<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:f21c22e30710162235l768d599cwe2e971fc94e8d5e0@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 17/10/2007, Anna Taylor <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:femmechakra@yahoo.ca"><femmechakra@yahoo.ca></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:andrew@ceruleansystems.com"><andrew@ceruleansystems.com></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">By the standards of most western countries, the
treatment turnaround in the US after a problem is
reported is extremely short,which undoubtedly also
helps. I was reading something the other day that
stated the US has five times as many MRI machines
per capita as Canada (and not surprisingly shorter
waits for such machines), and at least in US
medicine MRI machines are considered essential
diagnostic technology that improve treatment
performance.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I would assume this is in relevant to the fact that
Canadians have an unlimited health care system. As a
Canadian, i'm proud that every hospital provides some
kind of emergency assistance. It can't provide the
highest level of manufacturing as it's busy trying to
provide for all. I would agree that US may have five
times as many MRI machines per capita as Canada and
guaranteed shorter waits for such machines but at
least they are available to all individuals.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The fact that there are five times as many MRI machines in the US as
Canada suggests that there is more profit to be made in MRI's. If it
actually turned out that diverting funds from other areas to MRI
machines improved health outcomes then why wouldn't bureaucrats in
Canada or anywhere else do this?
</pre>
</blockquote>
Budget constraints? Socialized care means that politicians decide what
are reasonable treatment levels and facilities. I am not at all sure
this is better than private industry of various medical kinds doing the
same. At least the private system is likely to have a bit more
competition. I am not sure which of the ills of US medicine to blame
on insurance companies, hospitals and other private groups versus how
much is largely precisely because of much greater government
involvement in US healthcare for quite some time now. Would fully
socialized government-run health care be better than this mixture.
Maybe. But I would give a larger "maybe" that getting government
almost completely out of healthcare would be better. <br>
<br>
Bottom line for me personally is where I can get the best care as this
boomer body of mine ages. So far I don't believe that is anywhere
else that has socialized medicine. That being the case I don't see
why I would push for it here. <br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f21c22e30710162235l768d599cwe2e971fc94e8d5e0@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>