Liberal Record On Buying Medical Equipment

[THELIBERAL]

In the last decade since 1993 the number of MRI machines in the country has gone up 400%!

The Conservatives were in power before 1993 for 9 years and we had a grand total of 30 Mri Machines when they run the show!

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...3/25/c4564.html

SUPPLY OF IMAGING EQUIPMENT

---------------------------

Canada had a total of 147 MRI scanners in January 2003 compared to 30 in

1993, an increase of nearly 400%. The number of CT scanners rose by about 50%

over the same period, from 216 in 1993 to 326 in January 2003. The country

also had 594 nuclear medicine cameras, 165 angiography suites, 94

catheterization labs, and 14 PET scanners in January 2003.

[Bryan]

I don't see in that article where it states how many of those MRIs the Liberal Federal Government specifically bought, and how many were purchased by other means.

[Canuck E Stan]

Canada also fell short in high-tech medical devices.

The country had 4.5 MRI machines for every million people, well below the OECD average of 7.6 for every million. The number of CT scanners in Canada stood at 10.3 for every million population, below the OECD average of 17.9.

Hardly anything to be ranting about,among other things we aren't doing well at.....

http://www.canada.com/health/story.html?id...0a-a34edfeef228

[kimmy]

In 1993, MRIs were still an emerging technology, largely experimental and used in research settings, not everyday medical use.

MRIs were not in widespread in Canada before 1993 for the same reason that DVD players were not in widespread use in Canada before 1997. MRI has grown rapidly in the past decade for the same reason that DVD has grown rapidly in the past 5 years.

The argument THELIBERAL is making is about as honest as pointing out the deplorable state of the Royal Canadian Airforce under John A MacDonald's regime. How dumb would someone have to be to fall for it?

-k

[THELIBERAL]

RE::Hardly anything to be ranting about,among other things we aren't doing well at.....

Note Stan conviently ignored these facts:::

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...3/25/c4564.html

Countries with More Machines Do Not Necessarily Provide More Scans:

Manitoba, for example, had about 2.6 MRI scanners per million

population in 2001, half the number England reported in 2001. Yet

Manitoba reported a higher scan rate than England - 17 scans per 1,000

people in 2001-02, compared to 14 in England. (Given that Manitoba's

definition of scans is narrower than England's, this comparison likely

underestimates the difference in scan rates.)

- Age of Equipment: Canada's MRI and CT machines are, on average, newer

than those in Europe. According to 2001 data, nearly 70% of Canada's

MRI and CT scanners were less than five years old, a larger proportion

than in 9 European countries where equipment age was tracked.

[THELIBERAL]

RE::In 1993, MRIs were still an emerging technology,

Yes indeed an emerging technology!!!!!

ONLY 30 MACHINES EMERGED DURING THE MULRONEY YEARS!!!!

[Dan]

RE::In 1993, MRIs were still an emerging technology,

Yes indeed an emerging technology!!!!!

ONLY 30 MACHINES EMERGED DURING THE MULRONEY YEARS!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All praise the beatific munificence of the Holy Liberal Party!!!

[THELIBERAL]

RE::In 1993, MRIs were still an emerging technology,

Yes indeed an emerging technology!!!!!

ONLY 30 MACHINES EMERGED DURING THE MULRONEY YEARS!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All praise the beatific munificence of the Holy Liberal Party!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well Dan the truth is the Liberals have upped our ownership of MRI machines in the country by 400% since they won that election in 93?

[Dan]

RE::In 1993, MRIs were still an emerging technology,

Yes indeed an emerging technology!!!!!

ONLY 30 MACHINES EMERGED DURING THE MULRONEY YEARS!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All praise the beatific munificence of the Holy Liberal Party!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well Dan the truth is the Liberals have upped our ownership of MRI machines in the country by 400% since they won that election in 93?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You could say the same about any emerging technology. Should we thank the Lieberals for the increased use of PDA's. By your logic they should get the credit.

Lets thank them for cell phones and DVD players as well.

[THELIBERAL]

No all of that is not neccessary Dan just give them a little credit for buying more MRI Machines!

Fact is since they came into power our ownership of MRI Machines in this country has risen by 400%!

That is a fact!

[Argus]

No all of that is not neccessary Dan just give them a little credit for buying more MRI Machines!

Fact is since they came into power our ownership of MRI Machines in this country has risen by 400%!

That is a fact!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I give them credit for nearly destroying public health care in this country. I give them credit for deliberately keeping health care in chaos in order to stoke the political fires for self profit. I think that Martin knows very well that the present system is unustainable as it is but feels there is more political advantage in defending it than in solving the problems.

[kimmy]

No all of that is not neccessary Dan just give them a little credit for buying more MRI Machines!

Fact is since they came into power our ownership of MRI Machines in this country has risen by 400%!

That is a fact!

On a similar note, Pierre Trudeau was a tight-fisted miser who wouldn't put computers in school classrooms. And, as I mentioned earlier, John A MacDonald made a complete joke of the Royal Canadian Air Force, not buying a single plane during his time as Prime Minister.

Seriously, THELIBERAL, are you so stupid as to believe this figure you keep repeating is of any merit, or are you simply attempting to bait people?

-k

[THELIBERAL]

RE::Seriously, THELIBERAL, are you so stupid as to believe this figure you keep repeating is of any merit, or are you simply attempting to bait people?

Well the fact is our ownership of MRI machines has increased 400% since the Liberals took over power in 1993.

Don't try to use the cop out MRI were new tech. We had 30 of them so they were on the market!

Some people have a great deal of trouble dealing with the truth and the facts!

But hey!!! To be Conservative is to deny the Liberals have done anything in over 10 years! That is just typical Conservative thinking!

[cybercoma]

RE::Seriously, THELIBERAL, are you so stupid as to believe this figure you keep repeating is of any merit, or are you simply attempting to bait people?

Well the fact is our ownership of MRI machines has increased 400% since the Liberals took over power in 1993.

  Don't try to use the cop out MRI were new tech. We had 30 of them so they were on the market!

Some people have a great deal of trouble dealing with the truth and the facts!

But hey!!! To be Conservative is to deny the Liberals have done anything in over 10 years! That is just typical Conservative thinking!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm a little disappointed Trudeau didn't put comptuers in classrooms, as kimmy said. He has to easily be the single most worthless Liberal ever to hold office, for this stunt alone. It's absolutely damning that Sir John A. didn't buy a single fighter jet for the RCAF during his time in office either.

And if you can't understand how that relates to your post than you're nothing short of a moron.

You're quite obviously trolling, but to give you your answer with evidence to back it up, here is a link:

http://www.igc.com/mbg/rd/Mt16paper1Color.pdf

Even though great strides were being made to reduce

installation, operating and service costs these were not

sufficient to maintain growth of MRI magnet sales in an

industry that suffered severe price erosion in the period

following the 1993 USA sales slump. Magnet cost reductions

have been aggressively pursued in programs of value

engineering and productivity improvement to enable the continuous year after year price reductions (shown in Fig. 9)

for a self shielded 1.5 tesla magnet. The total price reduction

is ~ 40% over the five year period. It is commonly believed in

the industry that magnet acquisition price reductions of a few

percent per year will continue to be required to assure the

growth of MRI in an ever more cost conscious health care

market. This will be especially challenging as the demand for

more functionality and new magnet configurations continues.

That's on page 6 of the .pdf and it shows that between 1993-1999 there was a 40% decrease in the price of MRIs.

[Guest eureka]

We did not need more fighter jets then. John A. flew high enough and erratically rnough to keep the sky clear of any predatory birds.

Your link suggests, though, that it was cost that slowed the growth of MRI use and not unavailability.

[kimmy]

RE::Seriously, THELIBERAL, are you so stupid as to believe this figure you keep repeating is of any merit, or are you simply attempting to bait people?

Well the fact is our ownership of MRI machines has increased 400% since the Liberals took over power in 1993.

  Don't try to use the cop out MRI were new tech. We had 30 of them so they were on the market!

Some people have a great deal of trouble dealing with the truth and the facts!

But hey!!! To be Conservative is to deny the Liberals have done anything in over 10 years! That is just typical Conservative thinking!

The fact you present is not what causes me to question your intelligence. The conclusion which you have drawn from this fact is what causes me to question your intelligence. Your insistence on drawing a faulty inference from this information, and your inability to understand simple principles that are presented to you is what casts serious doubt on your intelligence. These are rather fundamental symptoms of a mental handicap, in fact. In all honesty, having this conversation with you reminds me of helping my cousin's autistic son. Like you, he continually repeats the few facts he knows but his ability to assimilate new information is severely limited. He has, over time, learned that if his hand-held video game stops working, it means "Battery's dead." And when anything else stops working, whether it's a power-failure or a car that stalls, he proclaims "Battery's dead."

As the information cybercoma provided (thanks for the excellent link, cybercoma! ) demonstrates, there have been considerable advances in MRI technology since 1993 that have reduced the cost of the machines enormously.

Something else to consider: aside from the cost of the machine itself, there's the question of where to put it. I've toured the University of Alberta Hospital's MRI research facility, which is deep underground in a specially constructed wing. It has heavy, expensive magnetic shielding which cost as much to install as buying an MRI machine. This is necessary because MRI machines use magnetic fields stronger than the magnets that they use on cranes to lift cars at the auto-wreckers. The older machines caused such powerful magnetic fields that it disrupted electronics, especially computer monitors. And even deep underground and surrounded by magnetic shielding, the powerful magnetic fields of the MRI machines still caused computer monitors upstairs to distort when the machines were in operation, so they've also purchased new LCD monitors for the staff so they can use the machines without disrupting administrative work.

Those older MRI machines are now used primarily for research by the UofA's biomedical engineers and diagnostic imaging researchers. The hospital has newer, better machines that are upstairs and don't need to be buried deep underground. Why? Advances (in active magnetic shielding) made since 1993 have allowed MRI machines to be installed without the ridiculous expense of building a Saddam Hussein-style shielded bunker to house the machines.

Since 1993 they've developed better electromagnets that are smaller, less expensive, and require less liquid nitrogen to operate. (Supercooling is required to generate the powerful magnetic fields used in MRI machines. Liquid nitrogen is the primary expense in operating an MRI machine.)

And then there's the question of who'd operate a bunch of MRI machines back during the Mulroney years. There weren't exactly a lot of MRI technicians just walking around at the time.

As well, some of the most useful MRI techniques weren't even developed by 1993. One of the reasons so many more MRI machines have been purchased recently is that they are becoming so much more useful. Researchers (like the ones in the basement at the UofA) are continually developing new ways that MRI machines can give more information. During the Mulroney years, doctors didn't know how to do nearly as much with an MRI machine. It is the ongoing development that has made these machines so important in medicine today.

If you don't think enough MRI machines were purchased during the Mulroney years, why don't you check out MRI wait-lists during the Mulroney years? I bet there wasn't a waiting-list at all, because doctors simply didn't request many MRIs at the time.

In 1993, buying and installing an MRI machine was ridiculously expensive, and yielded results that are not nearly as valuable as the results MRI machines can generate today. Health boards did not buy many before 1993 because the cost/benefit ratio was ridiculously poor. For all but a few research-oriented hospitals, buying MRIs during the Mulroney years would have been a foolish decision that took funding away from areas that at the time were far more needed than more MRI scanners.

You could buy a DVD player as early as 1997, but unless you were very rich or very stupid, you didn't buy one for at least a couple of years. The machines costed a fortune, and there weren't very many movies for it. For most consumers, the price was too high and the benefits were too low. And I guarantee that if you look at statistics for other countries, you will find that their number of MRI machines has gone up dramatically since 1993 as well.

And then there's the question of who actually buys MRI machines. Did the Mulroney government buy *any* MRI machines? Did the Chretien government buy *any* MRI machines? Well, probably not. The federal government doesn't make purchasing decisions. They just provide a share of the funding for provincial healthcare authorities. If you really feel that the Chretien government's funding for healthcare was so awesome, why don't you have a look at the federal government's share of healthcare expenses during the 1990s. uh-oh. Not so awesome, is it.

There you go, THELIBERAL. There's the information, if you're interested in attempting to actually learn something. However, I suspect I've wasted my time; you'll look at this, comprehend none of it, and say "Yeah but the number of MRIs has gone up 400% since 1993 " (or, as my cousin's son might say, "Battery's dead.")

-kimmy

[THELIBERAL]

Just a wonderful post kimmy more of it devoted to a personal attack against me than you addressing the facts.

Typical of a lot of Conservative types.

Of course most of what you said was not backed up with any proof which is also typical of a Conservative. Just your personal views!

The Liberals bought more medical equipment in the last decade (including MRI's) than the Conservatives did during the 9 years Mulroney was in power!!!

Of course you chose to devalue this fact. BTW how much has our population increased since we kicked Mulroney out? This could explain some of the reason for our wait times.

Wait times that are better than Britain's who happen to have a 2 tier system.

I think you like most Conservative supporters need to do some research!

[willy]

The Liberals bought more medical equipment in the last decade (including MRI's) than the Conservatives did during the 9 years Mulroney was in power!!!

How do you figure. Provincial governments like Harris and Klien have made investments but in 95 the federal contribution was reduced. So did the NDP in a few other provinces.

The Liberal Party of Canada has done nothing but have a commission that has done nothing.

Sorry this year they signed a 10 year $40billion deal. This will run health care in the country for 2 days a year. Hardly and improvement.

[THELIBERAL]

RE::Sorry this year they signed a 10 year $40billion deal. This will run health care in the country for 2 days a year. Hardly and improvement.

40 BILLION will only run healthcare for 2 days a year?

Wonderful Conservative logic there willy!!!

[willy]

liberal you do the math.

4 billion a year over ten provinces and the north.

Well is that going to really fix the problem? No.

BC annual health care costs right now, 14 billion. And that is a moving target.

[August1991]

I think the $40 billion is over 5 years, not 10. So that's about $8 billion per year.

We now spend about $120 billion annually on health care so $8 billion is about 3 weeks worth (not 2 days).

It's worth noting that to keep health spending at about 10% of GDP (as it is now), and since GDP is growing, we would have to add about $8 billion annually. IOW, PM PM's billion dollar announcement to fix health care for a generation is just business as usual.

[cybercoma]

Of course that $40 Billion dollars will only go towards lining the pockets of the hospital administrators and not actually towards improving services.

[kimmy]

I think the $40 billion is over 5 years, not 10. So that's about $8 billion per year.

We now spend about $120 billion annually on health care so $8 billion is about 3 weeks worth (not 2 days).

It's worth noting that to keep health spending at about 10% of GDP (as it is now), and since GDP is growing, we would have to add about $8 billion annually.  IOW, PM PM's billion dollar announcement to fix health care for a generation is just business as usual.

I believe this is the framework of the plan:

10-year plan

2004-05 $2.125 billion

2005-06 $3.125

2006-07 $3.440

2007-08 $3.298

2008-09 $3.029

2009-10 $3.037

2010-11 $3.426

2011-12 $4.952

2012-13 $6.569

2013-14 $8.283

Given the current cost of $130 billion annually, this basically works out to an average of 3% increase per year. Probably not even enough to keep up with rising costs.

It is interesting to note that the plan is heavily back-loaded... $19.8 billion of the $41.3 billion total is in the final 3 years. In the first 7 years of the plan, there's a total of $21.5 billion, an average of $3.07 billion per year... 2.4% annual increases for the next 7 years... almost certainly not enough to keep up with the rate costs are rising.

Fixed for a generation?! It won't even be fixed in a generation.

-k

[willy]

Thanks for getting the numbers kimmy, I was being lazy and going from memory.

PMPM was on the local radio in Vancouver today, stating how this with targets for wait lines was the answer.

[cybercoma]

I think the $40 billion is over 5 years, not 10. So that's about $8 billion per year.

We now spend about $120 billion annually on health care so $8 billion is about 3 weeks worth (not 2 days).

It's worth noting that to keep health spending at about 10% of GDP (as it is now), and since GDP is growing, we would have to add about $8 billion annually.  IOW, PM PM's billion dollar announcement to fix health care for a generation is just business as usual.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe this is the framework of the plan:

10-year plan

2004-05 $2.125 billion

2005-06 $3.125

2006-07 $3.440

2007-08 $3.298

2008-09 $3.029

2009-10 $3.037

2010-11 $3.426

2011-12 $4.952

2012-13 $6.569

2013-14 $8.283

Given the current cost of $130 billion annually, this basically works out to an average of 3% increase per year. Probably not even enough to keep up with rising costs.

It is interesting to note that the plan is heavily back-loaded... $19.8 billion of the $41.3 billion total is in the final 3 years. In the first 7 years of the plan, there's a total of $21.5 billion, an average of $3.07 billion per year... 2.4% annual increases for the next 7 years... almost certainly not enough to keep up with the rate costs are rising.

Fixed for a generation?! It won't even be fixed in a generation.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If inflation stays around 2%, which it won't, then a 3% increase each year is more like a 1% increase and basically amounts to keeping up with inflation to maintain the current level of (dis)service.