Actually my doctor believes beyond a certain age all patients should probably take certain preventative measures from a drug perspective.

Even if there are no obvious issues they are needed. He is not a pill pusher either. Eighty one mg of aspirn daily seems to reduce the incidence of heart attacks and strokes signifigantly I think is the current belief..

I also do not think the issue of we have a longer average lifespan than Americans is totally real. It tires me to see that statistic repeated over and over.

If you are not uncomforatable in approaching the medical system in the states. Money to allow you to do so easily and not the reason for going later than one should.

Statistically those people that do go with earlier indicators of need should equal or exceed our mortality average.

A doctor is essentially a body mechanic. No or delayed access for a variety of reasons of course will tweak the statistics. I try to keep an open mind in this area.

Our system eliminates this component totally as a consideration but at the same time to keep it affordable for all does require some downsides at the same time. So each system is almost definatly a tradeoff. There is no utopia.

A good example here is our pets. Vets charge very high locally today in general. This in all probability inhibits some people taking them in to some extent as early as they should go.

If I did not have the three hundred to spare or whatever I suspect the pet would not go. Or at least not until it was unavoidable. I kind of consider this type of thing just one form of human nature and a reality.

One thing up here in Canada is almost becoming an absolute. Quietly anything related to health will be taken care of. For example many people cannot afford say an additional eight hundred a month for drugs on release from hospital after a heart attack.

Below a certain income level they will be provided free to the person. This does not mean a welfare type of income either.
a person making a hundred grand a year may still not have the room for the additional costs if pre commited financially. This practice makes economic sense as re admissions will be far less. I suspect this component alone is making a substantial reduction of health care costs.

This did not offend me when I was asked just before the wives release from hospital after her serious heart attack. Could we afford the drug costs? If not they will be provided free. There was no talk of income level at that discussion.

We at that time had a blue cross drug plan with a five dollar co pay per prescription. So I felt no help was required. Our income could have coped with the additional cost anyways without a drug plan. We would have paid it out of pocket as a matter of ethics. We could afford to being the basis. At twenty eight hunded a month I would have felt otherwise.

Now at the same time the same drug mix cost 2.800 per month in the states. One has to ask themselves why this is? Since then drug costs have gone up. So if an average American individual cannot handle it what do they do? This is another area in my opinion that is tweaking the mortality statistics signifigantly.

My logic being anyone can experience a heart attack. The aftermath should not tear apart the benefits of all you have worked for prior to the event. If you like people in general as I do. It hurts me to see this type of thing occur. How they would feel is beyond the scope of my understanding. Other than there is nothing good about it. Actually it is enough alone to get a person in that situations blood pressure up.