Tuesday, April 4, 2006

Another doctor leaves London Ontario

1,800 patients will be returning to the queue, rejoining 30,000 other Londoners, after the first doctor offered bribe money to open up a family practice in London calls it quits after only six months. In an attempt to deal with the shortage of doctors, the city set up the "Adopt-a-Doc" program back in March 2005. Funded by private donations from businesses, doctors were lured to London by promises of $20,000 in financial incentives. To date, the now depleted fund has attracted 9 doctors from other provinces and cities, including the doctor who is leaving, costing a total of $83,000. It is expected that the bailing doctor will repay a portion of the money. To qualify for the "free" cash, doctors are required to sign a contract which commits them to practice in the city for a fixed period of time. Presumably, he didn't meet the conditions of his original contract.


The first family doctor recruited to ease London's critical physician shortage has decided to leave, throwing 1,800 patients back into the long lineup for medical help.

London recruiters took more than a year to convince Shailendra Ziradkar to move from Newfoundland and set up shop last September.

But it took the doctor about half a year to realize family practice here wasn't for him.

"I like London. I may come back, but I am not happy with the family practice," he said yesterday.

"It is not exciting for me."
London is boring, and the streets are filled with potholes and bums. Formally a surgeon, likely Ziradkar has found a better paying job, in a more taxpayer friendly city.
Ziradkar plans to leave by June and will have to pay back some of the $20,000 offered as an incentive to come to London.

City officials expressed disappointment, but no hard feelings toward Ziradkar.

"Obviously, I am saddened when a physician leaves town," said Brian Tibbet, London's doctor recruiter.

"We can never have a 100-per-cent retention rate."

Tibbet would not say how much money Ziradkar must pay back.

Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco said the city's depleted fund to recruit doctors will at least get some money back from Ziradkar.

"He was our very first recruitment, but this will not hold us back," DeCicco said.
Time to fire the doctor recruiter the city hired last year, at the cost of $100,000, paid for with trough dollars. Give the money back to individuals and let them decide how they will spend their money. Many people would pay for needed medical services directly, if only they were allowed to. Instead, Londoners without a family doctor will spend countless hours waiting for poor quality care at their local walk-in clinic while the city petitions the provincial government to 'do something' to save our sacrosanct health care system.
City council is considering applying to the Ontario government for "underserviced" designation, which would allow it to tap into provincial funds and offer $40,000 to attract medical residents.


Anonymous said...

London Ontario is not as exciting as Dildo Newfoundland? That is saying something.

I think no one wants to be a family doctor, it is sort of like being a stay at home mom, no prestige. All you get is people sneezing and farting all over you. When you think about it, must be one of the grossest jobs on the face of the earth.

Who could afford to pay a doctor if we could? Not like they are going to take our empties, or chickens in trade. Universal health care works, just got to get rid of the thieves. That goes for all government programs. Too many hands in the cookie jar.

Anonymous said...

London is boring, and the streets are filled with potholes and bums.

We need a creative arts centre to make this an exciting town - where the bums can smoke pot and stare at holes in the sky.

Anonymous said...

First you got to get some creative people. Art is something you can't demand, it is something that just is. You are either compelled to do it, or not. London just doesn't have any moxy. Too dam boring. Plastic people in gray suits, but not silver, with burgundy ties is what is wrong with London, no flare.

MapMaster said...

Universal health care works, just got to get rid of the thieves. That goes for all government programs. Too many hands in the cookie jar.

Universal government programs put every hand into the cookie jar. Distinguishing the thieves becomes just a matter of degree.

Anonymous said...

I do believe it can work. I don't want a system where people don't have access to health care because of lack of funds. What does that make us as a country? I do believe it should be made known the cost everytime we go to a doctor. I know our health care system is taken for granted. If a person could be given a cost sheet everytime they seek medical attention it might deter people from going to a doctor everytime they have a sniffle. I think nurse practitioners could take over the role of family doctors. How much education do you need to tell someone they have a sore throat and write them a prescription for penicillin?

Anonymous said...

"I do believe it can work. I don't want a system where people don't have access to health care because of lack of funds."
Honey - Where are there people not getting access to health care because of funds - right here in Canada. Only it's government funds so we all get equally bad health care.

We're fooling ourselves if we don't think that those with funds aren’t crossing the border to get their health care (I know several personally). It says something when studies have found that even the poorest publicly funded hospitals in the USA give better health care than any of the hospitals here in Canada.

Sky Captain said...

What does that make us as a country?
When I come to Canada, I come because the majority of the people are straight, wrong or right,some of them are like me, I am the same moral species as most and if I don't like it there are millions of square miles of wilderness into which I can escape.

What you are attempting to imply is the existence(false!), of a whole package that means that you think I am responsible for people who don't appear to have any money for medicine.
First, I am not responsible for diseases, that is just reality.
Secondly, I am not responsible for curing them.That is between the doctors and the people with the illnesses.
I don't have a 'conscience' issue about this as it is none of my damn business.
Or yours.
Incidentally, the sort of people who claim to speak for the consciences of other people suffer an ineluctable lack any themselves.

Greg Thompson said...

Anonymous makes a big claim about the difference between for-profit health care and care provided by public not-for-profits. S/he says: "...It says something when studies have found that even the poorest publicly funded hospitals in the USA give better health care than any of the hospitals here in Canada." Now I have no doubt that there must be "studies" out there than show exactly this result. Just as there are "studies" that claim to prove just about every ridiculous thing that has ever been thought.

In actual fact, the opposite is generally held to be true. Hence, from an Editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (September 2005): "...we need to remember that there is virtually no disagreement that private health care is more expensive and less efficient than publicly funded care."

The definitive and most-often cited study on this very issue was conducted by a health policy analysis group at McMaster University led by Dr. P.J. Devereaux. They conducted a meta-analysis, an exceptionally efficient analytical tool which is also quite efficient at removing the effects of bias in the research undertaking.

"Meta-analysis refers to the analysis of analyses. I use it to refer to the statistical analysis of a large collection of results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings. It connotes a rigorous alternative to the casual, narrative discussions of research studies which typify our attempts to make sense of the rapidly expanding research literature." (Glass, 1976)

Now I have no wish to bore everyone with a dissertation on the findings of this meta-analysis, and the wide support it has received from researchers in both Canada and the U.S. Let me leave just a few nuggets.

The excess payments for care in private for-profit hospitals were 19% higher than in public not-for-profit hospitals.

For-profit hospitals and dialysis clinics have a mortality rate that is somewhere between 5-8% higher than in public not-for-profit hospitals.

And we can go on from there.

A joint research team from Cambridge and Harvard, in commenting on the accuracy of the McMaster study, also showed that investor-owned nursing homes are significantly more frequently cited for quality deficiencies and provide less nursing care.

While I wouldn't attempt to make the claim that we are better off as a society with a private for-profit system, or some kind of hybridized two-tier system, I can accept that there is a some degree of disagreement on this. There may be compelling arguments yet to be made on the benefits of a for-profit system. It should be clear, though, that these arguments will not be resting on either efficiency of the market or higher quality of care as expected beneficial outcomes.

When it comes to the so-called efficiency of the American market model health care system, think profit maximization and not cost minimization. And, unlike Anonymous's original claim, you don't have to take my word for it.

Sky Captain said...

Who gives a shit either way?
I don't care to look after you.

Lisa Turner said...

Nicely put Sorehead! That's precisely the point.

basil said...

I think nurse practitioners could take over the role of family doctors. How much education do you need to tell someone they have a sore throat and write them a prescription for penicillin? You don't necessarily need a doctor's education to do that (just a piece of paper to legitimize the prescription you've written) which is exactly why I would want to see a doctor if I'm going to bother to go to a clinic in the first place. Nurses are not doctors - any of the RNs I know would be the first to admit that. Those with whom I've discussed this do not feel it is a good idea to substitute a nurse for a doctor. A doctor presumably has the training to determine whether that sore throat is simply that (in which case why the hell are you going to a clinic? go to bed take ginger and get some fucking rest!) or indicative of something far more serious.

Greg Thompson said...

I had thought there might be some more compelling reason to at least consider the for-profit system than "Who gives a shit either way? I don't care to look after you." That, my young and oh so self-absorbed friends, is why your view of the world just doesn't have legs. It may make you feel fashionably cynical and a little dangerous. If that brings some meaning to the vapid lives you both must lead, then I'm happy for you. London Fog's version of a dog and pony show. Definitely not the big time.

MapMaster said...

Bonnie, you must of course be aware that Devereaux's study was roundly criticized by a number of sources, most notably Brian Ferguson, a professor of economics at U. Guelph. Apart from criticisms of Devereaux's methodology, which I can't be bothered to look up, the one notable criticism is that he used only 14 of over 800 studies available, only some of which supported his position, and the largest study he claimed to have supported his position but which apparently most others in the field assert support a contrary position.

You are probably also aware that Devereaux painted his critics as ideologically-motivated. But the same accusation could be leveled at him as well, having made inferences from his study that the government of Canada must maintain its monopoly over the funding of health provisions, an ideological and political position if there ever was one.

But no matter, we could bandy about studies for a couple of years at least if we wanted to make the trouble. As you noted yourself, studies can be made to support almost any position, and any student of sciences, let alone social sciences, ought to know that even a careful reading of methodology cannot reveal all biases.

I'll leave it up to others more capable than myself to argue the moral merits of removing the public health care monopoly, but I would add that grounding the debate on efficiency or mortality rates can be reckless, simply because there are no standard and comprehensive measurements of either — nor can there be, given the huge number of factors that can effect measurements and the additional complications of various local, state, provincial and federal regulations, subsidizations, laws, removed administration costs, etc. Meta-analysis or not. I've no doubt an efficiency of sorts can be created in a health system that shortchanges patients by putting them in a queue and denying them the best quality service.

Simply put, if you or your loved ones ever require important medical treatment, I hope that you or they have a choice.

Lisa Turner said...


I had thought there might be some more compelling reason to at least consider the for-profit system than "Who gives a shit either way? I don't care to look after you."

That Bonnie, is the most compelling reason of all against universal health care. The ultimate question is not whether the "for-profit" system would be "cheaper" than the "non-profit" monopoly currently enjoyed by Canadians bunching up at the queue. The reason that forced participation in the universal day care scheme is wrong is because people are forced to participate. Currently, those that engage in risky behaviours and just generally neglect their health, can obtain "free" care at the expense of their healthy neighbor who might prefer to invest that money into his own future health care needs. Because the costs of health care are "hidden", concealed within each purchase you make and every hour you work, why not run to the doctor to treat that runny nose or aching toe - as a member of the public, we're entitled to. And there is no end to that entitlement. Universal health care can only mean you have a right to life, and all that will sustain it, no matter the cost, even if that means someone else must bear the burden of those choices at the expense of their own well-being. Arbitrary rationing and denial of desired care on the basis of perceived failure rates - like denying fat people knee replacement operations, or smokers a family doctor - cannot be logically justified within a system that collects money from each citizen to service the needs of all.

Sky Captain said...

What's that Bonnie?
You're going to break my legs?
I'll have no legs if I don't comply.
Now that's what I call a concerned citizen.

Anonymous said...

Tony Dagnone, being paid $460,299, and $79,233 in taxable benefits. This right here is what is wrong with our health care system. What could that man possibly do that anyone could justify paying him that kind of money? How many more are there being paid his wage to do basically....nothing? There has to be a way to run workable social programs without the suits filling their pockets with gold.

Greg Thompson said...

Yes, Mapmaster, I am aware that Devereaux's study has come under a storm of criticism. What study hasn't? I'm not a biostatistician. I can't speak to the methodology of the study or judge the merits of the criticisms. I was merely making the claim that the context of the health care debate is far more nuanced than Anonymous would have us believe, and that Anonymous is a fool.

And I couldn't help but point out that our English friend's response - that he doesn't give a shit about others - is exactly the reason why he and his kind are doomed to spend the rest of their lives wandering about the political wilderness. No threat there to our ordered way of life. I was a little surprised at Lisa's quick endorsement of our English friend's misanthropic worldview as she normally has more substance than that. I have some hope that we can bring her from the darkness to the light.

As for Sorehead ... aw, forget about it.

command economy said...

"that he doesn't give a shit about others"

When giving a shit about others is defined as preventing them from getting the medical care they want, there is already more than enough shit to go around.

Sorehead is absolutely correct.

command economy said...

There has to be a way to run workable social programs without the suits filling their pockets with gold.

This is like saying that Pyramid Schemes could enrich all their participants if only the organizers were more honest.

These monopolies are perpetuated precisely to establish such sinecures and enrich connected people at everyone else's expense.

Pretexts such as "providing free health care" or "providing free child care" or "saving the environment" are just marketing, to seize the emotional and moral high ground. Opponents of this kind of predation must then deflect accusations of callousness towards the fate of others.


Anonymous said...

So now I'm a fool. I would rather spend my own money in the US, than yours here in Canada in order to get the health care I need, when I need it.
Maybe in your eyes I am a fool for spending my own money. However I want fast reliable health care and I'm willing to pay for it. If I could get that here in Canada I would. 8-10 months for a MRI here in London, 10 min. wait in Detroit. Why shouldn't I be spending my money inside the Canadian system so others not able to afford good USA health care can reap the benefits of my profits?
Two-tier health care already exists in Canada.
Siting studies is useless you say; yet you take the time to site one of your own. So I'll speak from personal experience and the experience of friends and family members - any care I / they have ever received in the US was quicker, the doctors spent more time with them, any tests that were needed were done immediately, and results discussed along with treatment OPTIONS. Tell me where do you get that in Canada?
Bonnie if you want to die waiting for bad health care here in Canada that is entirely your choice. But I would say that would make you the fool.

Sky Captain said...

I deliberately misconstrue Bonnie's remark about legs(but the psychological aspects of the turn of phrase are appealing), and she deliberately misconstrues my comment about not giving a shit either way.
So I will restate:I don't give a shit about the 'money' argument in healthcare.
I care very much about many, many people.

So which of us is the Capitalist and which of us is the 'money grubber'?

Greg Thompson said...

Anonymous says: "I would rather spend my own money in the US, than yours here in Canada in order to get the health care I need." And I say: That sounds like a win-win for all involved. For the record, though, I have never said that the public not-for-profit model is perfect - or even satisfactory. A family member of mine has been waiting for 16 months for shoulder surgery, and his pain during this wait has been severe. It pisses me off.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous says: "I would rather spend my own money in the US, than yours here in Canada in order to get the health care I need."

I don't think anyone is stopping you from spending your own money in the USA on health care. It is just that there are many that can't. What do you do with people that don't have 45 or 50,000 in the bank to pay for a much needed operation? Do you just let them die? Universal health care is the way to go. Compassion is what separates the civilized from the barbarians.

Sky Captain said...

Civilisation is justice.
Justice is political.
Compassion is voluntary and outside politics.

Lisa Turner said...


Trouble is, most of us won't be able to pay for private health insurance or care, even if we want to, because we're forced to pay for guy at the front of the public health care queue.

Don't you think a person should at least have the option of opting out of the public plan if he chooses to go elsewhere?

Lisa Turner said...

Just to clarify...

by opting out, I mean opting out of using it AND paying for it.

MapMaster said...

the context of the health care debate is far more nuanced than Anonymous would have us believe

When the context of a debate is characterized as "nuanced," I would submit that the context is the wrong one in which to be conducting the debate.

Anonymous said...

Lisa, not all Canadians are stupid, and they know if they get real sick, they could be pushing a shopping cart down Dundas Street, if they survive it. Universal health care is here to stay. You are talking like it will only cost $50.00 for open-heart surgery in a private- for-profit health care system.

Come on Lisa, if you were dead, you wouldn't donate your toenails to another person... coz you might need them lying in the dirt being consumed by worms. There are those that think like you. In the old days we used to call them, "mean fuckers", not sure what they are called now. I don't want those people ever to be in a postition of power. I think universal health care is a swell thing. Can you tell?

Anonymous said...

So were all entitled to equally bad health care? There's a prospect I look forward to as I get older. Universal health care is a myth, when you offer something to the public and say they can have unlimited access to it with everyone paying the bill, at a price dictated by the administrators it is doomed from the get go. Two tier health care already exists in Canada, it's just those who don't want to see it don't. If you want home health care, medical supplies (e.g. oxygen), quick tests (hearing and eyesight) etc..., you’re paying for it out of your pocket unless you have some sort of private insurance. Good health benefits / insurance is much, much cheaper in the US and Europe than what comes out of the average ($40,000) persons taxes as their "health care dollars". Let's do a little breakdown of your health care dollars and how they’re spent;
1/2 of your $'s - Administration
1/4 of your $'s - Last 6 months of life
1/8 of your $'s - Birth to age 16
1/8 of your $'s - age 16 to 6 months before death

Anonymous said...

The private health care system doesn't work any better. If you get real sick in the states, and your insurance expires, you are screwed, chewed at tattooed. Mind you some people just have that much money that will never be a concern. The problem is that most don't, so who is going to be left to clean their toilets and raise their houseapes?

Experts agree that the USA health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers.

Most Americans have health insurance through their employers. But, employment is no longer a guarantee of health insurance coverage.

As America continues to move from a manufacturing-based economy to a service economy, and employee working patterns continue to evolve, health insurance coverage has become less stable. The service sector offers less access to health insurance than its manufacturing counterparts. Further, an increasing reliance on part-time and contract workers who are not eligible for coverage means fewer workers have access to employer-sponsored health insurance.

Due to rising health insurance premiums, many small employers cannot afford to offer health benefits. Companies that do offer health insurance, often require employees to contribute a larger share toward their coverage. As a result, an increasing number of Americans have opted not to take advantage of job-based health insurance because they cannot afford it.

Anonymous said...

Honey - make some phone calls to insurance companies in the US to find out what the cost of good private health care is and compare that to the portion of your tax $'s that is shifted into health care. I think you will find that even a top-notch health insurance plan is much cheaper than what most avg. Canadians pay from their taxes.

I have to thank you for the hearty laugh "Experts agree that the USA health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers." I saw you commented on Tony and the other Canadian health care fat cats so your point is moot.

The only Canadians that are happy with the system are very low-income earners who pay little to no income tax anyway. I'll happily pay for them to have free access to health care if we take all the others who can out of line.

Greg Thompson said...

Listen, Anonymous, you little pissant. I'll type this s-l-o-w-l-y so that you can follow along. Keep focused. No-one is happy with the current system. We know that you're not happy. But neither am I. And I fully support the public model. I'm also quite happy to take your money to pay for it. And, in the end, no-one is forcing you to pay for it. I've been told we live in a borderless world. Feel free to spread your wings and venture out of the nest.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Anoy, why don't you just go live in another country where no one cares if you die if you are poor. Lots of countries like that. I am sure with your attitude,and regard for others you wouldn't have a hard time getting a job. I bet they would be wanting to put you in charge of something sensitive, suitable to your personality....,like public beheadings.

command economy said...

I've been told we live in a borderless world. Feel free to spread your wings and venture out of the nest."

So, you indeed would have no objection to the criminalization of homosexuality here in this little corner of the world.

I'd thought your failure to respond the last time I pointed out this implication of your position was because you realized your hypocrisy and didn't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance, but there's no way you'd pull a Spiro Agnew like this twice, unless you really are a homophobic abortophobe.

Greg Thompson said...

Mike, I want to admit something very painful and a little embarassing. And this is the god's honest truth. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I do admire that term "cognitive dissonance", though. In fact, it's so pretty that you should feel free to call me a cognitive dissonant anytime you wish.

I've been called many things in my life, and deservedly so on many occasions. Homophobe isn't one of them. And is "abortophobe" even a word? What, am I irrationally prejudiced against abortions because I secretly fear I might be one?

Anonymous said...

I don't like you much Bonnie, but that was damn good... and real funny. hahahahaahahahhahahaha

Sky Captain said...

When you say that 'open heart surgery won't cost $50', do you mean 'open heart surgery' at the price set by the surgeon, or 'open heart surgery' with regulation prices ,techniques and procedures, as well as subscription fees to the Professional Surgeons Association?(Which are all dictated by law).
Just asking.

Anonymous said...

I am saying that in a private for profit health care system, that there is no guarantee of it costing less or being ran more efficiently. I do have a real problem with only the wealthy having access to health care in Canada. I look at places like China. China's current issues, including lack of access to quality of care, millions of uninsured citizens, and spiraling costs, are many of the same issues that have plagued other countries as they shift to a market-based approach to health care. They have some weirdo practises there for harvesting organs. China executes more people per year, than...the banditos. Just for anything they execute, nothing too serious. A wicked number, like 800 a year. They just take those organs out of the freshly killed con, and they sell it. I know some would consider that free enterprise, but it makes my skin crawl. Just goes to show you what happens when the almighty dollar becomes more important than people.

Anonymous said...

I have no problem with providing every citizen a minimum level of service in a universal health care system, but what I have a problem with is HOW that service is provided.

I just recently lost my family doctor, as he sought greener pastures in another community, and so when I look at the $900 'Health Premium' that I am paying on top of what I was already paying through my taxes, and have to wait in a long queue every time I visit a clinic or MDS lab, I think to myself, "why do I feel bitter about this system in a nation who prides itself as having one of the best health care systems in the world".

Health care expenditure is fast approaching 50% of Ontario's annual budget, and growing at an unsustainable rate. Why is it that with the amount of tax dollars we spend on health care, are Canadians not generally happy with the system?

What really gets me is that if I visit a doctor, after waiting in a long queue, s/he will take my information, will send me off for blood work, then I go to an MDS lab and wait in another long queue, then weeks later come back to another long queue to see the doctor again on the results of the blood work. Then, depending on those results, some things the doctor is willing to address, while for others I am sent to a specialist, and wait 3 months in another long queue, who (specialist) sends me for more blood work. That is a lot of visits and a lot of tax money and I yet don't have a proper diagnosis. Then we wonder why so many people we know go to the US and get all of the above done in a single day.

I would propose that throwing more money at the system is not the answer, and that we need to re-engineer the process of how we deliver health care. For example, upon my first visit to a doctor, why can't a nurse who walks me to the visiting room also not take my blood work and other stats, and puts that blood in a machine, so that by the time the Doctor arrives, the results are available and a more thorough analysis can be made at that one visit (which would have taken three visits - doctor, lab, doctor).

Or likewise, advance medical technology so that you can walk into a doctor's office where you can walk into what looks like a stand-up tanning booth, but it being a full x-ray/MRI machine, which along with bloodwork, would provide the doctor with a great deal of information to make a better diagnosis, all in one session.

I have no problem paying taxes for health care, as long as the value I receive from paying those taxes provides meaningful, and timely, results, which we know can be the difference between life and death.

nikkimountain said...

London IS filled with potholes and bums. Which is why I am moving. The traffic here is worse than Toronto? No doctors? Rental propertys are WAY overpriced its ludicrous!! The dump I'm overpaying for now could yeild me a place twice as nice and twice as new in Oakville!!! Yeah I've done my research. Over populated, bunch of underacchieving sheltered hicks who think they're all knowing( HOW IGNORANT THEY ARE?) , meanwhile finding a successful SELF MADE entrepenuer around here is like finding waldo at mardi gras. Wortley village (where I happen to live) all i see are a bunch of Yorkville Toronto wanna- bes now thats worse than the Yorkvillers wanting to be New Yorkers. So many trust fund kids who grew up being handed everything,, and so little character. THIS is why theres NO good art. THIS is why even a big breasted blonde babe like me can't even get a f'n hello in this town when I step on an elevator. Thats not the worst of it either. Nevermind the hick snobs who don't have a CLUE how un hip they really are, lets think about the poor people in London. Ever taken a good look at London streets on a blistering hot day? Its a freakshow. Its like the circus came to town, and helped the prisoners escape from the local jail. Ever taken a ride down DUNDAS? Makes you want to find the nearest bridge!! I get itchier the closer I get to Adelaide. The old saying is London is full of the Rich and the Poor,, there is not much in between.
Now, as far as private healthcare its all a scam. If everyone were on private healthcare (lets say public healthcare were abolished) physicians would OVER PRICE GAUGE causing insurance rates through the roof ( checked your auto insurance lately? It's criminal!) and slack off. Some of these physicians think they're f'n God. Doctors get alot of respect, and alot of the time it is uncredited. These a#$%^* have been treating us like dirt for years because they despise having to be paid by OHIP and they RESENT us!!! Picking your side is like chosing which foot you want to be shot at. This is seriously a case of LOSE LOSE my friends.

Anonymous said...

You ignorant people are blaming everything on family physicians and the health care system, when you don't even comprehend this situation. It's not your doctor's fault that it takes so long to get medical care; it's because there aren't enough doctors! If there were 100 more doctors in London, the wait times would be reduced incredibly. So stop complaining!!!

Anonymous said...

Seeing that many of our health problems are caused by demons (sorry to offend the conceded majority who think themselves too intelligent to learn aliens are real, here, and have been for a long time, and I hold no religious creed by plainly stating the truth) all the "doctors" in the world aren't going to be able to do a damn thing about the final outcome. Money is make belief and who the hell makes money off of other people's deaths and suffering other than a parasite anyway aka you fine gentlemen?! You had all better wake up before we become extinct! All doctors will die of terrible things just like the rest. What we need is for all of us to stop wasting our "money" on so-called entertainment and get our asses in motion and save our species! We don't even know what we are or where the hell we came from! If we actually liked each other everything would be volentary and free...I'll volenteer for every second of my life to help us all get out of this ambush! Money is just blinding you to the fact that we all fail in that we all die. If you have ever really been sick (or dead!) you will find that money isn't the issue at all! We got here without money! I'm sorry this is the only truth! p.s. I already know most of you think yourselves far too sophisticated to believe in aliens or demons but if you'd just add 1+1 you would get the truth... or keep on with your gay jokes and call me crazy. I am sorry to sound so ignorant of your true skills. I am sorry I am only human and expect mosty of you who read this to discount me immediately as some sort of fictionalized moron, psychotic, or hyper religious idiot, but alien spirits are real. Many medical aka pharmakopeia journals if not all are quite braggardly when they assert our ancestors were superstitious, pre-scientific fools who imagined demons everywhere. "Seizures" isn't a remnant of a old belief now proven wrong by the miracle of modern medicine (our great new understandind of eveerything that leave us all worse off than ever before.) These seizures are caused by demons not electrical brainstorms. I won't get elected but remember where you heard the truth! All of you who believe demons are nothing but a very bad delusion based on poor education have been decieved! The brain made itself? wow that's pretty amazing!