Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#34,701
#34,701
0nelilreb said:
It’s not misleading at all , it’s a sparsely populated country by definition . They have a population of 37.59 with 80 % living in urban settings . The US has a pop of 350 million with 82% living in urban settings . Both have roughly the same land mass ( Canada actually has more ) , so yes ...“ Canada is sparsely populated “
Click to expand...
Still misleading. Between the two they have roughly the same amount living in urban areas which means their urban populations are about even and very comparable. The US could very easily handle moving to Canadian model of healthcare.
 
#34,703
#34,703
0nelilreb said:
As long as you screeching “ government ran and health care for all “ . I have zero interest in it “ until you can show me ONE program that the government has ran successfully that didn’t go into the red and at the cost quality . These are known facts not hypothetical situations , history is screaming at us to pay attention .
Click to expand...

So, you have no interest of taxpayer funded insurance. Clear enough.
 
#34,704
#34,704
NCFisher said:
He acknowledged that fortunately it wasn't the case for all, but that most would surveyed would take more C19.
Surprising you find that surprising in a leftist enclave.
Click to expand...
Those people also said they’d leave the country if Trump got elected. They are blowhards and not to be taken seriously.
 
#34,709
#34,709
volfan_89 said:
Still misleading. Between the two they have roughly the same amount living in urban areas which means their urban populations are about even and very comparable. The US could very easily handle moving to Canadian model of healthcare.
Click to expand...

The US has a population of 350 million not 35 million . Where you live has nothing to do with how the models would stack up . Why is it so hard to understand ? That’s not taking into account what “ health for all actually means to a country bordering a country like Mexico instead of a country like the US . Again , how many American run to Canada to get their health care needs met ?
 
#34,714
#34,714
0nelilreb said:
The US has a population of 350 million not 35 million . Where you live has nothing to do with how the models would stack up . Why is it so hard to understand ? That’s not taking into account what “ health for all actually means to a country bordering a country like Mexico instead of a country like the US . Again , how many American run to Canada to get their health care needs met ?
Click to expand...
Their urban population percentage is roughly the same as the US. Where are people in Canada going to get medical treatment? I’d wager most of them go into the denser populated urban areas. Again the US could easily move to a Canadian style healthcare system.
 
#34,715
#34,715
volfan_89 said:
Here’s a fun fact, the northernmost point of the continental US is in Minnesota.
Click to expand...
That is pretty cool.

Did you know (with the exception of 20 miles if jungle on the Panama border- you have to ferry your vehicle) you can drive from Alaska to the bottom of Argentina?

Starting above the Artic Circle in Prudhoe Bay Alaska and ending in Ushuaia Argentina you can literally drive from the top of the world to the bottom
 
#34,716
#34,716
0nelilreb said:
As long as you screeching “ government ran and health care for all “ . I have zero interest in it “ until you can show me ONE program that the government has ran successfully that didn’t go into the red and at the cost quality . These are known facts not hypothetical situations , history is screaming at us to pay attention .
Click to expand...
You know Republicans try their best to dismantle government. So you may want to ask them why do they intentionally make things NOT work? They break it so they can stay on the government payroll to try to "fix" it only to break something else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grey_pilgrim
#34,718
#34,718
volfan_89 said:
Healthcare should never be for profit business. At that point it stops being about healthcare. The cost of medicine and treatment are absurd. I’m not sure what system we should move to, but what we have is definitely broken. We either need some form of healthcare for all or an affordable system that reduces the cost of medicine and treatment.

But it’s a threefold problem between drug manufacturers, hospitals and insurance companies. Whether you agree with him or not, it’s very telling the medical stock went higher after Bernie dropped out.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you can make the claim that Healthcare should be devoid of profit when it is a field that is filled with people. Should those people be wage slaves? Should the billions spent on medical research be done out of the goodness of the human heart?

Medical care and housing are both considered human rights in the South African constitution. You know what South Africa doesn't have? Decent housing or Healthcare.

You can't just declare something a human right and watch the oceans part. If it is provided by people, it can't be a right, and is subject to the tenants of the free market. Thinking otherwise is like plugging the power strip into itself.

Healthcare stock rose because Medicare for all is a fiscally infeasible idea, and the risk of destroying the Healthcare system dropped when that dummy dropped out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, hog88 and Rickyvol77
#34,719
#34,719
TheColdVolTruth said:
This isn't correct. I think you are under the impression that all smart meters have RCDC capabilities. Of the roughly 2.5M customers serviced by my employer, I would guess less than 10% of customers have meters with RCDC capabilities. The vast majority of smart meters on our system only detect voltage loss and overheating with no ability to disconnect or reconnect remotely. The voltage loss high temp data is used for troubleshooting and outage verification.

RCDC capable meters are used in areas of high turnover (certain apartment complexes) and high cut off rates. If a customer has a history of not paying their bill, a technician may install a meter that is RCDC capable to prevent future trips to the location to cut power in the field.



If you say this wouldn't be hard based on a technical sense, you are correct. If you say this from a practical sense, this isn't correct for the reasons noted above. A utility would have to replace all existing smart meters with meters that have RCDC capabilities. When my employer initiated a system wide smart meter project in the mid to late 2000's, the initiative was extremely labor intensive and lasted roughly three years. This would require PSC approval to remove and discard millions of smart meters with meters that are RCDC capable, and this would have a direct impact to rate payers. I don't see any scenario where this would be desired by the utility or approved by the PSC.
Click to expand...
Your first quote basically backed up what I said could be possible, even if it is less than 10% right now at your utility. Your second paragraph assumes that I was suggesting it would be an overnight process to modify every home. I never made that claim. I am simy saying that the ability to control residential breakers is well within reach. As I clearly stated earlier, it could be phased in with changes in the electrical codes that made provisions to include these new devices. Obviously, that would take time to trickle it's way to every home. I'm fully aware of that.

Are you guys trying to be contentious and argue minor details or argue things I never claimed?
 
#34,720
#34,720
volfan_89 said:
Their urban population percentage is roughly the same as the US. Where are people in Canada going to get medical treatment? I’d wager most of them go into the denser populated urban areas. Again the US could easily move to a Canadian style healthcare system.
Click to expand...

so we are modeling our healthcare systems based on urban density and ignoring everything else ? 😂smh
 
#34,721
#34,721
0nelilreb said:
Is that what I said ? Better yet is that what you comprehend from my post ? 🤔
Click to expand...

I should have added... "until you hear a good plan".

I just can't help but feel any proposal would be met with mostly prejudice, and you would defer to the cries of "death panels" or the next spooky pushback.

But, maybe I don't give you enough credit.
 
#34,722
#34,722
volfan_89 said:
If it’s a true emergency you’ll get the care you need. If it’s something that can wait, then it can wait. That another problem with America healthcare. Unnecessary emergency medical treatment. In Canada for example, if you go to the ER with a gallbladder attack they schedule your surgery and send you home with a diet to follow to help prevent future attacks. In the US they’d do the surgery right away, which further drives up the cost of care. Many times a gallbladder attack isn’t life threatening and doesn’t need emergency treatment but in the US it’s treated like it does.
Click to expand...

That's not true. The Frasier Institute is actually being kind here:
Waiting for treatment has become a defining characteristic of Canadian health care. In order to document the lengthy queues for visits to specialists and for diagnostic and surgical procedures in the country, the Fraser Institute has—for over two decades—surveyed specialist physicians across 12 specialties and 10 provinces.​
​
This edition of Waiting Your Turn indicates that, overall, waiting times for medically necessary treatment have in-creased since last year. Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 21.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment—longer than the wait of 20.0 weeks reported in 2016. This year’s wait time—the longest ever recorded in this survey’s history—is 128% longer than in 1993, when it was just 9.3 weeks.​
​
There is a great deal of variation in the total waiting time faced by patients across the provinces. Ontario reports the shortest total wait (15.4 weeks), while New Brunswick reports the longest (41.7 weeks). There is also a great deal of variation among specialties. Patients wait longest between a GP referral and orthopaedic surgery (41.7 weeks), while those waiting for medical oncology begin treatment in 3.2 weeks.​
​
The total wait time that patients face can be examined in two consecutive segments.​
​
  • From referral by a general practitioner to consultation with a specialist. The waiting time in this segment increased from 9.4 weeks in 2016 to 10.2 weeks this year. This wait time is 177% longer than in 1993, when it was 3.7 weeks. The shortest waits for specialist consultations are in Ontario (6.7 weeks) while the longest occur in New Brunswick (26.6 weeks).
    • From the consultation with a specialist to the point at which the patient receives treatment. The waiting time in this segment increased from 10.6 weeks in 2016 to 10.9 weeks this year. This wait time is 95% longer than in 1993 when it was 5.6 weeks, and more than three weeks longer than what physicians consider to be clinically “reasonable” (7.2 weeks). The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits are found in Ontario (8.6 weeks), while the longest are in Manitoba (16.3 weeks).
It is estimated that, across the 10 provinces, the total number of procedures for which people are waiting in 2017 is 1,040,791. This means that, assuming that each person waits for only one procedure, 2.9% of Canadians are waiting for treatment in 2017. The proportion of the population waiting for treatment varies from a low of 1.7% in Quebec to a high of 5.7% in Nova Scotia. It is important to note that physicians report that only about 11.5% of their patients are on a waiting list because they requested a delay or postponement.​
​
Patients also experience significant waiting times for various diagnostic technologies across the provinces. This year, Canadians could expect to wait 4.1 weeks for a computed tomography (CT) scan, 10.8 weeks for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound.​
​
Research has repeatedly indicated that wait times for medically necessary treatment are not benign inconveniences. Wait times can, and do, have serious consequences such as increased pain, suffering, and mental anguish. In certain instances, they can also result in poorer medical outcomes—transforming potentially reversible illnesses or injuries into chronic, irreversible conditions, or even permanent disabilities. In many instances, patients may also have to forgo their wages while they wait for treatment, resulting in an economic cost to the individuals themselves and the economy in general.​
​
The results of this year’s survey indicate that despite provincial strategies to reduce wait times and high levels of health expenditure, it is clear that patients in Canada continue to wait too long to receive medically necessary treatment. You are being redirected... ​

People aren't coming here for cheap healthcare, but come here from desperation. Those that can afford it. Those that aren't are suffering and even dying.
 
#34,723
#34,723
Stew Cook said:
I should have added... "until you hear a good plan".

I just can't help but feel any proposal would be met with mostly prejudice, and you would defer to the cries of "death panels" or the next spooky pushback.

But, maybe I don't give you enough credit.
Click to expand...

You should know better than to assume with me . I asked for JUST ONE program ran by the government ( ever ) that has been successful, not in the black , and saved is money without costing quality .
 
#34,724
#34,724
West Vol said:
Because if you were handed a button that and told, “Push this and ten million random Americans die and Trump is immediately out of office,” these people aren’t pushing the button.
Click to expand...

That's a specious argument. By your logic, unless there is an immediate consequence, no answers to any questions are valid or indicative.
You're a fked up human being if you can't answer "NO" to the question posed.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top