One of the most often cited "horrors" is that Canadians may have to wait for health care access, which the citers apparently think doesn't happen in the US, I guess? After calling around to the several dermatology clinics in this area and explaining that a blemish on my face that I've had for several years has begun to turn black in the last week, I've been offered appointments in September and January. We don't seem to have any dearth of doctors here-- 5 dermatology practices alone-- as this is an area where people come to play golf and bitch about how they did things different & better where they moved from until they die. I don't, however, have a "regular doctor" because, unlike those silly people who have that awful universal health care who go to the doctor when they don't need to, I haven't seen a doctor since the six week checkup after my daughter was born in 2000 because we can't afford it.
momca...@hotmail.com wrote: > One of the most often cited "horrors" is that Canadians may have to > wait for health care access, which the citers apparently think doesn't > happen in the US, I guess? After calling around to the several > dermatology clinics in this area and explaining that a blemish on my > face that I've had for several years has begun to turn black in the > last week, I've been offered appointments in September and January. > We don't seem to have any dearth of doctors here-- 5 dermatology > practices alone-- as this is an area where people come to play golf > and bitch about how they did things different & better where they > moved from until they die. I don't, however, have a "regular doctor" > because, unlike those silly people who have that awful universal > health care who go to the doctor when they don't need to, I haven't > seen a doctor since the six week checkup after my daughter was born in > 2000 because we can't afford it.
Doesn't matter. The wait for an ob-gyn appointment can be months, too. I just made an appointment for an eye exam with my ophthalmologist - July 30 was the first date available. When I had a "hot appendix" that was not life-threatening, I had to wait a couple of weeks for a space on the O.R. schedule. We wait. Anyone who tells you that the U.S. system is superior to the Canadian or British system because we don't have to wait is full of beans.
When my husband was in London last January, he managed to walk into a door and split his head open. He was referred to the local hospital trauma center, where he had a brief wait - he said it wasn't much more than the wait in our doctor's waiting room here - and then he was cheerfully and professionally treated. When he asked for the bill, he was told there wasn't one. He took the prescription to an apothecary who did take his money. ;-) -- Joanne stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
momca...@hotmail.com wrote: > One of the most often cited "horrors" is that Canadians may have to > wait for health care access, which the citers apparently think doesn't > happen in the US, I guess? After calling around to the several > dermatology clinics in this area and explaining that a blemish on my > face that I've had for several years has begun to turn black in the > last week, I've been offered appointments in September and January. > We don't seem to have any dearth of doctors here-- 5 dermatology > practices alone-- as this is an area where people come to play golf > and bitch about how they did things different & better where they > moved from until they die. I don't, however, have a "regular doctor" > because, unlike those silly people who have that awful universal > health care who go to the doctor when they don't need to, I haven't > seen a doctor since the six week checkup after my daughter was born in > 2000 because we can't afford it.
Sorry to hear about your predicament. Keep calling doctors in neighboring areas. Sooner or later you should find someone. Failling that, go to an emergency room.
One measure of the effectiveness of a health care system is the average life expectancy of the citizens of a country. By that measure, Canadians live to be about 80.3 years old (14th in the world) and Americans to be about 78 years old (45th in the world). Source: CIA World Factbook. The World Health Organization also uses this measure of health. http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/en/
By another WHO measure, physician density per 1,000 of population, Canada has 2.14 and the US has 2.56, giving the US a slightly better coverage. And Canada has 36 hospital beds per 10,000 while the US is at 33. However, health expenditures as a % of GDP run 15.4% in the US and only 9.8% in Canada.
On May 15, 3:40 pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini...@comcast.net> wrote:
> By another WHO measure, physician density per 1,000 of > population, Canada has 2.14 and the US has 2.56, giving the > US a slightly better coverage. And Canada has 36 hospital > beds per 10,000 while the US is at 33. However, health > expenditures as a % of GDP run 15.4% in the US and only 9.8% > in Canada.
Whoa, there, Francis. I have a hard time believing that the physician density is homogeneous in either the US or Canada. Ditto hospital beds. Does WHO recognize this?
> One of the most often cited "horrors" is that Canadians may have to > wait for health care access, which the citers apparently think doesn't > happen in the US, I guess? After calling around to the several > dermatology clinics in this area and explaining that a blemish on my > face that I've had for several years has begun to turn black in the > last week, I've been offered appointments in September and January. > We don't seem to have any dearth of doctors here-- 5 dermatology > practices alone-- as this is an area where people come to play golf > and bitch about how they did things different & better where they > moved from until they die. I don't, however, have a "regular doctor" > because, unlike those silly people who have that awful universal > health care who go to the doctor when they don't need to, I haven't > seen a doctor since the six week checkup after my daughter was born in > 2000 because we can't afford it.
Do you have any "doc in a box" places in your area; ie, walk-in primary care clinics? I've always found them to be excellent, both here and in CT. And they will see you immediately, with no nonsense about waiting 3 months when you have a problem that needs immediate care.
As an example, when I was visiting this area before moving here, I developed a raging UTI. No gyn practice would see me. One suggested I go to an emergency room. Finally, someone told me about the area walk-in clinic. It was great.
>On May 15, 3:40 pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini...@comcast.net> >wrote:
>> By another WHO measure, physician density per 1,000 of >> population, Canada has 2.14 and the US has 2.56, giving the >> US a slightly better coverage. And Canada has 36 hospital >> beds per 10,000 while the US is at 33. However, health >> expenditures as a % of GDP run 15.4% in the US and only 9.8% >> in Canada.
>Whoa, there, Francis. I have a hard time believing that the physician >density is homogeneous in either the US or Canada. Ditto hospital >beds. Does WHO recognize this?
Australia had 2.47 doctors per 1000 population and I can guarantee that if you live in a small town or rural area you WILL have problems finding a doctor!
: One measure of the effectiveness of a health care system is : the average life expectancy of the citizens of a country. : By that measure, Canadians live to be about 80.3 years old : (14th in the world) and Americans to be about 78 years old : (45th in the world).
I wonder how much that figure is skewed (as it almost often is in these reports) by differences in infant mortality, which are about 50% higher in the US than Canada (6.37/thousand in US, 4.63 in Canada).
So, if one counts just people surviving infancy, the difference between countries is somewhat smaller than the life expentacy numbers suggest. I wonder how much the Canadian advantage is.
Mary wrote: > On May 15, 3:40 pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini...@comcast.net> > wrote: >> By another WHO measure, physician density per 1,000 of >> population, Canada has 2.14 and the US has 2.56, giving the >> US a slightly better coverage. And Canada has 36 hospital >> beds per 10,000 while the US is at 33. However, health >> expenditures as a % of GDP run 15.4% in the US and only 9.8% >> in Canada.
> Whoa, there, Francis. I have a hard time believing that the physician > density is homogeneous in either the US or Canada. Ditto hospital > beds. Does WHO recognize this?
> Mary
Never said homogeneous. Just talking ratios. Given the similar types of populations, I think we could infer that in both countries the ratio is better in cities than in the rural areas. But nothing in my post went to homogeneity of coverage.
WHO was presenting a summary of world wide statistics. The tables cover nearly 80 pages as it is just to present the information as to each country. Take a look at the PDF file for 2007 on the web page I cited.
John Oliver wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:27:23 -0700 (PDT), Mary <mrfeath...@aol.com> > wrote:
>> On May 15, 3:40 pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini...@comcast.net> >> wrote: >>> By another WHO measure, physician density per 1,000 of >>> population, Canada has 2.14 and the US has 2.56, giving the >>> US a slightly better coverage. And Canada has 36 hospital >>> beds per 10,000 while the US is at 33. However, health >>> expenditures as a % of GDP run 15.4% in the US and only 9.8% >>> in Canada.
>> Whoa, there, Francis. I have a hard time believing that the physician >> density is homogeneous in either the US or Canada. Ditto hospital >> beds. Does WHO recognize this?
> Australia had 2.47 doctors per 1000 population and I can guarantee > that if you live in a small town or rural area you WILL have problems > finding a doctor!
Andrew Barss wrote: > Francis A. Miniter <famini...@comcast.net> wrote:
> : One measure of the effectiveness of a health care system is > : the average life expectancy of the citizens of a country. > : By that measure, Canadians live to be about 80.3 years old > : (14th in the world) and Americans to be about 78 years old > : (45th in the world).
> I wonder how much that figure is skewed (as it almost often > is in these reports) by differences in infant mortality, which > are about 50% higher in the US than Canada > (6.37/thousand in US, 4.63 in Canada).
> So, if one counts just people surviving infancy, the difference between > countries is somewhat smaller than the life expentacy numbers suggest. > I wonder how much the Canadian advantage is.
> -- Andy Barss
Infant mortality is covered in the WHO statistics too. pp. 23 et seq. US - 7 per 1,000 Canada - 6 per 1,000
momca...@hotmail.com wrote: > One of the most often cited "horrors" is that Canadians may have to > wait for health care access, which the citers apparently think doesn't > happen in the US, I guess? After calling around to the several > dermatology clinics in this area and explaining that a blemish on my > face that I've had for several years has begun to turn black in the > last week, I've been offered appointments in September and January. > We don't seem to have any dearth of doctors here-- 5 dermatology > practices alone-- as this is an area where people come to play golf > and bitch about how they did things different & better where they > moved from until they die. I don't, however, have a "regular doctor" > because, unlike those silly people who have that awful universal > health care who go to the doctor when they don't need to, I haven't > seen a doctor since the six week checkup after my daughter was born in > 2000 because we can't afford it.
Thats OK. When your issue gets serious enough that you have to go to, or be ambulanced to, an emergency room, then you will eventually be seen. It may be too late to do much about your problem by then, of course. We just ration health care differently down here. Whats in YOUR wallet?
