Ladies and gentlemen, the people who run the Canadian health care system:
Losing her first baby was devastating enough but having to do it in a crowded waiting room is what angered Christine Handrahan the most.The 29-year-old Peakes woman was nine weeks pregnant when on July 12 she started bleeding.Fearing the worst, Handrahan and her husband, Michael, headed to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital’s new emergency room.There she waited more than three hours, blood seeping out of her jeans, tears rolling down her face as she feared she was losing her baby — or that she might be bleeding to death.And now, the people who run our healthcare system:
“It’s emotional. It’s such an emotional time for anybody. We tried for a couple of years to conceive a child and then to lose it. It was horrifying.”Handrahan says nobody at the hospital showed her any compassion.“They could have given me a room to go in. Not necessarily a room with a bed. Even if it had been their TV room, or their lunchroom, or their closet. That waiting room was jam packed full of people.”
–snip–
“The sort of things we’re looking at is, was she triaged appropriately?” said Henderson.“And whether or not she was seen in a reasonable time frame and there are certain guidelines . . . and I won’t pussy foot around it we do have trouble meeting those guidelines at times.”
Did you notice something from both Videos, Chris?
ReplyDeleteObama in 08 "Spending 14% of GDP on HC Ins."
Berwick in 08 "Spending 17% of GDP on HC Ins."
They can't even get the numbers right.
Even British MEP Daniel Hannan said about the British system "The worse thing is for you as the recipient of health care because you’ve got no control over what you get. There’s no contractual relationship between you and the suppliers, so, you know, if they treat you today or next week or six weeks from now, where it’s too late because your condition has already deteriorated."[and] "there’s nothing you can do about it. You are expected to queue up with a smile and be grateful for what you have. And it’s the last survivor of the kind of socialist post-war consensus in the U.K.
Listen, please do not make that mistake I promise you, it is worse for doctors. It’s worse for patients. It’s worse for taxpayers."
Socialized Insurance Was NEVER To Benifit Citizens. If It Was ALL Would Have Been Included And High Cost Would Have Been Addressed.
ReplyDeleteEventually There Will Be NO Private Sector Insurance And Then We Will Have What This Regime All Along Was After. Single Payer Government CONTROLLED Health Care Period. Citizens Were Never The Concern, Power/Control Was. Us Seniors Are In For Rude Awakening Once This Massive Entitlement Kicks In.
With 500 Billion In Cuts To Medicare Those Shovel Jobs Will Be Plentiful. Unfortunately There In The Cemetary.
Speaking Of Jobs Where The Hell Are They, Regime Promised In January ,Opps, Thats A Citizens Concern Not Regime, Who To This Point Has Done All It Can To Destroy Jobs/Economy!
On Same Note If Government Could Not Handle "Cash For Clunkers",Post Office, Medicare And Now OUR Most Hallowed Ground Arllington Cemetary How They Going To Do With Nobama Care. Social Policies Of This Regime MAKE Economy And Job Creation Almost Impossible And You Dont Have To Be A Rhoads Scholar To Figure Out Regime Does Have Agenda Which Does Not Favor Citizens Or Nation.
ReplyDeleteNo I didn't Mark. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm starting to see why the left hate you so much. By the way your last post on your blog is genius. You are doing great work over there and here.Are any of you planing on going to DC on 8/28?
ReplyDeleteJoe did you hear about the union worker that shot up the distributer he work for? Is he a right wing crazy in your mind? He said it's because of the racism at the distributer that drove him to it. Do you blame the left wing media and yourself for that? You do make everything about "racism" on the left. Lets see how "even-handed" and single standard you are on this. Explain to thee oh toothless wonder. Like the VP of SEIU said,"racism is f%@king rampent in the unions".
ReplyDeleteChris, i am going to wait till the bodies are cold to start passing judgment on the dead.
ReplyDeleteyes, socialized medicine has the worst record on infant mortality...
ReplyDeleteSweden has 2.4 per 1,000 live births
England has 5.0 per 1,000
Canada has 5.4 per 1,000
Norway has 3.1 per 1,000
the US in its non-socialized health-care is 6.9
So much for your socialized medicine theory.
Sorry Joe abortion trumps those numbers. So Joe how is it that it only takes infant mortality rate to convince you? Are you really that easy to convice or do you just see what you want to? I wonder why England and Canada health care system is broke and they are abandoning it now? Will that add into those numbers Joe or will you delete the part were socialized medicine failed? I'll look into those numbers later. I have to go get my boys out of Christian indoctrination camp,thats liberal talk for vacation Bible school. lol
ReplyDeleteJoe, do the math.
ReplyDelete(Approximately):
Sweden population 9,259,000
England population 51,446,000
Canada population 33,100,000
Norway population 4,858,200
USA Population 305,689,000
Socialized medicine is NOT sustainable in the US with a population that is:
6 times larger then England
30 times larger then Sweden
9 Times larger then Canada
AND 62 times larger then Norway
As for infant mortality, most common cause worldwide has traditionally been due to dehydration from diarrhea.
Treatable with OUT socialize healthcare.
Chris, Infant mortality didn't convince me off anything. I am just showing that your post is not accurate. That the US without socialized medicine has a lousy infant mortality rate, one that is not acceptable for a country such as ours.
ReplyDeleteI support socialised health care for numerous reasons, one of which pre-natal healthcare. the fact that you would attempt to portray it as something its not isn't surprising.
Mark, one of the leading causes of infant mortality in the US accoriding to a recent study is pre-term birth which often has many factors including lack of pre-natal care including diet and medical treatment.
Joe I Also Beleive Abortion Is Not Acceptable For A Country Such As Ours And Using Federal Tax Dollars ,When Told By Regime That Would Not Happen Is What?
ReplyDeleteAs Far As Pre-Natal Health Care We Have It Now Called Medicade And I Know For A Fact It Works Well, So Why Have NEW Socialized Insurance That Does Same Thing? Either Medicare/Medicade, Socialized Insurance Will Wind Up The Same Way. Government Run Entitlement Trillions In DEBT. Only Difference Depending On Terminology Citizens Will Be Taxed Or Fined Which Takes That Little Thingy Away Called Freedom Of Choice. Socialized Insurance Is Also Right Now Doing Great Things For Private Sector Jobs And Economy And Is Not In Effect Yet. Where Are Those Jobs? Socialized Ideaology And Private Sector(Capitolism) Cannot Function Together And Regime Does Seem To Favor Thier Ideaology Over Private Sector And Jobs.
The problem isn't so much as mortality rate or prenatal care, but Dr vs population
ReplyDeleteDr/Population
Norway has 1/272
Sweden has 1/300
England has 1/434
USA has 1/462
Canada has 1/531 which is the subject of this post.
Percentage of infant mortality caused by lack of Pre-natal care in Canada, Norway and Sweden (socialized Medicine):
Canada 30%
Norway 48%
Sweden 59%
In the US, low birth weight runs second to congenital malformations.
Mark, interesting point and good research. I'll have to look into that.
ReplyDelete