Things that are WAAY overdue

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Another thing that is way overdue is getting this thread back on track. So I think that having a medical system in the US that is fair to all parties and allows for basic medical care for all is long past due.

Especially now that I have to schedule gall bladder surgery! You don't wanna know how many doctors, over how many years, I had to talk to just to get a reliable 411 on the whole thing.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Especially now that I have to schedule gall bladder surgery! You don't wanna know how many doctors, over how many years, I had to talk to just to get a reliable 411 on the whole thing.

Ouch! I hope all goes well for you, Steve.

[LazyScot]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Especially now that I have to schedule gall bladder surgery! You don't wanna know how many doctors, over how many years, I had to talk to just to get a reliable 411 on the whole thing.

Ouch.

Care to explain a "411" to those of us who don't hail from the US? (translation: wikipedia doesn't help.)

On a related WAAAY overdue, how about more "built-in" health checking devices. Daft as it sounds, I've heard of ideas for things like toilets that do scans for cancer cells and warn you if they find any...

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

Ouch.

Care to explain a "411" to those of us who don't hail from the US? (translation: wikipedia doesn't help.)

On a related WAAAY overdue, how about more "built-in" health checking devices. Daft as it sounds, I've heard of ideas for things like toilets that do scans for cancer cells and warn you if they find any...

If the bloody thing has probes I don't want it... Imagine, completely drunk, forgetting the thing's ways and sittinng on it...

Where's da sledgehammer!

Wait, it might be useful as a visiting quarter's throne.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

Care to explain a "411" to those of us who don't hail from the US? (translation: wikipedia doesn't help.)

"411" is the telephone number used for "information" in the U.S.

Its become a bastardized way of saying "heres the information" Or "whats the information"..........

[Patricia]

I must say that I am startled and dismayed when I visit some other forums and find Americans asking for health advice because they don't have health insurance and can't afford to see a doctor. To me this is incredible. (But then I'm in the UK, where there the NHS, for all its many faults, is available to all.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

(Heh... I keep forgetting the phrase "411" isn't universal.)

Yeah, the American medical situation is a mess, the result of too many years of government allowing the industry to "do it's own thing" without regulation... pretty much the same issues as the American banks and auto industries. Now, it needs serious work, and Americans find themselves seriously talking about trips to Canada or India just to get decent medical help. That's messed up.

Originally Posted by LazyScot

On a related WAAAY overdue, how about more "built-in" health checking devices. Daft as it sounds, I've heard of ideas for things like toilets that do scans for cancer cells and warn you if they find any...

I hear about a lot of this stuff all the time, and supposedly some of it is available on the market (if you've got the cash for it). The thing is, besides the expense, many people don't want to be told there's something wrong with them by a machine (a silly thought, considering doctors use machines and just report what the machines print out)... or they just get creeped out thinking their bodily fluids are being examined while they do their business. So, not a lot of popular incentive for these things yet. Maybe if they get tied to some sort of insurance discounts (and were a damned sight cheaper), they might be more popular.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

(Heh... I keep forgetting the phrase "411" isn't universal.)

Yeah, the American medical situation is a mess, the result of too many years of government allowing the industry to "do it's own thing" without regulation... pretty much the same issues as the American banks and auto industries. Now, it needs serious work, and Americans find themselves seriously talking about trips to Canada or India just to get decent medical help. That's messed up.


.

Speaking of which Steve, I've head over the news that there are movements against a possible US universal medical system creation, by badmouthig examples occuring in the Canadian system. Any ideas on who's responsible?

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Speaking of which Steve, I've head over the news that there are movements against a possible US universal medical system creation, by badmouthig examples occuring in the Canadian system. Any ideas on who's responsible?

The Canadian Supreme Court?

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week. Canadians wait an average of 17.9 weeks for surgery and other therapeutic treatments, according the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. The waits would be even longer if Canadians didn't have access to the U.S. as a medical-care safety valve. Or, in the case of fortunate elites such as Prime Minister Paul Martin, if they didn't have access to a small private market in some non-core medical services. Mr. Martin's use of a private clinic for his annual checkup set off a political firestorm last year.

Source for the quote is the Wall Street Journal.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by GlennD

The Canadian Supreme Court?




Source for the quote is the Wall Street Journal.

But Paul Martin left power... 6 years ago?

What I've heard of people getting treatment in the US and India is mostly for care not covered in Canada and the occasional slowdown of treatment due to shortages in personnel and equipments.

Every Canadian gets treated.

[GlennD]

The court case being referenced in the article was four years ago, it's true. When googling about waiting lists in the Canadian health care system, you get a lot of links to a lot of different sources. A reputable source of journalism quoting a justice in the Canadian Supreme court seemed like a more solid link than to some conservative think tank with an agenda. Has anything changed in the four years since that court case that would have altered the situation he's referring to? I'd be interested since I'm someone inclined to oppose any government managed health care.

But yes, the waits in the Canadian health care system are often cited by opponents of government provided health care. Waiting several months for an MRI (one of the frequent examples if you google/wiki the topic) could cost you your life when some conditions require early detection to take care of reliably. I'm curious - there's enough countries represented here on mobileread, what is the experience of those who live in nations that already have centrally-managed health care?

hmm....probably another topic that needs it's own thread.

[GeoffC]

why are human beings the only species that appear able to increase population in spite of declining resourses. other species adjust their procreation accordingly, or else they go extinct.

The arguments of Malthus become more true each year....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

why are human beings the only species that appear able to increase population in spite of declining resourses. [U]other species adjust their procreation accordingly, or else they go extinct.

Other species' procreative activities are purely instinctive and can be heavily influenced by the state of their environment; whereas human procreation is largely voluntary (the sexual drive is instinctive, but the act is not), and completely divorced from the state of the environment.

However... there are plenty of other species that will continue to procreate in the face of declining resources. It isn't until the resources start to directly impact them (through starvation, for example) that their numbers actually decrease... and often it is due to stillbirths and the births of weak children that do not survive the environment, or the predators, for long.

This is, of course, another area where humans beat the odds because of their natural lack of predators, and their ability to prolong the lives of weaker members of the species.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

why are human beings the only species that appear able to increase population in spite of declining resourses. other species adjust their procreation accordingly, or else they go extinct.

The arguments of Malthus become more true each year....

I've often pondered the question. My answer is because of humanity's creativity backed by the intelligence to set things in motion. Homo sapiens being naked and slow, it had to invent ways to survive in the competition against naturally better adapted species.

The problem we face is that the reinforcement to keep getting stronger is compounded by the fact that we are losing contact with our natural limits. The "back to earth" movement of the seventies was a good step in that analysis but not quite effective enough. Today's Earth dweller is living at an abnormal speed and it is deturning his judgement as to what are proper natural values. Just as the breeds of animals we grow, most of us would not survive in a natural setting, and we are the ones who decide every day what course of action our lives, dependances and the planet we live on should take.

We need to increase our sensitivity, have a bigger dose of humility and face nature as a singleton once in a while to feel the awe that will keep a true motivation. The values we live by, as a society, are derived from a past where we had to survive as a group to protect ourselves from the hardships facing the power of nature. Those values are outdated.

If you examine populations by region, you will notice that those living in riches and comfort have a lower nativity rate. Is it natural? I believe it has become so because the declining nativity has come through a slow process that left leeway for adaptation. The higher growth rates of today are in regions facing natural hardships. When those regions are suddenly benefited by the scientific improvements of life preservation and riches, natural elimination is pushed aside and populations boom. As life expectancy lenghens artificially, so should fertility. This is the dilemma, and it is hard to change the cultural ways that offered protection against nature to a community.

[Greg Anos]

Look at the first derivative of your data. As the area grows more affluent, (with about a 25 year or so lag) the birthrate starts a sharp drop, eventually in 25-50 years to below replacement. it's happening in Mexico right now. In another 20-25 years, illegal immigration will become a thing of the past, due to reduction in population pressure. (And when I say affluent, I mean the general populace, not a narrow elite at the top growing richer.)