View Single Post
Old
03-08-2011, 11:24 PM
  #49
corksens
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiesIrae View Post
wrote a paper on this in public policy class last year. my thesis was this:

61%^ of the people who seek medical treatment in this province are (1) aged persons [beyond age 64], (2) persons who have lifestyle disease, and (3) persons with injuries resulting from negligence. To reduce the burden on Ontarian therapeutic institutions, each must be reasonably addressed with a legislated policy,

(i) If you are over 65 you shouldn't receive medical treatment unless it can be found that you will likely live at least 3 more years (plus 18 months if female),

(ii) Lifestyle disease sufferers should have to pay out of pocket for treatment,

(iii) negligence resulting in medical necessity should be paid out of pocket by the persons liable.

^CMAJ September, 2002
Yikes. That must have been an impossible thesis to defend. Holes so big you could drive a truck through them.

No medical treatment if over 65? So people pay their entire lives into the health care system, rarely making use of it, then when they get old and need it, we cut them off...all with no real legal alternative? That makes sense.

corksens is offline