Re: Sorry. This subject HAS to be debated and discussed now. Next year will be too late.

[Guest guest]

The information that you have received about Canada is not entirely accurate.  Men are not refused treatment because of age.  Men over 65, like me for one example pay only prescription preparation costs for meds but this may vary among provinces as it does among your states.  Treatment is RP, Bracy, Radiation and the new Cryo is being offered in some areas.  True robotics lags behind due to costs though laproscopy is available.  The main problem is a lack of doctors since many went south to the US where they could get more money.

The Bonus here is that a trip to a GP, Specialist or hospital for treatment does not bankrupt anyone or result in refusal of treatment.

- What you posted is on a little different subject, although closely related.  The study you posted is about people feeling the pain of having to pay for health care, not its' quality. Of course, everyone feels the pain of paying for health care.  Our concern should be that we will be able to seek out the best alternative and choice of treatment without fear of rationing (like Canada or Britian), or be told we're too old and it doesn't matter any more, or have a bureaucrat / bean counter make your health decisions, not your doctor, or be told come back in 4 months and we'll X-Ray you. Rationing is one of many REAL concerns that we need to have.

 

Directly on point: In Canada, if I properly informed, the government system won't treat men over 65 for prostate cancer.  If I am misinformed, I appogize; but, I believe that I am correct.  Even if you are under 65, how many DaVinci machines do you think there are in Canada?  I promise you there are 10 times more in Florida, alone, than in all of Canada.

 

I have no problem with the feds getting into the INSURANCE business, as long as they don't mandate that people who have their own perfectly fine policies have to join a government plan, I don't want them in the MEDICAL business.    As written, the current bill will penalize anyone who actually has " unapproved " insurance and PPO's and POS' policies are not defined as approved.  Only the old-style HMO's with a gate-keeper are " approved " . 

 

I am sure that we probably all want to provide access to health care to everyone, but we don't want to turn over the whole industry to the government.  It is not possbile for anyone who ever has to deal with the governemnt, about anything, to logically disagree with this. 

I appologize for this rant, but we have to realize that we are at a cross-roads and if we don't discuss and debate this subject right now, it will be too late to do so next year.

 

Oh, and of course the political class is exempting themselves under the proposed plan. I guess they agree with me.

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:28:41 PMSubject: Re: Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

The results of a study. Offered as a truthful observation of issues faced by men with health problems. 

 

 http://www.reuters. com/article/ euRegulatoryNews /idUSN2146504720 090622?sp= true

 

" Il faut d'abord durer "    Hemingway

 

Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

> Terry, sorry about that. I have passionate opinions about the > subject, and sometimes just can't help myself. To my credit, I > never start the debate

>> Laurel>I also have my passionate views on this subject, based on 23 years inside the federal government and my in-laws experience with the British NHS. I won't state my views other than to say they're exactly

the opposite of yours.

[Guest guest]

The information that you have received about Canada is not entirely accurate.  Men are not refused treatment because of age.  Men over 65, like me for one example pay only prescription preparation costs for meds but this may vary among provinces as it does among your states.  Treatment is RP, Bracy, Radiation and the new Cryo is being offered in some areas.  True robotics lags behind due to costs though laproscopy is available.  The main problem is a lack of doctors since many went south to the US where they could get more money.

The Bonus here is that a trip to a GP, Specialist or hospital for treatment does not bankrupt anyone or result in refusal of treatment.

- What you posted is on a little different subject, although closely related.  The study you posted is about people feeling the pain of having to pay for health care, not its' quality. Of course, everyone feels the pain of paying for health care.  Our concern should be that we will be able to seek out the best alternative and choice of treatment without fear of rationing (like Canada or Britian), or be told we're too old and it doesn't matter any more, or have a bureaucrat / bean counter make your health decisions, not your doctor, or be told come back in 4 months and we'll X-Ray you. Rationing is one of many REAL concerns that we need to have.

 

Directly on point: In Canada, if I properly informed, the government system won't treat men over 65 for prostate cancer.  If I am misinformed, I appogize; but, I believe that I am correct.  Even if you are under 65, how many DaVinci machines do you think there are in Canada?  I promise you there are 10 times more in Florida, alone, than in all of Canada.

 

I have no problem with the feds getting into the INSURANCE business, as long as they don't mandate that people who have their own perfectly fine policies have to join a government plan, I don't want them in the MEDICAL business.    As written, the current bill will penalize anyone who actually has " unapproved " insurance and PPO's and POS' policies are not defined as approved.  Only the old-style HMO's with a gate-keeper are " approved " . 

 

I am sure that we probably all want to provide access to health care to everyone, but we don't want to turn over the whole industry to the government.  It is not possbile for anyone who ever has to deal with the governemnt, about anything, to logically disagree with this. 

I appologize for this rant, but we have to realize that we are at a cross-roads and if we don't discuss and debate this subject right now, it will be too late to do so next year.

 

Oh, and of course the political class is exempting themselves under the proposed plan. I guess they agree with me.

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:28:41 PMSubject: Re: Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

The results of a study. Offered as a truthful observation of issues faced by men with health problems. 

 

 http://www.reuters. com/article/ euRegulatoryNews /idUSN2146504720 090622?sp= true

 

" Il faut d'abord durer "    Hemingway

 

Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

> Terry, sorry about that. I have passionate opinions about the > subject, and sometimes just can't help myself. To my credit, I > never start the debate

>> Laurel>I also have my passionate views on this subject, based on 23 years inside the federal government and my in-laws experience with the British NHS. I won't state my views other than to say they're exactly

the opposite of yours.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the information. Are you generally satisfied with the level of care that you receive? Has it gotten better, worse, no change over the years?

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 4:25:18 PMSubject: Re: Sorry. This subject HAS to be debated and discussed now. Next year will be too late.

The information that you have received about Canada is not entirely accurate. Men are not refused treatment because of age. Men over 65, like me for one example pay only prescription preparation costs for meds but this may vary among provinces as it does among your states. Treatment is RP, Bracy, Radiation and the new Cryo is being offered in some areas. True robotics lags behind due to costs though laproscopy is available. The main problem is a lack of doctors since many went south to the US where they could get more money.

The Bonus here is that a trip to a GP, Specialist or hospital for treatment does not bankrupt anyone or result in refusal of treatment.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM, B Pender <b2p16yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

- What you posted is on a little different subject, although closely related. The study you posted is about people feeling the pain of having to pay for health care, not its' quality. Of course, everyone feels the pain of paying for health care. Our concern should be that we will be able to seek out the best alternative and choice of treatment without fear of rationing (like Canada or Britian), or be told we're too old and it doesn't matter any more, or have a bureaucrat / bean counter make your health decisions, not your doctor, or be told come back in 4 months and we'll X-Ray you. Rationing is one of many REAL concerns that we need to have.

Directly on point: In Canada, if I properly informed, the government system won't treat men over 65 for prostate cancer. If I am misinformed, I appogize; but, I believe that I am correct. Even if you are under 65, how many DaVinci machines do you think there are in Canada? I promise you there are 10 times more in Florida, alone, than in all of Canada.

I have no problem with the feds getting into the INSURANCE business, as long as they don't mandate that people who have their own perfectly fine policies have to join a government plan, I don't want them in the MEDICAL business. As written, the current bill will penalize anyone who actually has "unapproved" insurance and PPO's and POS' policies are not defined as approved. Only the old-style HMO's with a gate-keeper are "approved".

I am sure that we probably all want to provide access to health care to everyone, but we don't want to turn over the whole industry to the government. It is not possbile for anyone who ever has to deal with the governemnt, about anything, to logically disagree with this.

I appologize for this rant, but we have to realize that we are at a cross-roads and if we don't discuss and debate this subject right now, it will be too late to do so next year.

Oh, and of course the political class is exempting themselves under the proposed plan. I guess they agree with me.

From: Kennedy <ikennedy2cox (DOT) net>To: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) comSent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:28:41 PMSubject: Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

The results of a study. Offered as a truthful observation of issues faced by men with health problems.

http://www.reuters. com/article/ euRegulatoryNews /idUSN2146504720 090622?sp= true

"Il faut d'abord durer" Hemingway

Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

> Terry, sorry about that. I have passionate opinions about the > subject, and sometimes just can't help myself. To my credit, I > never start the debate >> Laurel>I also have my passionate views on this subject, based on 23 years inside the federal government and my in-laws experience with the British NHS. I won't state my views other than to say they're exactly the opposite of yours.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the information. Are you generally satisfied with the level of care that you receive? Has it gotten better, worse, no change over the years?

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 4:25:18 PMSubject: Re: Sorry. This subject HAS to be debated and discussed now. Next year will be too late.

The information that you have received about Canada is not entirely accurate. Men are not refused treatment because of age. Men over 65, like me for one example pay only prescription preparation costs for meds but this may vary among provinces as it does among your states. Treatment is RP, Bracy, Radiation and the new Cryo is being offered in some areas. True robotics lags behind due to costs though laproscopy is available. The main problem is a lack of doctors since many went south to the US where they could get more money.

The Bonus here is that a trip to a GP, Specialist or hospital for treatment does not bankrupt anyone or result in refusal of treatment.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM, B Pender <b2p16yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

- What you posted is on a little different subject, although closely related. The study you posted is about people feeling the pain of having to pay for health care, not its' quality. Of course, everyone feels the pain of paying for health care. Our concern should be that we will be able to seek out the best alternative and choice of treatment without fear of rationing (like Canada or Britian), or be told we're too old and it doesn't matter any more, or have a bureaucrat / bean counter make your health decisions, not your doctor, or be told come back in 4 months and we'll X-Ray you. Rationing is one of many REAL concerns that we need to have.

Directly on point: In Canada, if I properly informed, the government system won't treat men over 65 for prostate cancer. If I am misinformed, I appogize; but, I believe that I am correct. Even if you are under 65, how many DaVinci machines do you think there are in Canada? I promise you there are 10 times more in Florida, alone, than in all of Canada.

I have no problem with the feds getting into the INSURANCE business, as long as they don't mandate that people who have their own perfectly fine policies have to join a government plan, I don't want them in the MEDICAL business. As written, the current bill will penalize anyone who actually has "unapproved" insurance and PPO's and POS' policies are not defined as approved. Only the old-style HMO's with a gate-keeper are "approved".

I am sure that we probably all want to provide access to health care to everyone, but we don't want to turn over the whole industry to the government. It is not possbile for anyone who ever has to deal with the governemnt, about anything, to logically disagree with this.

I appologize for this rant, but we have to realize that we are at a cross-roads and if we don't discuss and debate this subject right now, it will be too late to do so next year.

Oh, and of course the political class is exempting themselves under the proposed plan. I guess they agree with me.

From: Kennedy <ikennedy2cox (DOT) net>To: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) comSent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:28:41 PMSubject: Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

The results of a study. Offered as a truthful observation of issues faced by men with health problems.

http://www.reuters. com/article/ euRegulatoryNews /idUSN2146504720 090622?sp= true

"Il faut d'abord durer" Hemingway

Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

> Terry, sorry about that. I have passionate opinions about the > subject, and sometimes just can't help myself. To my credit, I > never start the debate >> Laurel>I also have my passionate views on this subject, based on 23 years inside the federal government and my in-laws experience with the British NHS. I won't state my views other than to say they're exactly the opposite of yours.

[Guest guest]

It is getting better since Govt is pouring more funds into the system and allowing foreign doctors to practice sooner than before.  Also, some of our doctors who went south have been coming home realizing that not all is rosier in the south.  My niece is still a nurse in Mass though for when she graduated there was too many nurses here - now it is the opposite with old gals retiring.

Take care

Thank you for the information.  Are you generally satisfied with the level of care that you receive?  Has it gotten better, worse, no change over the years?

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 4:25:18 PMSubject: Re: Sorry. This subject HAS to be debated and discussed now. Next year will be too late.

The information that you have received about Canada is not entirely accurate.  Men are not refused treatment because of age.  Men over 65, like me for one example pay only prescription preparation costs for meds but this may vary among provinces as it does among your states.  Treatment is RP, Bracy, Radiation and the new Cryo is being offered in some areas.  True robotics lags behind due to costs though laproscopy is available.  The main problem is a lack of doctors since many went south to the US where they could get more money.

The Bonus here is that a trip to a GP, Specialist or hospital for treatment does not bankrupt anyone or result in refusal of treatment.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM, B Pender <b2p16yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

- What you posted is on a little different subject, although closely related.  The study you posted is about people feeling the pain of having to pay for health care, not its' quality. Of course, everyone feels the pain of paying for health care.  Our concern should be that we will be able to seek out the best alternative and choice of treatment without fear of rationing (like Canada or Britian), or be told we're too old and it doesn't matter any more, or have a bureaucrat / bean counter make your health decisions, not your doctor, or be told come back in 4 months and we'll X-Ray you. Rationing is one of many REAL concerns that we need to have.

 

Directly on point: In Canada, if I properly informed, the government system won't treat men over 65 for prostate cancer.  If I am misinformed, I appogize; but, I believe that I am correct.  Even if you are under 65, how many DaVinci machines do you think there are in Canada?  I promise you there are 10 times more in Florida, alone, than in all of Canada.

 

I have no problem with the feds getting into the INSURANCE business, as long as they don't mandate that people who have their own perfectly fine policies have to join a government plan, I don't want them in the MEDICAL business.    As written, the current bill will penalize anyone who actually has " unapproved " insurance and PPO's and POS' policies are not defined as approved.  Only the old-style HMO's with a gate-keeper are " approved " . 

 

I am sure that we probably all want to provide access to health care to everyone, but we don't want to turn over the whole industry to the government.  It is not possbile for anyone who ever has to deal with the governemnt, about anything, to logically disagree with this. 

I appologize for this rant, but we have to realize that we are at a cross-roads and if we don't discuss and debate this subject right now, it will be too late to do so next year.

 

Oh, and of course the political class is exempting themselves under the proposed plan. I guess they agree with me.

From: Kennedy <ikennedy2cox (DOT) net>To: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) com

Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:28:41 PMSubject: Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

The results of a study. Offered as a truthful observation of issues faced by men with health problems. 

 

 http://www.reuters. com/article/ euRegulatoryNews /idUSN2146504720 090622?sp= true

 

" Il faut d'abord durer "    Hemingway

 

Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

> Terry, sorry about that. I have passionate opinions about the > subject, and sometimes just can't help myself. To my credit, I > never start the debate

>> Laurel>I also have my passionate views on this subject, based on 23 years inside the federal government and my in-laws experience with the British NHS. I won't state my views other than to say they're exactly

the opposite of yours.

[Guest guest]

It is getting better since Govt is pouring more funds into the system and allowing foreign doctors to practice sooner than before.  Also, some of our doctors who went south have been coming home realizing that not all is rosier in the south.  My niece is still a nurse in Mass though for when she graduated there was too many nurses here - now it is the opposite with old gals retiring.

Take care

Thank you for the information.  Are you generally satisfied with the level of care that you receive?  Has it gotten better, worse, no change over the years?

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 4:25:18 PMSubject: Re: Sorry. This subject HAS to be debated and discussed now. Next year will be too late.

The information that you have received about Canada is not entirely accurate.  Men are not refused treatment because of age.  Men over 65, like me for one example pay only prescription preparation costs for meds but this may vary among provinces as it does among your states.  Treatment is RP, Bracy, Radiation and the new Cryo is being offered in some areas.  True robotics lags behind due to costs though laproscopy is available.  The main problem is a lack of doctors since many went south to the US where they could get more money.

The Bonus here is that a trip to a GP, Specialist or hospital for treatment does not bankrupt anyone or result in refusal of treatment.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM, B Pender <b2p16yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

- What you posted is on a little different subject, although closely related.  The study you posted is about people feeling the pain of having to pay for health care, not its' quality. Of course, everyone feels the pain of paying for health care.  Our concern should be that we will be able to seek out the best alternative and choice of treatment without fear of rationing (like Canada or Britian), or be told we're too old and it doesn't matter any more, or have a bureaucrat / bean counter make your health decisions, not your doctor, or be told come back in 4 months and we'll X-Ray you. Rationing is one of many REAL concerns that we need to have.

 

Directly on point: In Canada, if I properly informed, the government system won't treat men over 65 for prostate cancer.  If I am misinformed, I appogize; but, I believe that I am correct.  Even if you are under 65, how many DaVinci machines do you think there are in Canada?  I promise you there are 10 times more in Florida, alone, than in all of Canada.

 

I have no problem with the feds getting into the INSURANCE business, as long as they don't mandate that people who have their own perfectly fine policies have to join a government plan, I don't want them in the MEDICAL business.    As written, the current bill will penalize anyone who actually has " unapproved " insurance and PPO's and POS' policies are not defined as approved.  Only the old-style HMO's with a gate-keeper are " approved " . 

 

I am sure that we probably all want to provide access to health care to everyone, but we don't want to turn over the whole industry to the government.  It is not possbile for anyone who ever has to deal with the governemnt, about anything, to logically disagree with this. 

I appologize for this rant, but we have to realize that we are at a cross-roads and if we don't discuss and debate this subject right now, it will be too late to do so next year.

 

Oh, and of course the political class is exempting themselves under the proposed plan. I guess they agree with me.

From: Kennedy <ikennedy2cox (DOT) net>To: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) com

Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:28:41 PMSubject: Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

The results of a study. Offered as a truthful observation of issues faced by men with health problems. 

 

 http://www.reuters. com/article/ euRegulatoryNews /idUSN2146504720 090622?sp= true

 

" Il faut d'abord durer "    Hemingway

 

Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

> Terry, sorry about that. I have passionate opinions about the > subject, and sometimes just can't help myself. To my credit, I > never start the debate

>> Laurel>I also have my passionate views on this subject, based on 23 years inside the federal government and my in-laws experience with the British NHS. I won't state my views other than to say they're exactly

the opposite of yours.

[Guest guest]

It is getting better since Govt is pouring more funds into the system and allowing foreign doctors to practice sooner than before.  Also, some of our doctors who went south have been coming home realizing that not all is rosier in the south.  My niece is still a nurse in Mass though for when she graduated there was too many nurses here - now it is the opposite with old gals retiring.

Take care

Thank you for the information.  Are you generally satisfied with the level of care that you receive?  Has it gotten better, worse, no change over the years?

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 4:25:18 PMSubject: Re: Sorry. This subject HAS to be debated and discussed now. Next year will be too late.

The information that you have received about Canada is not entirely accurate.  Men are not refused treatment because of age.  Men over 65, like me for one example pay only prescription preparation costs for meds but this may vary among provinces as it does among your states.  Treatment is RP, Bracy, Radiation and the new Cryo is being offered in some areas.  True robotics lags behind due to costs though laproscopy is available.  The main problem is a lack of doctors since many went south to the US where they could get more money.

The Bonus here is that a trip to a GP, Specialist or hospital for treatment does not bankrupt anyone or result in refusal of treatment.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM, B Pender <b2p16yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

- What you posted is on a little different subject, although closely related.  The study you posted is about people feeling the pain of having to pay for health care, not its' quality. Of course, everyone feels the pain of paying for health care.  Our concern should be that we will be able to seek out the best alternative and choice of treatment without fear of rationing (like Canada or Britian), or be told we're too old and it doesn't matter any more, or have a bureaucrat / bean counter make your health decisions, not your doctor, or be told come back in 4 months and we'll X-Ray you. Rationing is one of many REAL concerns that we need to have.

 

Directly on point: In Canada, if I properly informed, the government system won't treat men over 65 for prostate cancer.  If I am misinformed, I appogize; but, I believe that I am correct.  Even if you are under 65, how many DaVinci machines do you think there are in Canada?  I promise you there are 10 times more in Florida, alone, than in all of Canada.

 

I have no problem with the feds getting into the INSURANCE business, as long as they don't mandate that people who have their own perfectly fine policies have to join a government plan, I don't want them in the MEDICAL business.    As written, the current bill will penalize anyone who actually has " unapproved " insurance and PPO's and POS' policies are not defined as approved.  Only the old-style HMO's with a gate-keeper are " approved " . 

 

I am sure that we probably all want to provide access to health care to everyone, but we don't want to turn over the whole industry to the government.  It is not possbile for anyone who ever has to deal with the governemnt, about anything, to logically disagree with this. 

I appologize for this rant, but we have to realize that we are at a cross-roads and if we don't discuss and debate this subject right now, it will be too late to do so next year.

 

Oh, and of course the political class is exempting themselves under the proposed plan. I guess they agree with me.

From: Kennedy <ikennedy2cox (DOT) net>To: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) com

Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:28:41 PMSubject: Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

The results of a study. Offered as a truthful observation of issues faced by men with health problems. 

 

 http://www.reuters. com/article/ euRegulatoryNews /idUSN2146504720 090622?sp= true

 

" Il faut d'abord durer "    Hemingway

 

Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Is this what we all have to look forward to with Gov't Health Care?

> Terry, sorry about that. I have passionate opinions about the > subject, and sometimes just can't help myself. To my credit, I > never start the debate

>> Laurel>I also have my passionate views on this subject, based on 23 years inside the federal government and my in-laws experience with the British NHS. I won't state my views other than to say they're exactly

the opposite of yours.

[Guest guest]

> My niece is still a nurse in Mass though

> for when she graduated there was too many nurses here - now it is the

> opposite with old gals retiring.

I suggest that she look into moving to Parad.... er, Arizona. Nursing

shortage.

Also lots of Snowbirds at least during Wintertime, so she'd not get

homesick, eh.

:-)

Regards,

Steve J

[Guest guest]

> Directly on point: In Canada, if I properly informed, the government system

won't treat men over 65 for prostate cancer. If I am misinformed, I appogize;

but, I believe that I am correct. Even if you are under 65, how many DaVinci

machines do you think there are in Canada? I promise you there are 10 times

more in Florida, alone, than in all of Canada.

>

You're misinformed -- apology accepted, _if_ you change your views

appropriately, and stop repeating this canard. Where did you hear it?

The Canadian system treats PCa -- and treats it well -- for men of any age. We

have lots of " over-65's " (I think a majority of over-65's) in my Vancouver BC

support group, and they're not being ignored.

daVinci machines are becoming more common in Canada, but they're still

restricted to large city hospitals. Most prostate surgery is still " open "

surgery, but there's an active daVinci practice in Vancouver and some other

cities.

In Canada, the jury is still out on the benefits of daVinci surgery. Perhaps

you can enlighten me:

.. . . Do you have good evidence that daVinci surgery results in better

_outcomes_ (not just shorter recuperation periods) than open surgery?

Thanks --