Gender re-assignment

[YukonJack]

"Cancer treatment (or any medical treatment for that matter) over the age of 70 doesn't benefit the tax payer either. But we're not about to stop paying for it when the people have paid into the system and are entitled to use it."

However, cancer treatment for people over the age of seventy is NOT a matter of convenience and vanity, but matter of life, unlike abortion - to get rid of a self-imposed inconvenience - or an expensive operation for gender change in order to have a more satisfying orgasm.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Gilbert, the list you have given is old and out of date (2001). Here is a more recent list (2007).

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People around here seem to live quite lengthy lives in spite of the ridiculous condition of our health services.

Who says the condition f our health services is ridiculous? It is mostly the Americans, who trash health system of any country which has a universal health care. And also the far right here in Canada, which wants US style, private health care system here.

Canadian health care system has many problems, but overall it works quite well, in spite of all the problems. In the life expectancy list, Canada ranks No. 14 in the world. By contrast, USA, with supposedly the ‘best’ health care system in the world, ranks No. 45 in the world, behind such ‘developed’ countries as Jordan and Bosnia.

Americans like to talk about how great their health care system is, and how countries with universal, single payer health system have a terrible health care, with long waiting lists, denial of emergency health care etc. That is purely far right propaganda.

By almost any measure of the quality of health care (life expectancy, infant mortality etc.), US lags far behind in the developed world.

So don’t believe the propaganda that our health care system is ridiculous. Sure it has its problems, but overall lit works quite well, certainly better than the American system.

 

[L Gilbert]

Gilbert, the list you have given is old and out of date (2001). Here is a more recent list (2007).

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You apparently missed the topic of my link: it's about the HEALTHY life expectancy of people. I posted in in reply to your post wehere you seem to think people can't get old without being plugged full of drugs. And besides that, I bet we are living longer and healthier now than back in 2001, anyway.

People around here seem to live quite lengthy lives in spite of the ridiculous condition of our health services.

Who says the condition f our health services is ridiculous?

Me.

It is mostly the Americans, who trash health system of any country which has a universal health care. And also the far right here in Canada, which wants US style, private health care system here.

Canadian health care system has many problems, but overall it works quite well, in spite of all the problems. In the life expectancy list, Canada ranks No. 14 in the world. By contrast, USA, with supposedly the ‘best’ health care system in the world, ranks No. 45 in the world, behind such ‘developed’ countries as Jordan and Bosnia.

Americans like to talk about how great their health care system is, and how countries with universal, single payer health system have a terrible health care, with long waiting lists, denial of emergency health care etc. That is purely far right propaganda.

By almost any measure of the quality of health care (life expectance, infant mortality etc.), US lags far behind in the developed world.

So don’t believe the propaganda that our health care system is ridiculous. Sure it has its problems, but overall lit works quite well, certainly better than the American system.

I find no use in comparing our healthcare to that of other countries in this instance. I also don't care, at the moment, what other countries say about it.

We used to have much better healthcare. It isn't that great anymore. And unless bureaucrats and pols get their poop in a group, it's going to get worse.

 

[taxslave]

Evidently miniboss doesn’t like gender reassignment surgery. That means nothing. If it is deemed to be medically necessary by qualified experts, I don’t see anything wrong with government funding it.

Government funds a wide variety of procedures, including abortion. Some people probably are opposed to government paying for abortions. But abortion is considered a medical procedure and hence is covered by the government.

Same with gender reassignment. It may not be a necessity, but I understand it can be a big help to some individuals, it helps them live a much fuller life. Government funds many procedures which some my not consider necessities, such as hip replacement, carpel tunnel etc.

In this case (as in practically every case), I differ to the experts. If experts say it is medically necessary (and I understand they have very stringent standards in deciding whether it is medically necessary or not), then I support government paying for it.

Do tell, how can a lopitoffofme be medically necessary?
There are far more pressing needs for scarce tax dollars than sex changes. Far too many dollars go to shrinks for no reason other than our nanny state has deemed it too difficult for people to deal with life. Tell them to suck it up.

 

[captain morgan]

We surgically correct abnormalities all the time, and when it comes to something so incredibly drastic and often fatal, as living with the wrong body, then it is up to medical ethics boards, imo, not Joe Schmoe on the street, to decide what is needed, how successful therapy versus surgery is, and deliver the best possible care they can to that person.

I can appreciate that you don't feel that it isn't the responsibility of Joe Schmoe to make the determination of the GSR surgeries, however, the current practice allows the GSR patient to unilaterally impact the decision for the 'necessarity' of the procedure... It's a slippery slope to weigh one person's belief and not to allow that same opportunity for others that have (in their minds) pressing issues as well. If you're going to allow that latitude for one, you'd better allow it for all. If that is the practice, then hold onto your wallet 'cause the teax requirement to fund everyone's 'necessities' will break everyone.

That said, the recent circumstances in Alberta have suggested that the total cost of all GSR surgeries are $700k (apporx 20 per year). Assuming that these #'s are correct (I happen to think that they are very understated), 35k out of your own pocket isn't outrageous, especially for a person that applies so much importance in having it done.

In the end, that is what this is about... Who should pay and why.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You apparently missed the topic of my link: it's about the HEALTHY life expectancy of people.

Quite Gilbert, I did miss the word ‘healthy’. Guilty.

I posted in in reply to your post wehere you seem to think people can't get old without being plugged full of drugs.

I did NOT say that, you are probably responding to someone else.

Quote:

Who says the condition f our health services is ridiculous?


Me.

Well then, I disagree with you.

I find no use in comparing our healthcare to that of other countries in this instance.

I think it is very useful to compare how we stack up against other countries in the world. And we stack up pretty well.

 

[L Gilbert]

You apparently missed the topic of my link: it's about the HEALTHY life expectancy of people.

Quite Gilbert, I did miss the word ‘healthy’. Guilty.

I posted in in reply to your post wehere you seem to think people can't get old without being plugged full of drugs.

I did NOT say that, you are probably responding to someone else.

I was paraphrasing. What you DID say was, "Now we are getting people living to four score and ten but they aren't any healthier, just gobble more pills." That is why I posted the link about people's HEALTHY life expectancies.

Quote:

Who says the condition f our health services is ridiculous?


Me.

Well then, I disagree with you.

Good for you. You are wrong. Our health services used to be in better condition.

I find no use in comparing our healthcare to that of other countries in this instance.

I think it is very useful to compare how we stack up against other countries in the world. And we stack up pretty well.

When we compare what we used to have with what we have now, how is it useful that we compare other countries healthcare to ours?
I am sure our healthcare is in immensely better condition than many other countries. However, it could be immensely better than it is. We have people being carted around the countryside here because the various health authorities have coagulated specialists and facilities in 3 or 4 areas which leaves the rest of the facilities that used to provide good healthcare, little more than first aid outposts. Our family doctors are underpaid. Doctors seem to want to be in major centers, where all the goodies have been collected, which leaves the rural areas starving for doctors. Canada refuses to allow doctors from other countries to practise here. Our hospitals aren't clean anymore basically because of layoffs. People are leaving the country to get healthcare they need. People are enduring lots of pain for months while they are waiting for Canadian healthcare. This is not good.

 

[Kreskin]

I can appreciate that you don't feel that it isn't the responsibility of Joe Schmoe to make the determination of the GSR surgeries, however, the current practice allows the GSR patient to unilaterally impact the decision for the 'necessarity' of the procedure... It's a slippery slope to weigh one person's belief and not to allow that same opportunity for others that have (in their minds) pressing issues as well. If you're going to allow that latitude for one, you'd better allow it for all. If that is the practice, then hold onto your wallet 'cause the teax requirement to fund everyone's 'necessities' will break everyone.

That said, the recent circumstances in Alberta have suggested that the total cost of all GSR surgeries are $700k (apporx 20 per year). Assuming that these #'s are correct (I happen to think that they are very understated), 35k out of your own pocket isn't outrageous, especially for a person that applies so much importance in having it done.

In the end, that is what this is about... Who should pay and why.

But our system isn't based on people spending out of pocket. Our provincial health plans are required to uphold the "mission" of the Canada Health Act which says residents get barrier-free (including financial barriers) access to medical services that protect, promote or restore mental or physical health.

 

[captain morgan]

You are correct in that the system is not based on the provision of out-of-pocket healthcare practices, however, the provincial systems force that practice via de-listing certain procedures... In any city in Canada, you can seek private medical services from anything to physical exams, diagnostic imaging (MRI is most famous, but ultra sound & CT scans are easily available), orthopaedic procedures, let alone cosmetic surgery, laser eye, etc.

The barrier-free component does exist in terms of the system paying the costs, however, the indirect barrier exists in terms of timely access to the services. In the event that the (assume) knee-replacement surgery you want is somehow life-threatening or is severely (and measureably) impacting your life and health, you can wait for 2 years for that surgery.

Sure you can get it, but the 'system' counts on the reality that there will be many that will go to a private clinic or the USA to get the services ASAP and eliminate the need for the province to pick-up the tab as well as to remove one patient from the waiting list.

Regardless of what the Canada Health Act states, there is a very real cost associated with the services. The feds pick-up 30% of the costs per province (I believe) and teh province assumes the balance. In teh end, provinces are working to control the healthcare expenditures simply because they are currently consuming wwaaayyy to much of the revenues.

The existing Canadian system is just not feasible at this point.... Consider this when you buy into the notion of "access to medical services that protect, promote or restore mental or physical health".

 

[L Gilbert]

Definitely. Our system has to change.
It's just sad that its maintenance was ignored by pols for so long that it is in the state it is in.

 

[Kreskin]

A lot of it is short sighted though. We had that sextuplet birth in Vancouver a couple of years ago. I'll bet the NICU costs for that birth alone is more than all GRS's in Alberta combined in a year or two. The reason those sextuplets were born is because the couple took the least personally expensive route through out-of-pocket fertility treatments.

 

[captain morgan]

This is one of the issues that must be addressed... Too many people treat the system in a negligent manner. Had any of us had to pay out from your own savings, you can bet that many more people would take an active interest in thei own health.

 

[L Gilbert]

I was thinking of user fees a while ago. People may not be so anxious to go to the ER over a case of sniffles if they had to fork over a $20 for the privilege.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I was paraphrasing. What you DID say was, "Now we are getting people living to four score and ten but they aren't any healthier, just gobble more pills."That is why I posted the link about people's HEALTHY life expectancies.

Gilbert, again, I did NOT say that, you are confusing me with somebody else. Go back and read the thread again. Let me repeat, I did NOT say that. I personally don’t agree with the sentiment, no way I could possibly say something like that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am sure our healthcare is in immensely better condition than many other countries. However, it could be immensely better than it is.

Gilbert, right on both accounts.

 

[L Gilbert]

Back when people wrote the Bible 3 score and 10 was probably the age people lived to.

I seriously doubt that people lived to the ripe old age of 70 in Biblical times, Gilbert. That was probably put as the upper limit on man’s age. Probably what Bible meant was that everything going right, there being no war, famine, pestilence, plagues etc., a man my live to the age of 70. I assume in those days it was practically unheard of for anybody to live to that age. I have a feeling it was just the way of saying, like we say these days, may you live to be 100 years old.

Now we are getting people living to four score and ten but they aren't any healthier, just gobble more pills.

And that is wrong with that, JLM?

The more aides and "crutches" we have the weaker the race becomes. It used to be "survival of the fittest" now it's the survival of damn near everyone.

That is social Darwinism, JLM. While I support theory of evolution, survival of the fittest in the context of biology, I am not sure that is a good model to follow in terms of sociology.

Hmmm. Good point. I guess it's because you don't use quotemarks or quoteboxes that I thought you had said that. My apologies.

 

[miniboss]

I love it when people freely say the Gov''t should pay for this and that, what people forget is that it's OUR money they are paying with. What I'm saying, is that the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook for the procedure. With Gov't cutting funding to worthy programs, such as the homeless issue, and medical coverage for seniors, and then they turn around are willing to piss away money on the procedure, no. there are alot of screwed up people in this country, we can't help them all. IslandPacific, your friend's brother took it upon himself to try to get healthier, by losing weight, which is fantasic, and is a life and death situation, maybe what should be considerd is a partnership payment plan, I do think the indiviual should pay something. If he lost weight, it's a benifit to the healthcare system, to his family, his employer, etc... People who "feel" thay are in the wrong body, can't be a new concept, mankind is what, 2000 + years old? It had to have come up sometime in history. What did they do then? Get the head right, and the rest falls into place. "Feel" is the key word. At a couple hundred thousand dollars, or more, per procedure, of our money, I do thinks it's worthy of debate. Dexter Sinister, I ain't perfect by a longshot, there's enough going against me, that it's a pain in the A**, but I accept it and figure out a way to live with it. By the way, I don't drink, or use drugs. Humor is my drug of choice. Life is a bitch, and eventually it won't matter anyway. What I don't understand is how something could be "necessary", just because of a "feeling"?

People who are suffering from "Depression", are given medication, not labotomy's. Also, malaria, and typoid are contracted diseases, and are 100% preventable, diabedese is partially genetic, and partially contracted, depending on lifestyle. Arthritis is mainly genetic, it's a matter of when it will kick in. It's true, people are living longer than in the past, but how is the quality of life? Technically, living and being alive, are different. Being alive is dependant on ones quality of life, just because one is 110 years old, but has been stuck in a nursing home for 15 years, stuck in a wheelchair, and requiring assistance for every aspect of daily life, and doesn't register what's going on around them, are the extra 15 years of existence really worth it?

Yukon Jack, there is a benifit for the taxpayer for abortion, or if caught early enough, "Plan B" . Personally, I think abstainence is the only way to go, but... They are usually wanted,(needed) because pregnacy was not planned on. Either way, if someone is not in the finacnial, or mental position to care for a child, they may require welfare, which taxpayers pay for, or on the other hand a crime could be commited because of the mental unpreparedness of the individual. It seems like someone has to be forgotten, left behind, something bad or undesireable has to happen, to see a benefit elsewhere. We can't all win.

 

[taxslave]

This is one of the issues that must be addressed... Too many people treat the system in a negligent manner. Had any of us had to pay out from your own savings, you can bet that many more people would take an active interest in thei own health.

This is how the socialists get the not too bright and the born lazy to support them. The government will pay. We need to rid ourselves of the nanny state mentality.

 

[Kreskin]

It's the GRS's money too. Many forget that. He/she is paying for everyone elses medical treatments (and treatments of their kids) when they won't have a family of their own. Yet they can't get their own medical treatment. Nothing fair about that.

 

[Kreskin]

This is how the socialists get the not too bright and the born lazy to support them. The government will pay. We need to rid ourselves of the nanny state mentality.

What an ignorant statement. Get a clue.