Medically necessary. And you're right, its more than brain surgery.Maybe you don't understand the word being used. Neurosurgery is a hella lot more than brain surgery. Sheesh. Neurosurgery....surgery on the nervous system, wherever it's found.
BTW...your lauded report is only on ELECTIVE procedures, not life threatening.
Medically necessary. And you're right, its more than brain surgery.
Birdshot never mans up on his sources, hence the wimpout on backing up his Fraser Institute source, which lacks even a scintilla of credibility."medically necessary elective treatment by a specialist"....at least finish the sentence. Elective....not "if you don't have the treatment, you die" treatment....elective.
And I much find these sorts of reports rather suspect in the self-reporting crap. Why not the actual billing dates being used as the "wait time" metric, as was mentioned previously? Surely that would precisely demonstrate "wait times".
So if I didn't finish the sentence, did you? Where are you getting that sentence from anyway? "Elective" isn't in the text of the link I gave."medically necessary elective treatment by a specialist"....at least finish the sentence. Elective....not "if you don't have the treatment, you die" treatment....elective.
And I much find these sorts of reports rather suspect in the self-reporting crap. Why not the actual billing dates being used as the "wait time" metric, as was mentioned previously? Surely that would precisely demonstrate "wait times".
What are the actual wait times then?
Estimated wait times is better?http://www.ontariowaittimes.com/Surgerydi/en/PublicMain.aspx
https://swt.hlth.gov.bc.ca/
http://waittimes.alberta.ca/
Knock yourself out. Every province has the data available online. That Fraser ignores this actual data for an elective response survey on some doctors feelings with a very low response rate is just irresponsible.
You don't understand what you're reading do you? They are estimating your wait time if you were to begin the process right now based on what has occurred historically. Literally every persons wait time is factored in to estimate what you can expect today.Estimated wait times is better?
How do you know that? How do you know these numbers are accurate?You don't understand what you're reading do you? They are estimating your wait time if you were to begin the process right now based on what has occurred historically. Literally every persons wait time is factored in to estimate what you can expect today.
So yes. It's far superior. They don't pull it out of their ass like Fraser does.
shhhh... if you come up slowly, and are very quiet, you can observe the buckshat in it's natural environment... be very quiet tho, he tends to get scared off easy and attempts to evade topics when called on his bullshit.How do you know that? How do you know these numbers are accurate?
What reason do I have to doubt it? I've explained why the Fraser numbers are suspect using actual reasons. Can you show why these numbers should be suspect? Do you realize the legislative requirements for provinces to show this data? What basis is there to believe this information is false?How do you know that? How do you know these numbers are accurate?
ole testicle trump is a mover, a shakerUn-insuring 15M people for 2018 and cutting Medicaid by three quarters of a trillion dollars over 10 years (after the president is on tape repeatedly promising not to cut it) is a ballsy midterm strategy.
I have no idea. You're touting them as gospel truth, I thought you'd know why they should be trusted.What reason do I have to doubt it? I've explained why the Fraser numbers are suspect using actual reasons. Can you show why these numbers should be suspect? Do you realize the legislative requirements for provinces to show this data? What basis is there to believe this information is false?
Un-insuring 15M people for 2018 and cutting Medicaid by three quarters of a trillion dollars over 10 years (after the president is on tape repeatedly promising not to cut it) is a ballsy midterm strategy.
Un-insuring 15M people for 2018 and cutting Medicaid by three quarters of a trillion dollars over 10 years (after the president is on tape repeatedly promising not to cut it) is a ballsy midterm strategy.
Yeah I see how this is going to go. Carry on.I have no idea. You're touting them as gospel truth, I thought you'd know why they should be trusted.
"Cuts" aren't what people think they are when talking about the federal budget. You spend 10 dollars in 2016 and are scheduled to spend 14 in 2017 but spend 13 then that is a "cut".Kellyann say's it's not a cut...it's a slowing (Alternative Facts).
True story.....
"Cuts" aren't what people think they are when talking about the federal budget. You spend 10 dollars in 2016 and are scheduled to spend 14 in 2017 but spend 13 then that is a "cut".
Kellyanne say's it's not a cut...it's a slowing (Alternative Facts).
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kellyanne-conway-senate-health-bill-cuts-medicaid/story?id=48255191
If the actual numbers go down then that is clearly a cut, agreed. Have you seen the actual numbers anywhere?She specifically stated that they were cutting them back to pre-Obama / ACA days. If you spend 10 in 2008, 15 in 2017 and 10 in 2020, it's a cut.
What a massive bump you took on his point.She specifically stated that they were cutting them back to pre-Obama / ACA days. If you spend 10 in 2008, 15 in 2017 and 10 in 2020, it's a cut.
Semantics and alternative facts.....
I have no idea.
Better than the gospel, actually. The biblical gospels are narrative fictions. Statistics involve data. What, again, is your reason for doubting them?I have no idea. You're touting them as gospel truth, I thought you'd know why they should be trusted.