[Wheatfield]

If the Doctors made the decision based on sound medical practice and the oath they took, then I will agree with your point. If they made that call based on the law or the "guidelines" set forth by a governing agency then I stand my my opinion.

A Canadian friend had to wait 6 months for an ACL repair because of the guidelines. Here the surgery would have happened in a few days maximum. I have a hard time time believing the Canadian way is better.

And one again, I offer my prayers, sympathy and thoughts to the family at a truly tragic time.

Actually, your friend had to wait because we have a triage based delivery system and it isn't unusual for surgeries to be bumped if someone in more dire distress needs the service more.
In the USA, the surgery may have happened sooner, providing they had health insurance that would cover it.
No health insurance in the USA, you'd better learn to walk with a limp.
I'm sure there are many things you have a hard time believing, but this doesn't make what you don't believe any less factual.
If you are wealthy enough to afford good health insurance, I am sure that the American system is better, but if you are one of the millions that either has no health insurance or inadequate insurance, I have a hard time believing that the American model is better (or that it even exists).

[gokenin]

Courts have been known to throw laws out if they are deemed innapropriate, not that you have made a valid point anyway.

actually a court can rule that a law is unconstitutional but there is always a legal reason for the ruling its not simply because they deem it to be inappropriate. They can not make up a law as in the Roe vs Wade ruling that was an interpretation that the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment covered the right of a women to have an abortion its wasn't made up by the courts. So even if Gene says I am wrong courts act as an interpretors of the laws the legislator enacts so that does mean that the government is involved in that case even if only by association.

[GeneV]

If the Doctors made the decision based on sound medical practice and the oath they took, then I will agree with your point. If they made that call based on the law or the "guidelines" set forth by a governing agency then I stand my my opinion.

A Canadian friend had to wait 6 months for an ACL repair because of the guidelines. Here the surgery would have happened in a few days maximum. I have a hard time time believing the Canadian way is better.

And one again, I offer my prayers, sympathy and thoughts to the family at a truly tragic time.

If you read the actual article, it is stated that the decision was based upon their professional opinion that the requested procedure would cause more pain to the child and would not prolong life. I don't know where you are getting the whole question about the "Canadian way."

[GeneV]

actually a court can rule that a law is unconstitutional but there is always a legal reason for the ruling its not simply because they deem it to be inappropriate. They can not make up a law as in the Roe vs Wade ruling that was an interpretation that the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment covered the right of a women to have an abortion its wasn't made up by the courts. So even if Gene says I am wrong courts act as an interpretors of the laws the legislator enacts so that does mean that the government is involved in that case even if only by association.

By the way, if you read the Wiki article I linked on Equity, you will see that equity courts (which determine things other than money, like ordering a doctor to do something) have always been there to fill in the gaps in the law, and have had a great deal of discretion beyond any written statute. In fact the English common law system even on the "legal" side has always relied much more on "judge-made" law than the Roman system, which relies soley on statute. If the legislature makes a specific statute, it controls. But legislators do not make laws that cover every situation, and courts have, for hundreds of years, filled in the gaps in a way that goes beyond "interpretation." There are many, many gaps.

[GeneV]

.
In the USA, the surgery may have happened sooner, providing they had health insurance that would cover it.

I think the differences in wait times are also overstated. My state, which is fairly large in geography but not in population (kind of like most of Canada), is poorly served with health care providers. There is one hospital in my entire state with a decent Neuroscience department. There are quite a few specialties, neurology included, where you may wait for months for a non-emergency appointment. I wonder how the U.S. and Canada compare on these wait times in states/provinces of comparable size and population.

[Colbyt]

If you read the actual article, it is stated that the decision was based upon their professional opinion that the requested procedure would cause more pain to the child and would not prolong life. I don't know where you are getting the whole question about the "Canadian way."

I actually read the entire article 3 times before I ever posted since I knew what I was about to say was inflammatory. I never saw a Doctor say that was his/her considered medical opinion. I saw a quoted blurb that could have been written by any cost consious HMO provider and fostered by the Doctor with no choice but to play by the rules.

As for my Canadian way comments, why do so many of them with some money come to the US for treatment if their way is so grand?

Just use your brain and think about it.

[redrockcoulee]

I actually read the entire article 3 times before I ever posted since I knew what I was about to say was inflammatory. I never saw a Doctor say that was his/her considered medical opinion. I saw a quoted blurb that could have been written by any cost consious HMO provider and fostered by the Doctor with no choice but to play by the rules.

As for my Canadian way comments, why do so many of them with some money come to the US for treatment if their way is so grand?

Just use your brain and think about it.

I know of no one person who has gone to the States and spent their own money on treatment, not saying it does not happen but just I do not know of any one person. Almost one half million Americans go elsewhere for health care treatment as well, some of them here. Some Canadians do go to the States for treatment that is not available here but at health care expenses and of course some people just do not want to wait.

Of course your system is the best because it is both mostly private and American. Why the rest of the world ranks it 16th must be that they like me have no brain. I get the same coverage working for myself, being unemployed or retired or just goofing off and am covered if I change jobs move across the country even if I have serious and expensive illnesses either for myself or my family. Can you make that claim?

Also much of the waiting has to do more with cuts in Education that health care. Most operations require nurses and doctors and the numbers being 'produced' has hardly increased while the population has not only grown but also aged. I live in a city that has only 3/4 of the doctors needed. But knock our system all you want it is still rated higher than yours and at a cost of 67 cents spent for every $1 you spend with 100% of the population covered. When your system covers everyone and is as cost effective as ours then run ours down. We might not be France but for 43000 to die each year because they cannot afford health care is great but having to wait for your turn is evil is beyond me. Our system would be great if we either spent the same amount of money or cut off a sizable part of the population.

[SteveM]

And in the US, you have an insurance company and not the doctors deciding what is "deemed appropriate" for medical care. I've lived in both the US and Canada. My 6 month old son went through 2 doctor requested checks, one for a possible hip issue and the other to check his heart. We were promptly sent a letter from our insurance provider for too many claims within an alloted period.

Unless you have been there, you really don't appreciate how medieval the US health care system is.

[GeneV]

I actually read the entire article 3 times before I ever posted since I knew what I was about to say was inflammatory. I never saw a Doctor say that was his/her considered medical opinion. I saw a quoted blurb that could have been written by any cost consious HMO provider and fostered by the Doctor with no choice but to play by the rules.

As for my Canadian way comments, why do so many of them with some money come to the US for treatment if their way is so grand?

Just use your brain and think about it.

Your comments were inflammatory because they did not and do not appear to relate to the question at hand. It looks like a gratuitous comment about health care reform, which, by the way, is nothing like the Canadian system.

To the second point, it is estimated that in 2007, as many as 60-85,000 people traveled to the U.S. for medical care, while 750,000 Americans traveled to other countries for care. It is estimated that in 2010, that grew to over a million traveling to asia or latin America for care. Why do ten times as many Americans go elsewhere for care as foreigners come here? You don't have to think about it too long to figure that one out.

Medical tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Wheatfield]

As for my Canadian way comments, why do so many of them with some money come to the US for treatment if their way is so grand?

Just use your brain and think about it.

I'll use Gene's brain to think about it instead....
One thing money doesn't buy in Canada (in general) is being able to queue jump within the health care system.
This is probably a pretty foreign concept to someone coming from a culture where waving money around will get them pretty much whatever they desire.
If you have the money and don't want to wait, sure, go buy the service elsewhere.
Our system works on the basis of need, not wealth. If you don't think it fair that someone living on the street has access to the same health care as someone who is wealthy, then just chalk it up to one of those cultural differences and get on with life.

[Wheatfield]

No - the doctors made the decision here. The parents disputed it, and the court's involvement was to look into the case, and ultimately come down on the side of the doctors, after hearing the professional opinion of the doctors and the wishes of the family.

It should be noted also that this type of court case is not a criminal one where there would be government involvement so much as a civil one where two parties can't agree and so take it to an arbiter, in this case the courts.
In retrospect, I think the entire argument about "government involvement" is more of a canard that is attempting to deflect some sort of blame on the Canadian government and to try to make the Canadian health care system seem somehow broken, I expect, given the source of the distraction, discrediting the Canadian system of health care is a politically motivated attempt at FUD.

[ihasa]

I actually read the entire article 3 times before I ever posted since I knew what I was about to say was inflammatory. I never saw a Doctor say that was his/her considered medical opinion. I saw a quoted blurb that could have been written by any cost consious HMO provider and fostered by the Doctor with no choice but to play by the rules.

As for my Canadian way comments, why do so many of them with some money come to the US for treatment if their way is so grand?

Just use your brain and think about it.

To quote from the article:

A team of doctors, including a world-renowned pediatric expert from Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, has examined Joseph and agrees he's dying of the same progressive neurodegenerative disease that claimed his sister.

Joseph's doctor told the adjudication board that doctors "reluctantly" gave the couple's daughter a tracheotomy. Since then, doctors have learned "substantially" more about the procedure and determined it isn't right for Joseph.

The board agreed with Joseph's attending doctor that the baby has "no hope or chance of ever recovering."

[eddie1960]

We might not be France but for 43000 to die each year because they cannot afford health care is great but having to wait for your turn is evil is beyond me. Our system would be great if we either spent the same amount of money or cut off a sizable part of the population.

Oh no don't bring up the French, damn commies. (they have an amazing system though even covers dental, they fixed a broken tooth for me for a small admin fee when i was on vacation once, no bias because i wasn't french)

I have to agree with every point you made, and have numerous American friends who would as well. As a matter of fact I know a number of Americans who now live here and health care was one of the reasons they chose to live here. Obamacare to use the derisive name IMHO is to little. it is so watered down it's ridiculous, all to keep the insurance companies and anti gov't aid factions happy. America could easily provide a higher level of health care at a lower cost than us due to the fact they are more densely populated and could use the economies of scale achieved in more populous areas to provide more care in the less populous areas. But as long as it is a for profit system run primarily by insurance companies who are more concerned with the bottom line than health care it will remain good for the elite but not for the general population.

Back to this case. The court made a decision based on quality of life, not what the parents wanted but what was in the child's interest. I feel sorry for the parents having to go through this with 2 children, but prolonging the child's suffering so they can delay dealing with the grief at losing another child is not the solution. The court intervenes on behalf of children on a regular basis

This has nothing at all to do with health care and everything to do with having an unbiased unemotional outside arbitrator make a decision based on the best interests of the child not the parents

[Parallax]

I actually read the entire article 3 times before I ever posted since I knew what I was about to say was inflammatory. I never saw a Doctor say that was his/her considered medical opinion.

To quote from the article:

A team of doctors, including a world-renowned pediatric expert from Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, has examined Joseph and agrees he's dying of the same progressive neurodegenerative disease that claimed his sister.

Joseph's doctor told the adjudication board that doctors "reluctantly" gave the couple's daughter a tracheotomy. Since then, doctors have learned "substantially" more about the procedure and determined it isn't right for Joseph.

The board agreed with Joseph's attending doctor that the baby has "no hope or chance of ever recovering."

Perhaps 4 times would have been better. As Ronald Reagan said; "Facts are stubborn things".

[GeneV]

Perhaps 4 times would have been better. As Ronald Reagan said; "Facts are stubborn things".

Absolutely, and the man Reagan was quoting said it even more appropriately:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

John Adams