Or the fact that it wasn’t lysergic acid he was selling, but hydrochloric acid. And he’d have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn’t for those damn hippies !
Thanks for taking it in the light-hearted way I intended it, SA. FWIW, I coded the deletions so as to cross out “Guinistas”, leave the “i”, and cross out the final “a”.
And Mods, could we get a ruling? I’m presuming that the rule on altering quotes is to prevent misrepresentation or purposeful (as opposed to ‘chaffing’ joking) insult, and saying that you’re doing it intentionally for humor’s sake, calling attention to the change, is not what’s prohibited – as I did, and as SA says he did, and was chastized in one way or another for doing. I suspect it’s one of those “no bright line” situations, where an obvious joke is permissible, a blatant insulting change is warnable, and there’s a gray area in between – but let’s see what you all think.
AFAIK (and I’ll happily accept correction from a mod), not putting your “edit” in quote tags leaves you in the clear. The fact that your post includes the original sentence within quote tags bolsters your security (again, AFAIK).
We totally destroyed Western Civilization, such as it was. And you’d think somebody would thank us, but noooooo!
This just in, US ranks last out of 16 in health care.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090928/hl_nm/us_canada_health
Can someone explain to me how having public and private options in higher education seems to be working fine, but in health care would cause America to implode? Just asking
But Statistics are by their very nature based on a sample. Statistics are not strongly biased towards a particular system; they will tell you how long the actual wait times are for various procedures ON AVERAGE. See Spoons post for a link to actual median times for wait lists for procedures. We don’t have to rely on anecdotes from people. We can see the actual numbers, which are not baised towards any particular point of view; they are what they are.
As Spoons points out, we don’t ignore negative aspects of the Canadian system - rather we acknowledge that there are problems with wait times for certain procedures, and then try to deal with the problems.
There is also a problem getting primary care doctors to go to remote northern communities. There! I’ve acknowledged a problem! But is does not mean that I think our system should be thrown out; rather it should be continually improved.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around what you seem to be saying here. Let me see if I have it right:
-
You don’t like the statistics that people are providing to you in the form of cites of median waiting times for procedures in various provinces.
-
One reason you don’t like them is that the statistics are based on a small sample size. a) so what, this is what the science of statistics DOES, and b) a wait list median is based on how long EVERYONE waited.
-
Another reason you don’t like the statistics is that they are biased in favour of the existing system. a) I’m not sure how a median wait time can be biased. It is a number. A number that can be tracked over time to see if it gets better or worse.
-
A third reason you don’t like the statistics is that they ignore the negative aspects that you’ve posted, those being a dimly remembered anecdote and a selected quote from a doctor with the part at the end clipped wherein he says we should certainly keep the current system.
-
A fourth reason you don’t like the statistics about wait lists in Canada is that you have no faith in your own government to provide complex services. I must admit, I just don’t get this one.
I never get that one, either. Especially since a lot of the people I hear spouting it have no problem with the U.S. military.
In fairness, I’d suggest that the sample sizes may seem small to Starving Artist because we in Canada have approximately one-tenth of the population of the US. Our whole national population is about the same as that of California. So, with our provincially-based systems reporting their respective populations’ figures, our numbers must necessarily be smaller. Again, though, it is important to remember that while smaller, they are probably large enough to be statistically significant. Provincial health plans cover anywhere from 150,000 to 8,000,000 people (what is Ontario’s population now?), each of which I’d guess provides a large enough sample to ensure accurate figures as regards things like median wait times.
The thing with median wait time statistics is though… It takes into account EVERYONE on the wait list, not a sample. If you take the wait times of every single patient for a procedure, put them in an ordered list, and then take the most common wait time, that is the median.
I guess some Americans are pissed about having to pay for Canadian’s health care.
(I wonder if that will start an internet meme that gets picked up by Fox?)
Um, not quite. That (the most common wait time) is the mode. The median is the number above and below which equal parts (approximately half each) of the (statistical) ‘population’ lies.
Well, I, for one, am pissed as hell about them swarming over the border into Minnesota for our health care! What a boorish, loud, and obstreperous bunch!
Agghhhh! Of course you are right. :smack: Anyway, Starving Artist can’t complain about small sample sizes. The sample is the entire population on the wait list.
Wouldn’t that be awesome? Do you think we could get their insurance companies to go for it? Maybe if we lumped it all together, chopped it up into impossible to trace stocks and bonds and rated it as Grade A investments…
I’m not sure what the fuss is about anymore. It’s long past the time where any significant reforms could have been made to the US system, isn’t it?
There’s no momentum for universal health care, or for government administration as opposed to insurer administration, so I think the whole debtate is purely theoretical now. The only thing I can see possibly coming is a public funded insurance option for lower income households, nothing more.
Am I wrong?
I have a Canadian friend who had a heart transplant. He did wait a while. It is a big procedure. They tried everything they could find a way to avoid it. They took some time before they finally did it. He has done quite well in the 5 years since he got it. He is not broke. He did not lose his home. He did not have to come up with a bunch of money. He did not get denied because it is expensive and he is not important enough to deserve that kind of care.
Well, he was covered for that kind of care, and he received that kind of care. No “death panels” (:rolleyes:) decided whether to supply him the care based on age or lifestyle, nor did anybody in government think of denying him the care–that’s not how the system works. You are a resident, you are covered, they cannot quibble. Simple.
Why do Americans think it must necessarily be much more difficult than it actually is?
Missed the edit window:
ETA: Of course, they tried everything medically available to find a way to avoid it–but there would have been no question that, had a heart transplant been the only remaining option, that they would have done it. The question of cost or of your friend’s age/condition wouldnt have entered into the picture.
Canadians: Have you ever received notification from your provincial health plan that a covered procedure that your physician ordered would be denied by your provincial plan due to cost or your age/condition? I’d bet your answers would be “no.”
No, never happened to me.