Author Topic: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.  (Read 8714 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

crocat

  • Guest
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2008, 06:27:36 PM »
one last post on this....

HA HA HA.... of course I understand hypothetical....

"A hypothesis (from Greek ????????) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon (an event that is observable) or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A Hypothesis is never to be stated as a question, but always as a statement with an explanation following it. It is not to be a question because it states what he/she thinks or believes will answer the problem the best.

Karl Popper's hypothetico-deductive method (also known as the method of "conjectures and refutations") demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific community can prove them false (usually by observation). According to this view, a hypothesis cannot be "confirmed", because there is always the possibility that a future experiment will show that it is false. Hence, failing to falsify a hypothesis does not prove that hypothesis: it remains provisional. However, a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and not falsified can form a reasonable basis for action, i.e., we can act as if it is true, until such time as it is falsified. Just because we've never observed rain falling upward, doesn't mean that we never will--however improbable, our theory of gravity may be falsified some day.

Popper's view is not the only view on evaluating hypotheses. For example, some forms of empiricism hold that under a well-crafted, well-controlled experiment, a lack of falsification does count as verification, since such an experiment ranges over the full scope of possibilities in the problem domain. Should we ever discover some place where gravity did not function, and rain fell upward, this would not falsify our current theory of gravity (which, on this view, has been verified by innumerable well-formed experiments in the past)--it would rather suggest an expansion of our theory to encompass some new force or previously undiscovered interaction of forces. In other words, our theory as it stands is verified, though possibly incomplete."

I think that during our discussion here, I have managed to falsify your hypothesis.   

Oh, and here is another HA HA HA for X throwing you a bale of straw to try and prop up your hypothesis.

Cro

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #61 on: October 11, 2008, 07:45:24 PM »
First of all I am not familiar with Popper's philosophy and don't intend to debate the matter in Popper's terminology.  There's absolutely no reason why this discussion can't be pursued in plain and simple English, giving words their accepted dictionary meaning, rather than Karl Popper's.

From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition:
hypothetical: 1.  assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
                             2.  of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical           
                                  reasoning
.
                             3.  .  .  .
hypothesis:     2.  a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument
                             3.  ,  ,  ,


My hypotheses were the length of time to do one eye, the length of time it took to do two eyes, the number of hours per day the operating rooms were open and the length of the queue at any given time.  The numbers assigned to each of those variables was hypothetical.

I wasn't following all of your Popper reasoning, but it seemed to me that at one point you made a fundamental error in identifying my hypothesis as the proposition that National Health cataract scheduling is rational, equitable and/or efficient use of resources.  If not an error, then at the very least a fundamental failure of communication and a misreading of the meaning behind my use of "hypothetical."

Another reason why your figures are useless is that neither one of us knows the essential figure necessary to quantify the wait-shortening factor in real time, which is:  the average length of the queue at any one point in time.  I was not using my hypothetical figures to produce any real-world estimate of the wait-shortening factor, since I realized the absence of one of the essential factors, queue length, from the equation; my example was meant to show that in any circumstances, as long as it takes longer to do two eyes than one, there will always be a longer wait for the guy at the end of the queue to be reached.  I speculated that the shortening of the wait factor, using real-life figures, would probably be significant enough to justify the "one-eye" policy.

What my model completely overlooked was the scrubbing time between patients, which you were kind enough to introduce.  Of course, if that time is long enough to eradicate any time saved by not doing the second eye with the first, then the time advantage of the one-eye routine is wiped out.  So depending on scrubbing or clean-up time, there may be no time saved in the queue.  However this seems at variance with the reasoning advanced at NH in your own words, "turns" or "scheduling," which I assume related to the factors we have been discussing.  Maybe they don't clean every operating room after every patient, maybe they have pairs of rooms, an A and a B room, and while the surgeon is operating in A, his staff are cleaning up B for the next guy, and while he's next operating in B the staff are cleaning up A.

In any event, all of this speculation is now moot.  XO has given us an excellent reason for NOT doing both eyes at once, having nothing to do with "turns" and "scheduling."

crocat

  • Guest
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2008, 11:09:48 PM »
Ok.... so you don't know the basis of most hypothesis.   BUT I did tell you the proceedure (itself) took about 30 minutes and that the average time it would take in prep through recovery was 4 to 5 hours.

I hardly think one person having a bad reaction is reason enough to write it all off.   Trust me, IF you wanted to only have one eye done you could.

But hey, I get it.... bad American.... yehhhhh socialist, communists and dictators.


Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #63 on: October 12, 2008, 01:38:21 AM »
<<But hey, I get it.... bad American.... yehhhhh socialist, communists and dictators.>>

Well, really - - do you honestly think that YOUR system, which spends more per capita on health care than any other nation on earth, but still leaves 47 million Americans out of 300 million uninsured, is BETTER than the Canadian system which provides good-quality medical care to every single citizen, regardless of ability to pay?

I really don't see how any sane, rational individual can claim the American system works better.  I don't think "communists and dictators" enter into the issue at all, either.  That was just a cheap shot.  The issue is socialized medicine versus for-profit medicine.  Far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #64 on: October 12, 2008, 03:26:02 AM »
A) At best, it's mediocre-quality healthcare that everyone gets
B) Patient's choices are low priority
C) EVERYONE pays for it

It's better because choice is still a high priority in our system, and bureacratic red tape is far less a problem
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

crocat

  • Guest
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #65 on: October 12, 2008, 09:11:00 AM »
<<But hey, I get it.... bad American.... yehhhhh socialist, communists and dictators.>>

Well, really - - do you honestly think that YOUR system, which spends more per capita on health care than any other nation on earth, but still leaves 47 million Americans out of 300 million uninsured, is BETTER than the Canadian system which provides good-quality medical care to every single citizen, regardless of ability to pay?

I really don't see how any sane, rational individual can claim the American system works better.  I don't think "communists and dictators" enter into the issue at all, either.  That was just a cheap shot.  The issue is socialized medicine versus for-profit medicine.  Far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer.

There you go accusing me of cheap shots and being insane.   Ok here is an article by Canadians that presents my point of view.   Just don't think that you have proven your one eye arguement based on your faulty hypothesis.

"INDEPTH: HEALTH CARE
Introduction
CBC News Online | August 22, 2006

One Supreme Court decision may have done more to change health care in Canada than three major reports and a first ministers conference that ended with a $41-billion infusion into the system.

On June 9, 2005, the high court struck down a Quebec law that prohibited people from buying private health insurance to cover procedures already offered by the public system.

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," two of the justices wrote in their decision.

The Quebec and federal governments asked the high court to suspend its ruling for 18 months. Less than two months after its initial ruling, the court agreed to suspend its decision for 12 months, retroactive to June 9, 2005.

In the provincial government's response in February 2006, Premier Jean Cherest said the private sector could play a role in health care in Quebec, but said he remained committed to public health care. He also said Quebec will introduce guaranteed wait times for procedures including some radiation treatments and cardiac surgery, as well as knee and hip replacements and cataract operations.

The ruling has impact only on Quebec, but it could eventually lead to some of the biggest changes since former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas was credited with fathering medicare. Most Canadians take government-funded health care for granted today, but when it was first introduced in Saskatchewan in 1962, most of the province's doctors responded by going on strike to protest against "creeping socialism."

The strike lasted three weeks - public support for the doctors had collapsed, persuading the doctors to accept a deal with the government. Within five years, government-funded health care spread across the country.

While most Canadians - 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada - are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery. Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive.

A long wait for hip replacement surgery was what prompted the Quebec case that wound up before the Supreme Court.

George Zeliotis argued his yearlong wait for surgery was unreasonable, endangered his life, and infringed on the charter's guarantee of the right to life, liberty and security. The second plaintiff, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, wanted the court to overturn a Quebec provision preventing doctors who don't operate within the medicare plan from charging for services in public hospitals.

Once upon a time, there were few complaints about lengthy waits for treatment. It was a time when the federal government provided about a third of the money the provinces spent on health care.

But as government belts tightened to deal with record budget deficits in the early 1990s, complaints about access to health care increased. The federal government drastically cut the amount of money it transferred to the provinces to cover health-care costs.

By the time another former Saskatchewan premier - Roy Romanow - released his landmark report on fixing medicare in 2002, Ottawa had slashed its share to about 16 per cent of the total. Romanow recommended an immediate infusion of federal dollars, to bring Ottawa's share up to 25 per cent.

With Romanow's landmark report under their belts, the nation's first ministers gathered in Ottawa in February 2003 for a meeting that was described as the most important session on health care since Canada adopted medicare. The prime minister, premiers and territorial leaders got together to try to turn some of Romanow's recommendations into action.

In the end, they agreed on several improvements:

    * $16-billion, five-year Health Reform Fund for primary care, home care and catastrophic drug coverage
    * $13.5 billion in new federal funding to the provinces over three years
    * $2.5 billion cash infusion for 2003
    * $600 million for information technology
    * $500 million for research

The premiers said they were signing on reluctantly and that much of the money had already been promised. In the end, they said, they were getting about half of what Romanow recommended. The territorial leaders, on the other hand, didn't even sign the agreement. They argued that Ottawa was being inflexible - the north would be receiving the same amount of money per capita as the rest of the country, despite the much higher costs of delivering health care in Canada's most remote regions.

To a large degree, the 2004 federal election turned into a debate about the future of health care in Canada. The Liberals accused the newly united Conservatives of plotting to turn medicare into a two-tiered system where those who could afford to pay more would be able to buy speedier access to the system.

In 2004, the federal government and the premiers agreed to a $41-billion infusion into the system over 10 years.

Among the key parts of the agreement:

    * Ensuring stable, predictable long-term funding.
    * Implementing a National Waiting Times Reduction.
    * Creating a National Home Care Program.
    * Developing a national strategy for prescription drug care.
    * Respecting the Canada Health Act.

Less than two months after the election, Prime Minister Martin convened a first ministers conference on health care. It was to last three days. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein stuck around for only the first day.

In the end, the conference lasted longer than planned, with most of the work done behind closed doors. There was a deal that provided for a $41-billion infusion into the system over 10 years.

Among the key parts of the agreement:

    * $3.5 billion over two years in additional transfers to the provinces and territories.
    * An "escalator clause" that automatically boosts transfers by six per cent a year to keep up with rising health costs.
    * $4.5 billion over six years for a special fund to reduce waiting times for treatment.

In addition, a National Wait Times Strategy was developed for five priority areas: cancer care, cardiac treatment, diagnostic tests such as MRIs, joint replacements and cataract surgeries.

There may have been smiles and handshakes around the table, but the deal may not have been enough to persuade the Supreme Court that the health-care system was off the critical list.

In response in 2006, the federal government said it was moving toward what it called "patient wait-time guarantees" by 2008.

If maximum acceptable wait times aren't met, patients would have "recourse," or another way of getting that medical care, such as going to another facility or province, federal Health Minister Tony Clement told the Canadian Medical Association's annual meeting in Charlottetown.

Funds for the recourse could come from the remaining $1 billion not yet allocated from the $5.5 billion pledged for reducing wait times in 2004, the CMA proposed."


Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #66 on: October 12, 2008, 09:56:20 AM »
All I can say about Canadian healthcare is that it is up to the Canadians. If were given the option of having it here, I imagine I would vote for it.

Canada being a democracy, I don't see why a majority of Canadians should not have the right to vote to have this insurance or not.

Crocat's aunt has the option of coming to the US or any other place for lasik surgery if she so desires.

I think that the doctor was looking after the patient's best interest by operating on one eye at a time. In this way no possibility of total blindness, which is a very serious thing, exists.
 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #67 on: October 12, 2008, 10:32:24 AM »
Crocat's aunt has the option of coming to the US or any other place for lasik surgery if she so desires.

Well, that's what the lawsuit was about; Quebec was trying to prevent people from doing exactly that.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #68 on: October 12, 2008, 11:39:38 AM »
The lawsuit was a 5-4 split, BTW. 

In principle, I don't disagree with it.  The system needs more funding, which means more taxes.  I don't mind paying more taxes for health care, either.

For eight years of Conservative misrule in Ontario, there was a deliberate attempt to ruin the system by underfunding, to create unacceptable wait times, to close local and regional hospitals in the name of "efficiency" so that patients would have to travel longer times to fewer hospitals, and to fire nurses, again, to increase wait times.  The policies of the Conservative government were directly responsible for the spread of the SARS epidemic in Toronto.  Finally, after eight years of this shit, the people of Ontario threw the bums out in a landslide and we have been trying to bring OHIP, the Provincial system, back to normal functioning.

If a society is not willing to FUND a public health care system, then of course it will suck.  You only get what you pay for.  There is no free lunch.

I'm very happy with the way our system functions.  It has served me and my wife well through two life-threatening illnesses, although there were problems in waiting for surgery the last time my wife needed an operation which I am still upset about.  It was simply too long a wait period.  Nothing wrong with "socialized medicine" but a problem I would blame on inadequate funding.  Nothing that an appropriate tax raise wouldn't fix.   In a for-pay medical system, my wife would have had the operation faster but the price would be millions of people unable to pay for decent medical care and some dying because of it.  That's unacceptable.  Health care is a right of the people, not a privilege that is bought and sold.

sirs raised the issue of choice.  In every state of the Union, there are lawsuits ongoing between patients and HMOs who refused treatement or drugs that the patient "chose."  The patient is NOT free to choose under a for-pay system, and in our system as well, unauthorized (by the government) treatments will not be paid for.  That's just a fact of life.  The government has a responsibility to use its funds effectively.  So does the HMO - -  only for the HMO, "effectively" often is defined in practice as a big fat bottom line, with bonuses for the execs that their departments judged most significant contributors to that happy situation.  When personal profit is an objective, the patient gets fucked.  There's a huge motivation on all concerned to spend the absolute minimum.   Hence all the lawsuits.  We have taken the profit motive out of health care.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #69 on: October 12, 2008, 12:07:02 PM »
In a for-pay medical system, my wife would have had the operation faster but the price would be millions of people unable to pay for decent medical care and some dying because of it.  That's unacceptable.  Health care is a right of the people, not a privilege that is bought and sold.

In the US, anything that is life threatening is required to be treated regardless of the insurance status of the person receiving treatment.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

richpo64

  • Guest
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #70 on: October 12, 2008, 12:14:01 PM »
>>In the US, anything that is life threatening is required to be treated regardless of the insurance status of the person receiving treatment.<<

I'm not sure it even has to be life threatening. If you walk into an emergency room a hospital is required to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. That's usually on a sign in the waiting room.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #71 on: October 12, 2008, 12:46:23 PM »
In the US, anything that is life threatening is required to be treated regardless of the insurance status of the person receiving treatment.


Sure, but then you get billed for it. When you go for treatment, you agree to pay whatever they ask you to pay. You can get billed $10 for one aspirin, $90 for a cane, and all sorts of spurious crap will be added to the bill. Every hospital overcharges and most add bogus items to the bill.  The only way to avoid paying their outrageous charges is to declare bankruptcy.

The main cause of bankruptcy in the US is huge medical bills.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

richpo64

  • Guest
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #72 on: October 12, 2008, 12:56:28 PM »
>>Sure, but then you get billed for it.<<

That doesn't mean you actually pay for it.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #73 on: October 12, 2008, 01:20:54 PM »

That doesn't mean you actually pay for it.
===================================
No, they pass it on to a collections agency and add more fees.

Then they take you to court. If you owe it, and you do, because you had to sign a release form agreeing to pay whatever they wished to charge, the court orders you to pay it.

If you still do not pay it, the court orders your assets be sold and your wages garnished to pay it.

If you are some poor sap with a two-bit job, you might not be worth the legal fees. If you are unemployed, they will get a judgment against you and a collection agency will buy your debt for pennies on the dollar. If you apply for a loan or sell property, they will be on you to pay up. If you apply for a credit card, you will be given a very high rate by only the most predatory of lenders or you will be denied a card.

In most states, you have seven years of harassment by collectors. There are ways to prolong it, and if you owe a lot of money, they will do all that is possible to get you to pay.

For most people, bankruptcy is the only option.
It is the most common reason for bankruptcy in the US, despite all the casinos, all the NINJA loans, all the credit card scams.


"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.
« Reply #74 on: October 12, 2008, 02:06:14 PM »
The only way to avoid paying their outrageous charges is to declare bankruptcy.

Nope. As long as you pay something each month they cannot send you to collections. I know of one person who had hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, and they paid $5 a month. There is no way they are ever going to pay that debt off, and the hospital can't send them to collection.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)