don't have it, they'll just be happy with what you've got.

Edited September 18, 2011 by American Woman

[Squeakbox]

I'm not an expert on medical procedures of this type, so I can't answer the question adequately without spending a lot of time doing some research. However, it seems obvious to me that if you can have a gender change surgery which adds/removes/changes a variety of organs, restoring one of these organs to someone who lost it through trauma should also be possible. To what extent it would be "sensitive" I don't know. In any case, medical technology is rapidly advancing and that which is difficult or impossible today may well be routine in the near future.

My original point had nothing to do with this, however. Rather, the point was that if someone loses a sex organ, having a surgery to have it restored, if it is possible, should obviously be a part of what is covered under health care. That is a far cry from a gender change, however.

I thought he committed suicide? Either way, it was a tragedy.

But if it IS possible to replace a penis, which I'm sure it's possible with advanced technology (in the future perhaps), then it is likely. But lately, in medical research, I have not heard any advancements on this type of situation. I don't even think they've advanced robotics enough to replicate human skin sensation properly.

An implant is possible, so I guess they are close to the idea of it:

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/services/surgical_penile_implants/hic_surgical_penile_implants.aspx

I'd watch out for botched surgeries though... as with anything.

[Argus]

I mean what I said.

What you said was meaningless.

Yeah, we "need" that. It's not the Canadians who are sent here for lack of facilities/services who need it. It's us.

Yes, to help subsidize your system.

It's not a "gross inefficiency" to the people's whose lives have been saved because of it

And how many lives do you imagine have been saved because of capacity which is grossly in excess of needs?

- and that includes the Canadians who were sent here because Canada lacked such "gizmos."

I'm not suggesting the Canadian system is without flaws. I'm merely suggesting that it's immensely superior to yours.

[Argus]

People should pay for their own health care.

The idea that the state should provide hospitals and health care didn't originate with left wing socialist types but with businessmen who realized that sickness spreading amongst their workers cost them production time and money. Also, disease knows few social barriers. Let disease run rampant among the lower classes and the rich are soon dying, as well.

That's entirely outside the moral failure in letting people die in the streets for lack of money for common drugs or operations while we skip merrily down the road with our newest unnecessary gizmos and glitziest fashion accessories.

[Argus]

That's the way I feel, as an American.

No need to worry. There ARE no worse systems than yours.

Its sole advantage is the trainloads of cash you put into it allow for reasonable health outcomes despite massive waste and inefficiency.

[cybercoma]

I'm speaking of Canadians who are sent to the States because there's not enough facilities in Canada or the service isn't available.

How many Canadians are sent to the States due to lack of facilities and services?

[Guest American Woman]

What you said was meaningless.

Might be to those lacking comprehension skills. I wouldn't know.

Yes, to help subsidize your system.

Our "system" doesn't need subsidizing. Our system is privatized. The system isn't benefiting from Canadians being sent here because of lack of facilities/services in Canada - the medical centers/personnel are. If the system were to benefit from these Canadians, it would make no sense for Canada not to put the money into building more facilities/providing more services. Or perhaps you think the Canadian government is just being a good neighbor - sending Canadians our way rather than putting the money out to provide for them in Canada - out of concern for our "system?"

And how many lives do you imagine have been saved because of capacity which is grossly in excess of needs?

You need a number to justify it?? Good grief. How many deaths do you think are ok before the "gizmos" that aren't often needed are "justified?" And why do you think Canada sends patients to the U.S. when lacking the "gizmos" needed rather than letting the patients die?

I'm not suggesting the Canadian system is without flaws. I'm merely suggesting that it's immensely superior to yours.

And I'm suggesting that for some people it is, and for some people it isn't - same as ours. I'm also suggesting that your health care system uses the U.S. as a safety net when lacking facilities/services, saving Canada money - because that's a fact. I'm also suggesting that the U.S. has no such safety net, because that, too, is a fact.

[Guest American Woman]

How many Canadians are sent to the States due to lack of facilities and services?

Why does the number matter? Without our facilities/services, they would be dead. Are you ok with that? With Canadians dying because of lack of facilities/services? How many such deaths are you willing to accept? Bottom line - you want a number, you do the research. The fact that it happens should speak for itself.

[Squeakbox]

There are certain Canadians that get sent to the states, very high-profile cases. Take a case one time where a boy was born with a growth problem on his face, the "elephant man" scenario - he was so high-profile he was on Dr. Oz or the Doctors I believe? He ended up with a doctor that was willing to do the surgery for FREE and did a miracle job at that.

I'm pretty sure that the family was in Canada, but they weren't in the states for sure.

In that situation, would I trust the local hospital with that? Frick no!

EDIT: here's the news article from that situation: http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100521/maddox-flynn-surgery-100521/20100521/?hub=EdmontonHome

He was sent to New York for that surgery, and so it should! In fact, there's lots of surgeries that people would rather go to the states for if they truly know what they're going for, and research into it.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Squeakbox

[Guest American Woman]

There ARE no worse systems than yours.

That statement right there exposes your ignorance.

Edited September 18, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Why does the number matter? Without our facilities/services, they would be dead. Are you ok with that? With Canadians dying because of lack of facilities/services? How many such deaths are you willing to accept? Bottom line - you want a number, you do the research. The fact that it happens should speak for itself.

I want a number because you made a claim, are sensationalizing that claim, and refuse to back it up with any tangible evidence. I want to know what services and facilities are seriously lacking in Canada and how many Canadians are being sent to the States to make up for it. You claim it's enough to subsidize the entire multi-billion dollar American healthcare system. I find that incredibly hard to believe since the entire population of Canada is roughly that of the state of California. So, if you can't provide any evidence whatsoever to backup the claim that you're making, then I'll just go ahead and assume you're full of shit.