Face Shields..

[El Capitan]

To our Canadian friends, most likely what is happening is that we are reading stories from Europe, whose healthcare systems are crumbling and putting all the systems in one basket.

Yup. I’ve been in hospitals in Helsinki, Copenhagen, Stockholm, London, and in several provinces of Canada. In addition in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Puerto Rico.

If I needed care I would want to be in the US. I’ve seen what the care management processes are in socialist systems. There are zero quality measures and scores like we have here.

 

[Golfman25]

My wife had to wait to have her first knee replacement, but when the other knee started to fail and hinder her physical therapy, then she had it replaced immediately.

We don't have to wait until the other knee starts to fail. We schedule the surgery and get it done.

 

[BEH]

Actually that’s not true. Both Canada and the US have 3.8 million square miles.

Healthcare is not free in Canada. In fact, prescriptions, dental are not free. In this article 50,000 Canadians come to the US for healthcare.
Comparing a country’s healthcare system w population the size of Texas to 350M in the US is meaningless.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-08-03/canadians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care?context=amp

Ontario, where I live, prescriptions are free at age 65.
$100.00 yearly deductible.
Not all provinces.
Dental is not included.
Some people do get supplemental private insurance to cover dental, upgrade to private hospital room.
I have a customer that needed back surgery for spinal stenois who decided to go to the States because he didn’t want to wait for operation here which would have been less than one year.
Cost him $90K US
He was far from being a cripple but people have different tolerance for pain plus he is a multi millionaire.
So your right, our system is not perfect but personally myself and my family have absolutely no complaints and we have used it.

 

[CaptRonn]

 

[Creekwood]

We don't have to wait until the other knee starts to fail. We schedule the surgery and get it done.

Yes and if you don’t have insurance you don’t get it done unless you can afford it. Its called “universal” healthcare for a reason. Many (most) developed countries believe that in affluent societies, health care is one of the things that government can bring to all citizens so that the poor are not denied health care for financial reasons. So I get that the US model is different, and its a choice you make as a country. Its not “better” for everyone, its a different model. I guess if you are wealthy and have better insurance, its “better” for you. Let them eat cake. Do you not know anyone in your circle In the US that has not had insurance and has not been able to afford major procedures or has had to fight an insurance company to get coverage, or has had to take out a second mortgage in order to pay for some critical procedure for themselves or a family member? If not, is that because of the wealth of those in your circle?

And the wait times in Canada are NOT long. If you live in the middle of nowhere and are unwilling to travel to a city then you will wait longer. In any of the major cities, the wait times for major non-urgent surgery can be several weeks or at most a couple of months. For knee and hip surgery people schedule them around their personal schedule more than wait times. They are not critical care procedures.

 

[Creekwood]

Actually that’s not true. Both Canada and the US have 3.8 million square miles.

Healthcare is not free in Canada. In fact, prescriptions, dental are not free. In this article 50,000 Canadians come to the US for healthcare.
Comparing a country’s healthcare system w population the size of Texas to 350M in the US is meaningless.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-08-03/canadians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care?context=amp

Such a stupid comment. Country size has nothing to do with it. The systems scale to the population. Canadas largest 4 cities would be in the top 20 if they were in the US. Yeah I get it, you think yours is bigger than mine and god knows bigger is always better.

We say health care, we are not talking about dental or post hospital prescriptions, which are covered in many provinces after 65 or for children. Even certain very expensive drugs are covered under provincial programs. Cancer treatment drugs like chemo are covered as are the drugs in hospital for critical care.

And 50,000 Canadians (maybe that is true) going to the US for health care is not surprising. If you are wealthy, why not? My wife and I drove to Rochester for an MRI years ago when her Doc said she might have MS and said an MRI would let us know. The wait to get in our local MRI at the hospital then was about a month (23 years ago. It is much shorter now). It was not urgent, and we had the money so we drove to Rochester. So that year, we were in the numbers. I did not view that as a failure of the Canadian system. Its actually just like an American would do. If you want it “now”, pay for it “now”.

 

[Golfman25]

Yes and if you don’t have insurance you don’t get it done unless you can afford it. Its called “universal” healthcare for a reason. Many (most) developed countries believe that in affluent societies, health care is one of the things that government can bring to all citizens so that the poor are not denied health care for financial reasons. So I get that the US model is different, and its a choice you make as a country. Its not “better” for everyone, its a different model. I guess if you are wealthy and have better insurance, its “better” for you. Let them eat cake. Do you not know anyone in your circle In the US that has not had insurance and has not been able to afford major procedures or has had to fight an insurance company to get coverage, or has had to take out a second mortgage in order to pay for some critical procedure for themselves or a family member? If not, is that because of the wealth of those in your circle?

And the wait times in Canada are NOT long. If you live in the middle of nowhere and are unwilling to travel to a city then you will wait longer. In any of the major cities, the wait times for major non-urgent surgery can be several weeks or at most a couple of months. For knee and hip surgery people schedule them around their personal schedule more than wait times. They are not critical care procedures.

I have no problem with the Canadian system. I only point out that care is rationed by wait times, while in the US care is rationed by price. Again, it's a pick you poison. Certainly, we in the US could do so much to reduce the costs of care and provide more coverage to the uninsured. Unfortunately our politics won't let us. It's the old follow the money problem.

 

[Creekwood]

I have no problem with the Canadian system. I only point out that care is rationed by wait times, while in the US care is rationed by price. Again, it's a pick you poison. Certainly, we in the US could do so much to reduce the costs of care and provide more coverage to the uninsured. Unfortunately our politics won't let us. It's the old follow the money problem.

I do understand that completely. And don’t get me wrong, I am not bashing the US system. In fact if I was in the US, I would be part of the comparatively wealthy with good employer coverage and would think it was fine for me. Its a different political/social construct in the US. We from outside do see the struggles in the US with attempts (by both parties) to fix some things in it and provide affordable health care to all. Its tough to do. We were able to do it in Canada in a simpler time. And the balance of powers between provinces and the federal government allowed it to happen. It was NOT easy then, but it was done. In those days the rich/poor difference was less pronounced. It was more of an industrial society and more people were “average” because there were lots of blue collar, decent paying, careers. Today generally speaking there is more disparity in income. And with progressive tax rate systems (wealthy pay more %) in those days everyone paid some degree of the costs of government and services.

Its a more complex world now. Disparity in income is much higher. There are not a huge number of good paying blue collar industrial jobs. To really succeed you need to go to higher education in some way. Income disparity is higher for those that cannot afford it, or lets face it, are not academically inclined. In the 50s and 60s, you could drop out of school and go work at the factory and have a very nice life. Not so much today.

So the wealthy (or at least the ones with the good careers) resent paying higher and higher taxes while those that are not able to get those higher paying professional or knowledge worker jobs have no alternative and “need” support for health care.

Its an interesting global dilemma. Do you move more socialist and let those that succeed pay more tax to support those that cannot? Then you need to make sure you do not build a laziness culture and find a balance. Or do you leave it as is or let it get worse. The risk with that is that then the “majority” might drop below the line where they can actually vote in the ultra left agenda and cause a rapid shift left and ruin everything.

My personal view is that, regardless of how capitalist and right wing you are, you can’t kill off the left or the less affluent. The increased income disparity is making that group larger and larger. Its not their “fault”, its the shift in the world (the 4th industrial revolution) that is making it harder for the non academic to succeed. I don’t think that is going away.

You need to find the balance to keep the less well off from shifting harder left in order keep a conservative political agenda in power.

I do believe that is what was happening in the US, prior to the Trump administration. This administration is trying to return to what worked in the 50’s and 60’s. That horse has left the barn. That factory that built cars in Detroit in the 1960s and employed 50,000 people, will only employ 10,000 today - maybe. Maybe Trump will be successful in bringing back some blue collar manufacturing jobs to the US with a combination of protectionist borders and trade policies. That will meaning higher incomes for some of the current poor in places where the plants will be, but higher prices for everyone (goods will cost more of it is US labor and not overseas or Mexican and imported goods will be tariffed). It will probably have the effect of levelling out income disparity. Consumers of goods will pay more for those goods, so the wealthy that consume more goods will pay more. It won’t be an income tax that is visible, but it will be the cost of on-shoring the manufacturing jobs and the tariffs paid to import some of the materials needed to manufacture goods. So it actually accomplishes much of the left’s agenda. Higher taxes and costs to the better off to bring more income to the poor. It just does it in a different way and with a risk of a major shift left in the meantime if the groupies of the far left and the far right are so duped that they don’t understand the common goal.

Sitting on the sidelines to see if in November the direction America decides to go.

 

[MonacoMike]

Face shields suck, I believe that was the topic. LOL

 

[MonacoMike]

Face shields suck, I believe that was the topic. LOL

That is total BS, I was once a welder and no the face shields work.

 

[MonacoMike]

That is total BS, I was once a welder and no the face shields work.

but there are no studies that show what works for a welder will work in the healthcare situation.

 

[MonacoMike]

but there are no studies that show what works for a welder will work in the healthcare situation.

there was once a study of face shields in Tanzania that showed they worked in the healthcare situation.

 

[MonacoMike]

there was once a study of face shields in Tanzania that showed they worked in the healthcare situation.

But that study was done on elephants that has no application to this.

 

[MonacoMike]

But that study was done on elephants that has no application to this.

Elephants do not get coronavirus.

 

[MonacoMike]

Just trying to get the thread back to normal. LOL

 

[Golfman25]

Looks like MM is off his meds.

 

[Golfman25]

So actually, all my guys wear masks while operating their machines. I am looking into face shields instead. Only problem is I can't find any that would double as "safety glasses." So they would have to wear both the safety glasses and shield, which I think is a little much. This whole thing sucks.

 

[MonacoMike]

So actually, all my guys wear masks while operating their machines. I am looking into face shields instead. Only problem is I can't find any that would double as "safety glasses." So they would have to wear both the safety glasses and shield, which I think is a little much. This whole thing sucks.

actually, I can see that as there would be no near to the eye protection with a shield.

 

[alnav]

So actually, all my guys wear masks while operating their machines. I am looking into face shields instead. Only problem is I can't find any that would double as "safety glasses." So they would have to wear both the safety glasses and shield, which I think is a little much. This whole thing sucks.

How about some of both?

 

[Blueone]

I do understand that completely. And don’t get me wrong, I am not bashing the US system. In fact if I was in the US, I would be part of the comparatively wealthy with good employer coverage and would think it was fine for me. Its a different political/social construct in the US. We from outside do see the struggles in the US with attempts (by both parties) to fix some things in it and provide affordable health care to all. Its tough to do. We were able to do it in Canada in a simpler time. And the balance of powers between provinces and the federal government allowed it to happen. It was NOT easy then, but it was done. In those days the rich/poor difference was less pronounced. It was more of an industrial society and more people were “average” because there were lots of blue collar, decent paying, careers. Today generally speaking there is more disparity in income. And with progressive tax rate systems (wealthy pay more %) in those days everyone paid some degree of the costs of government and services.

Its a more complex world now. Disparity in income is much higher. There are not a huge number of good paying blue collar industrial jobs. To really succeed you need to go to higher education in some way. Income disparity is higher for those that cannot afford it, or lets face it, are not academically inclined. In the 50s and 60s, you could drop out of school and go work at the factory and have a very nice life. Not so much today.

So the wealthy (or at least the ones with the good careers) resent paying higher and higher taxes while those that are not able to get those higher paying professional or knowledge worker jobs have no alternative and “need” support for health care.

Its an interesting global dilemma. Do you move more socialist and let those that succeed pay more tax to support those that cannot? Then you need to make sure you do not build a laziness culture and find a balance. Or do you leave it as is or let it get worse. The risk with that is that then the “majority” might drop below the line where they can actually vote in the ultra left agenda and cause a rapid shift left and ruin everything.

My personal view is that, regardless of how capitalist and right wing you are, you can’t kill off the left or the less affluent. The increased income disparity is making that group larger and larger. Its not their “fault”, its the shift in the world (the 4th industrial revolution) that is making it harder for the non academic to succeed. I don’t think that is going away.

You need to find the balance to keep the less well off from shifting harder left in order keep a conservative political agenda in power.

I do believe that is what was happening in the US, prior to the Trump administration. This administration is trying to return to what worked in the 50’s and 60’s. That horse has left the barn. That factory that built cars in Detroit in the 1960s and employed 50,000 people, will only employ 10,000 today - maybe. Maybe Trump will be successful in bringing back some blue collar manufacturing jobs to the US with a combination of protectionist borders and trade policies. That will meaning higher incomes for some of the current poor in places where the plants will be, but higher prices for everyone (goods will cost more of it is US labor and not overseas or Mexican and imported goods will be tariffed). It will probably have the effect of levelling out income disparity. Consumers of goods will pay more for those goods, so the wealthy that consume more goods will pay more. It won’t be an income tax that is visible, but it will be the cost of on-shoring the manufacturing jobs and the tariffs paid to import some of the materials needed to manufacture goods. So it actually accomplishes much of the left’s agenda. Higher taxes and costs to the better off to bring more income to the poor. It just does it in a different way and with a risk of a major shift left in the meantime if the groupies of the far left and the far right are so duped that they don’t understand the common goal.

Sitting on the sidelines to see if in November the direction America decides to go.

You win longest post but you lost me at “I do “