Re: Doctors Refusing to Help Children with Autism

[Guest guest]

There are a lot of doctors around the country who aren't taking on new patients.

A large part of the reason is that they just can't afford to take any more patients. Doctors are getting fewer and fewer in this country and patient demands are increasing. As such, the doctors can't physically see any more patients because of lack of time in the day. Even the patients they do see typically only get a few minutes each. You practically have to stand against the door to get them to listen more than a minute or two.

I expect this to get worse. Thousands more doctors retire each year than enter practice. Malpractice insurance are steadily increasing, and are already very high. This will get worse because Medicare and Medicaide this week released a statement saying that they would cut payments for services for doctors seeing patients on those programs and will reduce other compensations. That is how they are trying to control costs, but all it is going to do is make more doctors retire and also stop taking new patients.

Under nationalized health care they will probably be forced to take them on. This will reduce the standard of care mostly by decreasing the already short time patients see with doctors for which they will receive still less pay.

In a health care system run in the private sector and not by the state, what means have you at your disposal to stoop it discriminating? Where is there enacted an automatic right to be taken on as a patient?I suppose it must be illegal for them to refuse patients for being black or Jewish. So try citing this one as parallel to that.Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news more!

[Guest guest]

In a health care system run in the private sector and not by the

state, what means have you at your disposal to stoop it

discriminating? Where is there enacted an automatic right to be taken

on as a patient?

I suppose it must be illegal for them to refuse patients for being

black or Jewish. So try citing this one as parallel to that.

[Guest guest]

I can see that. This situation is already developing in the US because of all the doctors who are retiring and the few that are replacing them. Its not just General Practitioners but also dentists. When my old dentist got thrown in the pokey for being a very bad boy, a few other dentists weren't taking more clients but one was. She took a large number of his patients and increased her business hours.

Nope. Under nationalized health care, thousands and thousands of individuals will go WITHOUT a primary health care provider as they do in Canada. In Canada, on average 1 in 5 people does not have a primary health care provider. In the area where I live, it's 1 in 4 people and it took 12 years for me to finally find a doctor who was accepting new patients.Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news more!

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... Under nationalized health care they

will probably be forced to take them on. This will reduce the standard

of care mostly by decreasing the already short time patients see with

doctors for which they will receive still less pay ... <snip> ... "

Nope. Under nationalized health care, thousands and thousands of

individuals will go WITHOUT a primary health care provider as they do

in Canada. In Canada, on average 1 in 5 people does not have a primary

health care provider. In the area where I live, it's 1 in 4 people and

it took 12 years for me to finally find a doctor who was accepting new

patients.

That being said, the situation becomes a doctor's dream situation as

they can use the serious lack of doctors as leverage to keep their

patients in line.

Raven

[Guest guest]

In the US, if you show up in an emergency room, they have to treat you, its the law. The problem is that a lot of the uninsured do this, using the more expensive ER as their primary care doctor and then don't pay for it. What happens then is that ERs end up closing because the hospital can't afford to keep it open. The government pays some, but they don't reimburse enough to pay the doctors, particularly not when considering the cost of their malpractice insurance, which is easily over $100,000 per year.

As for letting the poor die: I'm not sure that is the case. The politicians under these systems NEED as many poor alive and voting as possible. They need to outnumber the productive classes that are bearing the burden for paying for all of this. Some of the productive and upper classes will vote for the high taxes and all the government in their business, which is something I don't understand but there it is. However, these numbers can't be relied on as readily as the poor, who can easily be threatened into voting correctly by saying the opposition will take away "their" freebies.

Yikes. Under that system I would have had a long and agonizing death in childbirth. I was in a situation where my husband had been made redundant 2 months before my baby was born. lol I would not have been able to live with it and the baby would have died too if we did not have a public health system here. On the other hand, it is a method of social control. Letting the poor, aged and disabled die might help solve a lot of economic problems. I hope nobody tells CAN about this. It might be a more cost effective way of reducing autism rates than research because a lot of autistic people are really unable to work and could not purchase appropriate health care. Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news more!

[Guest guest]

Hard to believe that Democrats thought long and hard on this issue

and decided that a National Healthcare System was what they wanted

isn't it?

Maybe they have low IQs.

Maybe they didn't think.

Maybe they did think but are just dumb.

Administrator

" ... <snip> ... Under nationalized health care they

will probably be forced to take them on. This will reduce the standard

of care mostly by decreasing the already short time patients see with

doctors for which they will receive still less pay ... <snip> ... "

Nope. Under nationalized health care, thousands and thousands of

individuals will go WITHOUT a primary health care provider as they do

in Canada. In Canada, on average 1 in 5 people does not have a primary

health care provider. In the area where I live, it's 1 in 4 people and

it took 12 years for me to finally find a doctor who was accepting new

patients.

That being said, the situation becomes a doctor's dream situation as

they can use the serious lack of doctors as leverage to keep their

patients in line.

Raven

[Guest guest]

Okay, maybe that was a little harsh.,

Well, no it wasn't.

There was a show I watched on PBS which asked why it was all the

developed countries in the world except the US had a National

Healthcare System. The answer was that every single NHS that existed,

whether it was in Japan, the UK or Canada, or even in communist

countries... and UNDER developed countries...was so seriously flawed

that it didn't work.

No NHS was the same. All were different and all tried to create what

they thought were the " best " approaches, and all of them failed.

Some made good use of tax dollars, reducing the cost of healthcare

manyfold...but people were denied healthcare if their illness was too

taxing on the system, or else they were forced to have the cheapest -

not the best- treatments.

Other NHS's bossed their patients around. How would you like to be

forced into an abortion because your country decided you were only

allowed one kid?

In some, doctors are made to see 6 patients an hour. That's one

patient every ten minutes for eight hours a day. That's 48 patients a

day.

In others people have to co-pay and if they cannot pay, they are out

of luck or else the government makes up the difference, but only

allows for a certain level of care.

There was a country, I recalled, where everything was free, every

patient was seen, and there was no wait for anything...but the taxes

in that country were so high that the economy was hamstringed from

positive growth because of it.

What will the US dream up?

They cannot make any social program self-supporting even though in

programs such as Social Security, people pay into them all their

lives before getting money back for only a few short years.

In short, there is one easy solution to the entire problem: The

government should audit every peice of medical equipment and every

single procedure and set prices for everything making it illegal for

doctors to overbill and illegal for insurance carriers to overbill

for premiums. They could also make it illegal for insurance companies

to deny coverage.

Thus everyone would have healthcare, everyone would have insurance,

and medical care and health insurance would cost less.

But all of that is too much effort, and so the US, which has the

biggest and best chance of preventing us from falling into the same

pit as anyone else, is going to dive right in willingly thanks to a

bunch of gimmie-gimmie-gimmie Democrats who want everything they

believe they are entitled to without working for it.

There is no entitlement for free healthcare in the constitution.

People need to realize that and learn to live with it.

Every single pick for Obama's cabinet so far are people who have been

reported as being corrupt by the media in one way or another. They

are also people with the same gimmie-gimmie-gimmie work ethic and

imperative. So the American public is screwed.

Administrator

Hard to believe that Democrats thought long and hard on this issue

and decided that a National Healthcare System was what they wanted

isn't it?

Maybe they have low IQs.

Maybe they didn't think.

Maybe they did think but are just dumb.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

There is no entitlement for free healthcare in the constitution. People need to realize that and learn to live with it.

Yikes. Under that system I would have had a long and agonizing death in childbirth. I was in a situation where my husband had been made redundant 2 months before my baby was born. lol I would not have been able to live with it and the baby would have died too if we did not have a public health system here. On the other hand, it is a method of social control. Letting the poor, aged and disabled die might help solve a lot of economic problems. I hope nobody tells CAN about this. It might be a more cost effective way of reducing autism rates than research because a lot of autistic people are really unable to work and could not purchase appropriate health care.

Re: Doctors Refusing to Help Children with Autism

Okay, maybe that was a little harsh.,

Well, no it wasn't.

There was a show I watched on PBS which asked why it was all the developed countries in the world except the US had a National Healthcare System. The answer was that every single NHS that existed, whether it was in Japan, the UK or Canada, or even in communist countries... and UNDER developed countries...was so seriously flawed that it didn't work. No NHS was the same. All were different and all tried to create what they thought were the "best" approaches, and all of them failed. Some made good use of tax dollars, reducing the cost of healthcare manyfold...but people were denied healthcare if their illness was too taxing on the system, or else they were forced to have the cheapest -

not the best- treatments. Other NHS's bossed their patients around. How would you like to be forced into an abortion because your country decided you were only allowed one kid?

In some, doctors are made to see 6 patients an hour. That's one patient every ten minutes for eight hours a day. That's 48 patients a day. In others people have to co-pay and if they cannot pay, they are out of luck or else the government makes up the difference, but only allows for a certain level of care.

There was a country, I recalled, where everything was free, every patient was seen, and there was no wait for anything...but the taxes in that country were so high that the economy was hamstringed from positive growth because of it.

What will the US dream up?

They cannot make any social program self-supporting even though in programs such as Social Security, people pay into them all their lives before getting money back for only a few short years. In short, there is one easy solution to the entire problem: The government should audit every peice of medical equipment and every single procedure and set prices for everything making it illegal for doctors to overbill and illegal for insurance carriers to overbill for premiums. They could also make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage. Thus everyone would have healthcare, everyone would have insurance, and medical care and health insurance would cost less. But all of that is too much effort, and so the US, which has the biggest and best chance of preventing us from falling into the same pit as anyone else, is going to dive right in willingly thanks to a bunch of gimmie-gimmie-gimmie Democrats who want everything they believe they are entitled to without working for it. There is no entitlement for free healthcare in the constitution. People need to realize that and learn to live with it.

Every single pick for Obama's cabinet so far are people who have been reported as being corrupt by the media in one way or another. They are also people with the same gimmie-gimmie-gimmie work ethic and imperative. So the American public is screwed.

Administrator

Hard to believe that Democrats thought long and hard on this issue

and decided that a National Healthcare System was what they wanted

isn't it?

Maybe they have low IQs.

Maybe they didn't think.

Maybe they did think but are just dumb.

Administrator

------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

[Guest guest]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:29 PM, environmental1st2003

<no_reply > wrote:

> Hard to believe that Democrats thought long and hard on this issue

> and decided that a National Healthcare System was what they wanted

> isn't it?

>

I know quite a few democrats who are asking themselves what the plank

writers were thinking with that.

[Guest guest]

One consequence I worry about is that some psychologists and other

doctors might refuse to assist in transition (male to female, I'm

transexual, so the body and mind are out of sync) due to Asperger's

or, like my parents, assume that being female is mutually incompatible

with being an aspie.

[Guest guest]

grobertson wrote: " There is no entitlement for free healthcare in the

constitution. People need to realize that and learn to live with it. "

Maybe not in Australia if you have nationalized health care and maybe

not in the UK where they also have nationalized health care and perhaps

not in the US because of the Constitution, however, in Canada it was

set up in 1960 with " entitlement for free healthcare " and this is why

it is such an unacceptable situation that free healthcare does not

exist as it is legislated to be provided.

Raven

[Guest guest]

" One consequence I worry about is that some psychologists and other

doctors might refuse to assist in transition (male to female, I'm

transexual, so the body and mind are out of sync) due to Asperger's

or, like my parents, assume that being female is mutually incompatible

with being an aspie. "

It would depend on whether or not they consider the

procedure " elective. " Elective procedures are not funded or allowed

under many NHS systems.

If a woman was in a car accident and a breast had to be removed, they

might allow reconstructive surgery and an implant. But if a woman just

wanted to change from a size A to a size B, the NHS would not cover it.

It would also depend on politics. If ten thousand people were mentally

anguished because they had some sort of condition that covered their

body with growths that could be removed permanently, but the government

determined such a procedure was " cosmetic, " those people could form a

political force and out go against a few transexuals who were

previously able to convince the government that a sex change operation

was necessary for psychological health.

The government would either switch the status of sex changes to

elective and/or cosmetic status, or it would be forced to give

operations to all the patients who were complaining about their mental

health thanks to these untreated growths on their bodies.

Alternatively, if the government was forced through some lawsuit or

other to provide sex change operations and it was thought the expense

would be more than was budgeted for, they would then cut services for

some other part of the population, thereby causing THAT segment of the

population to become politically active.

To avoid the whole situation, a government is likely to put up a fiorm

resistance to whoever protests first and demonize those who are most

persistant as being mentally unstable.

YOu can see how it is that a NHS can polarize a country, and you can

see why it is that within a few decades, if there is an NHS, there will

be a bigger split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans in

the US.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Actually, she was quoting me and what I was saying about the US

constitution.

Administrator

" There is no entitlement for free healthcare in the

constitution. People need to realize that and learn to live with it. "

Maybe not in Australia if you have nationalized health care and maybe

not in the UK where they also have nationalized health care and perhaps

not in the US because of the Constitution, however, in Canada it was

set up in 1960 with " entitlement for free healthcare " and this is why

it is such an unacceptable situation that free healthcare does not

exist as it is legislated to be provided.

Raven

[Guest guest]

" One consequence I worry about is that some psychologists and other

doctors might refuse to assist in transition (male to female, I'm

transexual, so the body and mind are out of sync) due to Asperger's

or, like my parents, assume that being female is mutually incompatible

with being an aspie. "

One thing I wanted to add is that u8nder an NHS, everyone has to

compromise. On the one hand, I think it's good that un-needed tests

and un-needed treatments are gotten rid of. But on the other, I think

stuff gets missed sometimes because certain tests aren't done that

need to be done.

In countries where provinces or other political delineations

determine care, you get even more screwed. Raven moved from one

province to another to get services for Cub's autism because in the

first province, it was determined by the authorities that autism is

caused by bad parenting and a few parenting classes will cure autism

completely. In the province where she is now, she gets many more

services for her son, but not nearly enough. There is a waiting list

lasting years in some cases, and so by the time her son gets to the

front of the line, he will legally be an adult and no longer will be

eligible for those services.

The US is composed of fifty states and assorted territories. Imagine

the population and political shifts that will ensue as people move

about to get the services they need for their various diagnoses, all

of which will be substandard.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

another misunderstanding. that was a quote from someone else. I would not want to live in a country that denied health care to citizens on the basis of economic status.

Re: Doctors Refusing to Help Children with Autism

grobertson wrote: "There is no entitlement for free healthcare in the constitution. People need to realize that and learn to live with it."

Maybe not in Australia if you have nationalized health care and maybe not in the UK where they also have nationalized health care and perhaps not in the US because of the Constitution, however, in Canada it was set up in 1960 with "entitlement for free healthcare" and this is why it is such an unacceptable situation that free healthcare does not exist as it is legislated to be provided.

Raven

------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

[Guest guest]

grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... another misunderstanding. that was

a quote from someone else. I would not want to live in a country that

denied health care to citizens on the basis of economic status ...

<snip> ... "

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

That being said, none of what I posted in response was written with any

negativity whatsoever. It was a statement of what I do know about

Canada's health care system and an acknowledgement that I am not in a

position to state whether it is the same in other countries.

No hard feelings intended.

Raven

[Guest guest]

Zoe's law of medical discussions on FAMSS: Anything medical, even as

little as a pinky feeling slight discomfort, will inevitably spiral

into a discussion of government health systems, especially that of

Canada.

[Guest guest]

" Zoe's law of medical discussions on FAMSS: Anything medical, even as

little as a pinky feeling slight discomfort, will inevitably spiral

into a discussion of government health systems, especially that of

Canada. "

I suppose I am still seething because of the election results and

where the US is heading. As I have said, I recently had a discussion

with a professor of economics, computer science, and systems

analysis, with the result being that he thinks the voters in the US

could not have been more foolish in electing Barack Obama President,

and Congress could not have been more stupid by trying to pass all

these economic stimuilus plans.

Everything that Congress has done and is planning to do is going to

worsen the world's erconomy, and because the rest of the world is

forced to combat the supposed economic advantage the US seeks to

gain, their economies will be ruined as well. All because the

majority of the American public is selfish and mis-informed and

gimmie-gimmie-gimme oriented.

Talk about arrogance...Present them with the facts on why it is that

a candidate is a poor choice and they call you a racist, bigoted,

right-wing religious fanatic.

There's prejudice for you...and stupidity.

Let's keep in mind what the American government, in the interest of

their selfish voters did. " Help us! " the voters said, and so this

democratic nation now partly owns many major banks, thereby

substituting a free capitalistic democracy with a socialist system.

Think about that. Think about how quick that happened, and without

any of the idiotic Democrats stopping to think what that means. In

one blindingly quick sweep, the US government is now capable of

controlling the financial affairs of the majority of the populace.

Did any of these " choice " and " freedom " loving Democrats bat an

eyelash about the threat this financial move poses to their own

financial freedoms. Of course not, because they are too dumb to

figure it out for themselves. All they know is that their money, such

as it is, is secure in their minds even though the same government

that holds ownership in their banks is the same government that boast

an underfunded social security system and the biggest national debt

in the history of the entire world due to the fiscal irresponsibility

of a Democratic Congress.

What's next? Communism?

The dumber people are, and the less capable they are of managing

their own affairs and looking out for their own interests, the more

they want a mommy/daddy government to take care of them. That is

exactly what they voted for in this election.

In essence, these nitwits have admitted they are too stupid to take

care of themselves, and so they voted in a government to deprive the

more capable people of all means to support themselves and further

the growth of the economy. All so that people who spent themselves

into debt can get a free ride out of it.

Remember what a Roman Senator said in Gladiator. " Rome is the mob. "

If you give the people what they want, they will love you for it,

even if it kills them slowly.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Zoe wrote: " ... <snip> ... Zoe's law of medical discussions on

FAMSS: Anything medical, even as little as a pinky feeling slight

discomfort, will inevitably spiral into a discussion of government

health systems, especially that of Canada. ... <snip> ... "

And so it does, Zoe. LOL!

I suppose a lot of that has to do with the following facts:

1. I am in Canada where nationalized health care began;

2. I can see how a nationalized health care system will hurt America

even though many Americans do not understand the dangers of creating

a nationalized health care system; and

3. I am suffering at the hands of our nationalized health care system

as I try to secure the appropriate treatments for Cub as he fights

his MG; and

4. FAMSS is where I come to post safely, away from medical

professionals and NTs who routinely try to tell me that the facts I

present to them are somehow negated by the fact that I have AS.

Raven

[Guest guest]

Rome pretty much WAS the mob. The senators and ns were riding the proverbial tiger and they knew it (though they were on top they weren't completely in control and if they tried to get off, the tiger would eat them).

The Romans were in this fix for many reasons, but it didn't reach full effect until the Imperial period. When Rome was still a Republic and men served in the Legions out of a sense of duty to the state, things went reasonably well. Under the Empire when they lost interest in serving Rome and just taking from it, when foreign mercenaries made up the bulk of the legions, the upper crust wallowed in decadence, the masses in poverty and the Roman armies dominated the known world, they began to crumble. Corruption and taxes devastated the economy causing wild inflation, the legions lost battles, even art from sculpture to poetry declined in quality and originality.

Why did this happen? Many reasons but I'll just focus on a few that close to what we are seeing today.

1. The people weren't educated. Only the wealthy and some few of the middle class had what we would call an education. There weren't any schools as such, so teaching was done by private tutors. What are referred to sometimes as colleges weren't like what we have today, but were more like debate societies headed by a popular speaker who drew followers who liked what he said. "Blue collar" types learned trades through apprenticeship, but there were only so many jobs to be had. The rest of the people had nothing. Thus they were easy prey when a senator set up a bread kitchen and come election time spent more money than the lot of the mob would see in a lifetime on wild bloodsports, banquets and orgies for the masses.

2. There weren't so many jobs because of slavery. The Romans practiced slavery on a massive scale. One reason for the legion was fear of slave revolts. Spartacus WAS real and he led one of the most successful slave revolts in Roman history, but there were many. Conditions for the run of the mill slave were pretty bad and why not? When the Roman Legions conquered a place they hauled off much of the population as slaves. Given how active the Roman military was, slaves were extremely cheap. Other nations did a brisk trade in slaves as well. Of course, each slave displaces a wage earning person. That means that slavery increased poverty in Rome because slaves put bottom wrung Romans out of work. This in turn made them dependant on the government for everything from housing to food, but since they were free citizens, they could vote, or at least beat up their Senator's rivals and supporters, things like that.

3. Inflation was a real problem for the Romans. It isn't know if they had paper currency, but what they did have was gold and silver coinage. In addition to bringing back slaves, the Romans would loot conquered enemies and send it all home. In the Imperial Period, they did so much of this and so much coin was minted that inflation soared. We saw this also with the Spanish. They looted the New World of gold and spent it on military adventurism and some other things rather than build up their economy. The result was crushing inflation that cut them off at the knees.

4. The Roman military was spread around the world. The Roman army cost money, even when it was full or foreigners. It was also expected to pay for itself, which was why the Romans took slaves and looted whenever they could. The masses and politicians alike loved it when the legions sent back wealth. They didn't like it when it was guarding borders, not earning a profit and cost the treasury money. Even though the legions lived off of the locals around their bases and often had farms themselves, paying for them was still an issue. Some cuts were made but it is hard to say really. What is known is that the people began turning on them.

5. (Last point) The people turned their backs on the values that made them Roman. In the early days of the Republic, most people were free, had high moral ideals and values and gladly served in the legions. Over time, the Republic expanded and brought in wealth, including slaves. What happened was that over time, the rich gobbled up the land of the free farmers and added it to their own, using slaves to work the land. Other industries replaced workers with slaves as the rich gobbled up more and more of everything for themselves. The result was poverty for formerly free people and they just stopped caring. They struggled to survive day to day and the rich fell in to wild orgies and decadence.

In sum: the people who once loved Rome and shared its ideals saw it stolen away and stopped caring. With the masses not caring, until the enemy was kicking in the gate, and the rich chasing ever more baudy pleasures and weaving insanely complicated political webs in the games for power, Rome fell around them. The barbarians didn't destroy Rome, the Romans themselves did. The Barbarians just delivered the Coup de Gras.

If you've been paying attention to things in the US, you can see the correlations.

In a message dated 11/18/2008 7:30:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Remember what a Roman Senator said in Gladiator. "Rome is the mob." If you give the people what they want, they will love you for it, even if it kills them slowly. AdministratorGet the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news more!

[Guest guest]

In the area where I live, it's 1 in 4 people and

> it took 12 years for me to finally find a doctor who was accepting

new

> patients.

That is politically impossible here, at present. It Canada's system

must be working without any enacted obligation of availability to all

in need to use it. That obviously is not a proper nationalised system

at all, it's in contradiction of one. It sounds more like a con where

the state is operating the system as a business, in fact a privatised

system, while lying that it's a nationalised one.

What has become hard to get here, is dentists. They started allowing

dentists to go private, saying the promise of more indulgent care

provided privately would be a saving for the state. Too many dentists

have found it better paying to go private and there are way not enough

left in the nationalised sector, so dentists' availability to all has

broken down. It has been a big political issue for a while.

Is that a parallel with your doctor situation? A whittling away of the

nationalised system in ways that contradict its principles?

[Guest guest]

> " All our doctors are moving to the U.S. where they can make

considerably

> larger incomes as private practice practitioners which means Americans

> are draining our pool of well-educated medical practitioners. They

> even steal our nurses and nurse practitioners. "

It's a shame the Canadian government can't see where they have gone

wrong. Nobody is being stolen, just choosing the option to earn more

and if that is what they desire, they have the right to move.

Kim

[Guest guest]

" It's a shame the Canadian government can't see where they have gone

wrong. Nobody is being stolen, just choosing the option to earn more

and if that is what they desire, they have the right to move. "

Well you see Kim, the Canadian government could pay doctors what

American doctors get paid, but by paying the doctors that much, it

would bankrupt the Canadian government and destroy the National

Healthcare System.

Alternatively, it could prohibit doctors from moving to the US, but

that would be communistic.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

It is starting to happen with doctors here too (in UK), quite a few

weeks back now I remember seeing something on the news saying that

accident and emergency departments at hospitals are getting stretched

due to the fact some either do not have a doctor, or cannot get in to

see one.

> In the area where I live, it's 1 in 4 people and

> > it took 12 years for me to finally find a doctor who was

accepting

> new

> > patients.

>

> That is politically impossible here, at present. It Canada's system

> must be working without any enacted obligation of availability to

all

> in need to use it. That obviously is not a proper nationalised

system

> at all, it's in contradiction of one. It sounds more like a con

where

> the state is operating the system as a business, in fact a

privatised

> system, while lying that it's a nationalised one.

>

> What has become hard to get here, is dentists. They started

allowing

> dentists to go private, saying the promise of more indulgent care

> provided privately would be a saving for the state. Too many

dentists

> have found it better paying to go private and there are way not

enough

> left in the nationalised sector, so dentists' availability to all

has

> broken down. It has been a big political issue for a while.

>

> Is that a parallel with your doctor situation? A whittling away of

the

> nationalised system in ways that contradict its principles?

>

[Guest guest]

>

> 1. I am in Canada where nationalized health care began;

> 2. I can see how a nationalized health care system will hurt America

> even though many Americans do not understand the dangers of creating

> a nationalized health care system; and

> 3. I am suffering at the hands of our nationalized health care system

> as I try to secure the appropriate treatments for Cub as he fights

> his MG; and

> 4. FAMSS is where I come to post safely, away from medical

> professionals and NTs who routinely try to tell me that the facts I

> present to them are somehow negated by the fact that I have AS.

>

> Raven

>

I just wanted to say healthcare is a huge issue for anyone that is

slave to it (for whatever medical reason) The nefarious someone has

control over your access to medical aid.

The real problem as I (just me) see it is that doctors are not

information sharers and they are like it or not business

people. " You " anyone that comes into their clutches are their capital

gains. Thus the ugly relationship. In America as I assume in other

countries information or the lack of it in the hands of the layperson

results in. Erronous testing, time lost from any real DX. I have

found that I must read a lot of medical journals just to not be

bulled. When that happens I am disliked because I challange the white

coated professional.

I try to avoid them. I have been turned away from many offices because

Ravi is a child they don't know how to treat. Eye doctors dentists and

Gp's alike. I end up in Boston for everything from check-ups to dental

cleanings to neurological testing. There seems to be only one course

of action: eliminate the medical broker if you can. (I avoid going

through unnessary visits) I only see those that can get the job done.

In other words I try to see the specialist without going to the GP to

see what shirt he's wearing that day *(joke) just so he can give me the

# of the specialist. The system is set up so as many doctors can get

paid along the way and time is lost in that process.

If I am not being clear What I am saying is that (I have Mass Health)

Ravi's healthcare is one I do not pay for. I am prompted to go as many

as 12 times a year for a number of things. I only go to the important

ones. I stay out of the dr's office for say: colds etc.

What I do spend money out of pocket for is keeping us out of the Dr's

office by keeping Ravi well. I am not saying that people have a choice

in this (most are not ill by choice) I am saying I work to not abuse

the system hopefully saving it for real need.

But I am actually held in disdain by dr's for this practise(they want

you to come in for ANYTHING) unless your child is AS and they they want

you to go somewhere else.

Healthcare is messed up in general in many countries. Healers are

intrested in dollars not people sigh