Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits

[jsn112]

I'm not convinced that's a fair representation.




http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1105&full=1

Another thing: Medicare and Medicaid are who that set the limit of incoming students into medical schools every year. The population increases, but the number of seat available for incoming students have not. Therefore, the result are high in demand but low in supply. Just like high in demand for oil, but low in supply because of banning on drilling. As a result, high in gas prices.

 

[jayem]

Our high health care costs result from many factors--3rd party payors, administrative and regulatory costs, and liability costs are some of them. Personally, I think the biggest single factor is technology. We can do so much more--but at a price. Examples: 75 years ago, a person with renal failure would be put on a low salt/low protein diet. Virtually no cost. He'd probably die within a year. Today, we have transplants and dialysis. They save lives and keep people functioning. But at a cost of maybe $50,000 for a transplant and $70,000 a year for dialysis. Years ago, someone with hip arthritis would be given a bottle of pain pills and a cane. Very cheap. But she'd probably be in chronic pain, and eventually in a wheelchair. Today we do hip replacements which return patients to productive, pain free lives. At $30,000 each. Americans demand high tech medical care, which comes at a price.

It's been shown time and time again that he usual supply and demand calculus doesn't work in medicine. The more orthopedists in a city, the more hip and knee replacemements are done. The more MRI scanners in an area, the more MRIs are ordered. Even if the unit cost goes down, the total cost increases. Areas with more hospital beds almost always have higher hospitilization rates.

Another very consistent finding is that areas with greater numbers of uninsured residents have much higher emergency room utilization. They have no where else to go. Not only does this greatly increase the cost of care, it lowers efficiency and ties up emergency services.

What so often gets overlooked is that large numbers of uninsured really do hurt all of us. They can still get care (though it's episodic, fragmented, and clearly suboptimal.) But that cost is passed on to all the rest of us. We and our employers still pay for it. Human suffering aside, a lack of universal health coverage is a huge drag on our economy and puts us at a competitive disadvantage compared with countries providing national health insurance. And it's another major factor raising health care costs for us all.

 

[SallyNow]

I love blogs that spin information.

I also love them when they don't fully explain what they are talking about and manage to present totally inaccurate information.

Wait, did I say love? I meant dislike. But blogs seem to misuse the terms so often, I'm starting to get confused.

If you want equal rights, then be an advocate for civil liberty. If you can't afford a Maserati 3200 GT, don't expect to get a Maserati 3200 GT. Not everyone can own a Maserati 3200 GT. So, you better buy a Honda civic instead. And that has nothing to do with equality.

A child's life compared to a Maserati. This should be shameful, but instead it's commonplace.

There is outrage when a zygote is called a blob of tissue, but it's totally okay to call, say, a 25 day old baby a Maserati.

And that seems to be the main motivation of people who are against public health care. They don't see a reason that they would need it, therefore, why have it at all? The political philosopher John Rawls said, (paraphrasing), "Imagine you haven't been born yet, and you have no idea what sort of family you'll be born into, how rich they are, what their circumstances are. Now, design a socioeconomic system."

Profit shouldn't factor into healthcare.

Exactly. It needs to be a good balance. I'd rather live Europe or Canada, mostly for the idea that every human life is worthwhile.

America has all the technology to be one of the greatest nations on earth, but is quickly falling behind because of neoliberal political policies that most countries abandoned about 10 years ago.

I agree somewhat, however private healthcare will co-exist with public healthcare. And the cream will still rise to the top.

In some countries it does coexist, and with excellent healthcare for all.

Canadian (and German) Health Care expenditure per capita is roughly half that of what we spend in the United States...

We do have the highest quality Health Care sysem in the world... and yet most Americans can't afford to use it. Most Americans would be much better off with Canadian or German Health Care Systems which cost half as much and cover everyone.

That's a good point.

However, it's also not true to assume that Canada or Germany somehow have lower-quality healthcare than the USA. It's more of a population thing: America's population is over 9 times the size of Canada. That means more researchers. A big factor in the USA's ability to develop new treatments is in the sheer number of researchers.

Yet, despite Canada's small population, we still have world-class researchers, not to mention the world-class researchers in Germany.

But what you neglected to say is that IF you made it through a LLOONNNGGG line for this transplant in Canada. Otherwise, you're not going to make it anyway. FYI, do you know that your pets get better treatment and timely than humans in Canada? How is that better than the US?

And here are two of the biggest lies told to Americans about the Canadian health care system.

America has a population of around 300 million. Canada has a population of just under 35 million. Guess which country will have more of a chance of matching donors to recipients? That's right, the bigger one. Guess which country has long transpant lines? That's right, both.

As for the pet thing, well, look at the USA. Look at how many dogs and cats have luxury treatment when some children can't get medical care because their parents just can't afford it.

In Canada, people can take their dogs and cats to the vets safe in the knowledge that children are still getting high-quality medical care. Are they getting luxury single rooms with HIFI stereos? No. But they're getting a safe bed in a safe hospital with excellent staff.

About the insurance company, you have to select the right company and coverage at the beginning. And if you're rich enough, you can forgo insurance company's approval. This is called life. Nothing is fair. Otherwise, my wish list in life would include 30,000 sq. ft mansion, 5 exotic cars, 10 girlfriends, a maid/butler/chef, and etc.

Again, how is acceptable for there to be outrage when a 7 day old fertilized egg is called a blob of tissue but perfectly alright to compare a person mansion, exotic cars, and then say that not everyone should have life because they can't afford it?

 

[jsn112]

...
A child's life compared to a Maserati. This should be shameful, but instead it's commonplace.

There is outrage when a zygote is called a blob of tissue, but it's totally okay to call, say, a 25 day old baby a Maserati.

You think everything should be free? Do you also expect to eat lobster everynight? I am sure the lobster has lots of daily nutrients. Does Canada offer lobster to everyone, the rich and poor, just the same?

Exactly. It needs to be a good balance. I'd rather live Europe or Canada, mostly for the idea that every human life is worthwhile.

Really? I wonder how are those unborn babies doing just before they were being aborted? Is that a every human life worthwhile over there?

And here are two of the biggest lies told to Americans about the Canadian health care system.

America has a population of around 300 million. Canada has a population of just under 35 million. Guess which country will have more of a chance of matching donors to recipients? That's right, the bigger one. Guess which country has long transpant lines? That's right, both.

As for the pet thing, well, look at the USA. Look at how many dogs and cats have luxury treatment when some children can't get medical care because their parents just can't afford it.

In Canada, people can take their dogs and cats to the vets safe in the knowledge that children are still getting high-quality medical care. Are they getting luxury single rooms with HIFI stereos? No. But they're getting a safe bed in a safe hospital with excellent staff.

It doesn't have to be a transplant. Just to get a doctor's apppointment. He won't see you for at least 3 months or more out. Why don't you answer as to why more and more Canadians are seeking private sectors and also coming to the US for treatment?

And as for the poor that can't afford high-quality medical care: The poor here in the US can only afford to feed their dogs steaks and drive around in a Mercedes/BMW and watch $50/month in cable TV while talking on $100 a month cell phone bills. That's why they can't afford high-quality medical care. They're too poor.

Again, how is acceptable for there to be outrage when a 7 day old fertilized egg is called a blob of tissue but perfectly alright to compare a person mansion, exotic cars, and then say that not everyone should have life because they can't afford it?

So much for "every human life worthwhile" sympathy, huh?

 

[SallyNow]

You think everything should be free? Do you also expect to eat lobster everynight? I am sure the lobster has lots of daily nutrients. Does Canada offer lobster to everyone, the rich and poor, just the same?

Our healthcare isn't free.

Let me try to explain it in the most simple way possible:
Everyone pays into the system, and everyone is able to get healthcare out of the system.

If someone wants extra services, they can get insurance to cover those services.

Really? I wonder how are those unborn babies doing just before they were being aborted? Is that a every human life worthwhile over there?

You missed the point. Every mother has access to OBGYN care. Every woman has access to prenatal care.

This has created a lower infant death rate than the USA.

It doesn't have to be a transplant. Just to get a doctor's apppointment. He won't see you for at least 3 months or more out. Why don't you answer as to why more and more Canadians are seeking private sectors and also coming to the US for treatment?

Wow. Let me see... last week I had a doctor's appointment. I set it up a long time ago... about 8 days ago.

I had an appointment with a sought-after specialist. It took all of 2 weeks to get in as had surgeries scheduled.

Sorry, but your wild accusations are innaccurate.

"More and more" Canadians aren't seeking treatment. However, yes, some do, because isn't it horrible that a child with a cleft lip has priority over a woman who wants a facelift or a man who wants a brow lift?

And as for the poor that can't afford high-quality medical care: The poor here in the US can only afford to feed their dogs steaks and drive around in a Mercedes/BMW and watch $50/month in cable TV while talking on $100 a month cell phone bills. That's why they can't afford high-quality medical care. They're too poor.

Wow. So many strawmen. So little time.

So much for "every human life worthwhile" sympathy, huh?

Why? Because I note there is a descrepancy in the thinking that a human life is worth fighting for only until he or she is born?

Why is the life of a fetus protected more than the life of a baby?

 

[jsn112]

Our healthcare isn't free.

Let me try to explain it in the most simple way possible:
Everyone pays into the system, and everyone is able to get healthcare out of the system.

If someone wants extra services, they can get insurance to cover those services.

What?! You mean if you're rich in Canada, you can buy your way into good health? And the poor who can't afford it will be left holding the bags? Sounds like the US, right?

You missed the point. Every mother has access to OBGYN care. Every woman has access to prenatal care.

And US doesn't?

This has created a lower infant death rate than the USA.

Poor argument.
http://jamilaakil.blogspot.com/2007/03/we-dont-need-universal-health-care-pt-i.html

Wow. Let me see... last week I had a doctor's appointment. I set it up a long time ago... about 8 days ago.

I had an appointment with a sought-after specialist. It took all of 2 weeks to get in as had surgeries scheduled.

Sorry, but your wild accusations are innaccurate.

Then you're lucky. You better thank your lucky star.

"More and more" Canadians aren't seeking treatment. However, yes, some do, because isn't it horrible that a child with a cleft lip has priority over a woman who wants a facelift or a man who wants a brow lift?

You're brushing the issue. More and more are seeking treatment in the private sectors in Canada and also going to the US. It's not for facelift, either. Private sectors are supposed to be illegal in Canada, isn't it? But more and more people are going to them. Why?

Wow. So many strawmen. So little time.

LOL. That's because what I am saying is true and you can't refute that. I dare you come down to the ghettos and look around to see what cars they are driving. They drive nicer cars than I do and I make good money. How is that possible I kept asking myself?

Why? Because I note there is a descrepancy in the thinking that a human life is worth fighting for only until he or she is born?

Why is the life of a fetus protected more than the life of a baby?

That's what I thought. So, not every human are not worthwhile, then. You don't have to try to explain it to me. I am just pointing out the contradiction of your argument.

 

[Illuminatus]

I see you get your medical information from Michael Moore ...

e

No. The World Health Organization, (US: 37th/98) the Conference Board of Canada (US: 14/16), and the United Nations (can't remember the exact rating, I'll look it up if you'd like).

... and why do Canadians come to the US to be treated for heart disease and cancer?

Generally, they don't.

 

[Illuminatus]

What?! You mean if you're rich in Canada, you can buy your way into good health? And the poor who can't afford it will be left holding the bags? Sounds like the US, right?

SallyNow is referring, I think, to things like optometrist's services, which are covered in some provinces, and covered for children in the rest. It's also worth pointing out that insurance for these services is significantly cheaper than in the United States. (I pay approximately $200/year for optical, dental, and prescription drug coverage.)

Then you're lucky. You better thank your lucky star.

I can usually see my primary doctor the same week I call. I had to schedule an appointment with my endocrinologist today - I could've gotten in tomorrow, if I wasn't busy. (I ended up scheduling for Monday.) When I was 13, I had hand surgery at one of the top specialized units in the province. From the time I went to my family doctor with the injury, it took me about two weeks to go to the sports medicine specialist, then the consult with the surgeon, then the actual surgery. If you think that a two-week wait time for nonessential surgery is an argument against public healthcare, I'm not sure you're being objective.

You're brushing the issue. More and more are seeking treatment in the private sectors in Canada and also going to the US. It's not for facelift, either. Private sectors are supposed to be illegal in Canada, isn't it? But more and more people are going to them. Why?

The only private sectors I'm aware of in Canada are in Alberta and Quebec - and both are primarily pay-for-service diagnostic imaging.

LOL. That's because what I am saying is true and you can't refute that. I dare you come down to the ghettos and look around to see what cars they are driving. They drive nicer cars than I do and I make good money. How is that possible I kept asking myself?

You buy cheap cars?

That's what I thought. So, not every human are not worthwhile, then.

Well, at least you're being open with the basis for your argument.

2. We are all free to work harder to provide better things for ourselves and buy the things we need...like insurance.

This is an offensive argument. A single mother working 60 hours a week at minimum wage isn't a hard worker? A family of four with a total income of $45000/year aren't working hard enough because they can't afford insurance?

This is a scary comment because without profit there would be no incentives for innovations and technolgical improvements, or to be in the field of medicine by great thinkers.

Wow. So I (and most of my friends) went into science just because we want to be rich? Funny. Because salaries in science aren't that great. And I guess all of those doctors who work in free clinics or in third-world countries just aren't great thinkers. Great thinkers concentrate on profit!
Thankfully, I don't think most people are as venal as you assume.

 

[Avatar]

It doesn't have to be a transplant. Just to get a doctor's apppointment. He won't see you for at least 3 months or more out.

That alone is reason enough to discount everything you say as pure ignorance. Where did you get that from anyway? I have to see a doctor regularly to renew prescriptions as well as the myriad of reasons to see a doc when you have 7 kids at home. I only recently moved to this town and don't yet have a family doc so I see a doc at the clinic. I (and everyone) call in the morning for an appointment and are seen in the afternoon. Every time. That is the policy.

When I have a family doc I may have to schedule a few days in advance, but 3 months? I've never even heard that assertion by the most ignorant of detractors before.

Oh wait, that's incorrect. I just did.

And btw, if the Canadian healthcare system was as abhorrent as you suggest, don't you think I and the other Canadians here would be completely onside with you? Think on that one a bit.

 

[SallyNow]

What?! You mean if you're rich in Canada, you can buy your way into good health? And the poor who can't afford it will be left holding the bags? Sounds like the US, right?

Not at all. But I'll let Illuminatus explain it:

SallyNow is referring, I think, to things like optometrist's services, which are covered in some provinces, and covered for children in the rest. It's also worth pointing out that insurance for these services is significantly cheaper than in the United States. (I pay approximately $200/year for optical, dental, and prescription drug coverage.)

And of course, many provinces cover prescription drugs if a person is, for instance, a student, or has fixed income.

Optical and dental are also covered when it comes to emergency services by most provincial plans, some also cover basic opitical check-ups and a certain limit on optical gear every few years.

And US doesn't?

Considering how many not-for-profit reproductive health centres there are in the USA... no. It doesn't seem so. Many women have to rely on services such as Planned Parenthood, and then worry how their child will be cared for after he or she is born. Some insurance plans in the USA also have the habit of both denying birth control payments and denying comprehensive prenatal care.

Poor argument.
http://jamilaakil.blogspot.com/2007/03/we-dont-need-universal-health-care-pt-i.html

Sorry, an apologetics article about why the American infant mortality rate is so high simply proves the point.

Then you're lucky. You better thank your lucky star.

I don't have to thank luck. I have the system to thank. Everyone I know can get access to a qualified medical professional in a timely way without going to the USA.

It's not perfect, and there are better alternatives (such as Germany's health care system) but it's worth keeping and improving.

You're brushing the issue. More and more are seeking treatment in the private sectors in Canada and also going to the US. It's not for facelift, either. Private sectors are supposed to be illegal in Canada, isn't it? But more and more people are going to them. Why?

Here are some more misconceptions about the Canadian system.

The issue of private sector healthcare in Canada is far from clearcut. It's actually an issue that many provinces are wrestling with.

There are some user-pay services. They deal with secondary services or services that are not necessary for quality of life. For instance, if someone needs physiotherapy for a sports injury, they can easily go to a physiotherapy clinic, some of which is covered by healthcare.

However, if they decide they want surgery, and it's not a necessary one at all, they will be put on the bottom of the list at the orthopedic surgeon so that those with real life-changing injuries can get treatment first. The people with minor ailments are the people who are often the loudest in complaining. However, in some provinces they are free to go to sports clinics with user fees if they want to get the surgery.

LOL. That's because what I am saying is true and you can't refute that. I dare you come down to the ghettos and look around to see what cars they are driving. They drive nicer cars than I do and I make good money. How is that possible I kept asking myself?

First off, I wonder why Americans pay so much more than so many others in the developed world for the same basic services.

I can refute what you are saying. How? Well, let's see:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2007-09-11-insurance_N.htm
$12,000 for a family. That's a lot.

That's more than a quarter of the median income of a typical American family:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Median_income

And Section 8 housing can only be offered to those making less than 50% of the median, therefore, they probably make less than $22,000:
http://www.ct.gov/dss/cwp/view.asp?a=2353&q=305208

So, if 30% of their income is going to housing -$7,000 a year - and then food - $100 a week, or $5200 a year - and $100 gas/month on the low end - $1200 - how can they possibly have money to buy Mercedes and BMWs in high volumes?

In other words, $13,400 goes to basic needs. How can they then have money for these BMW's and Mercedes? And moreover, how does that leave $12,000 for health insurance?

I do not doubt that some people cheat the system, but they are the minority.

That's what I thought. So, not every human are not worthwhile, then. You don't have to try to explain it to me. I am just pointing out the contradiction of your argument.

What? Please stop twisting my words. I never said anything of the kind.

America is a great nation which is why it is surprising that, despite state-of-the-art technology and world-class facilities and world-class medical training, it sometimes has a problem actually getting the medical resources to those who need it most.

 

[Illuminatus]

There are some user-pay services. They deal with secondary services or services that are not necessary for quality of life. For instance, if someone needs physiotherapy for a sports injury, they can easily go to a physiotherapy clinic, some of which is covered by healthcare.

Just to clarify, at least in Ontario, any physiotherapy prescribed by a doctor is covered by OHIP. There are private physiotherapy practices, IIRC, but if your doctor says you need physio, you won't have to pay.

First off, I wonder why Americans pay so much more than so many others in the developed world for the same basic services.

I can refute what you are saying. How? Well, let's see:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2007-09-11-insurance_N.htm
$12,000 for a family. That's a lot.

That's more than a quarter of the median income of a typical American family:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Median_income

And Section 8 housing can only be offered to those making less than 50% of the median, therefore, they probably make less than $22,000:
http://www.ct.gov/dss/cwp/view.asp?a=2353&q=305208

So, if 30% of their income is going to housing -$7,000 a year - and then food - $100 a week, or $5200 a year - and $100 gas/month on the low end - $1200 - how can they possibly have money to buy Mercedes and BMWs in high volumes?

In other words, $13,400 goes to basic needs. How can they then have money for these BMW's and Mercedes? And moreover, how does that leave $12,000 for health insurance?

I do not doubt that some people cheat the system, but they are the minority.

Great links. It's also worth pointing out that medical costs account for roughly half of bankruptcies filed every year in the United States - around 750,000, affecting about 2 million people per year.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

Something else from that study that might interest some of the individuals in this thread:

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy. [...] Today's health insurance policies -- with high deductibles, co-pays, and many exclusions -- offer little protection during a serious illness. Uncovered medical bills averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the start of their illness. People with cancer had average medical debts of $35,878.

 

[SallyNow]

Just to clarify, at least in Ontario, any physiotherapy prescribed by a doctor is covered by OHIP. There are private physiotherapy practices, IIRC, but if your doctor says you need physio, you won't have to pay.

Sorry, I was unclear. Yes, physiotherapy is covered when it's medically necessary. I was talking about people who have those "old football injuries" that flare up on occasion, and aren't satisfied with physiotherapy and choose to want a medically unnecessary surgery.

Great links. It's also worth pointing out that medical costs account for roughly half of bankruptcies filed every year in the United States - around 750,000, affecting about 2 million people per year.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

I'm speechless. Sad, and speechless.

Something else from that study that might interest some of the individuals in this thread:

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy. [...] Today's health insurance policies -- with high deductibles, co-pays, and many exclusions -- offer little protection during a serious illness. Uncovered medical bills averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the start of their illness. People with cancer had average medical debts of $35,878.

​

But somehow they manage to drive Mercedes and BMWs? I don't think so.

The reason it's so sad is that America is full-well capable of providing a better healthcare sysem than it currently is. The resources, the money, the technology, the people are all available to step into a system that covers everyone when they need it, and not just those who can pay high fees.

There's some balance America can find between the current system and a fully socialized system. For everyone's sake, let's hope the next USA President finds that balance!
​

 

[jsn112]

That alone is reason enough to discount everything you say as pure ignorance. Where did you get that from anyway? I have to see a doctor regularly to renew prescriptions as well as the myriad of reasons to see a doc when you have 7 kids at home. I only recently moved to this town and don't yet have a family doc so I see a doc at the clinic. I (and everyone) call in the morning for an appointment and are seen in the afternoon. Every time. That is the policy.

When I have a family doc I may have to schedule a few days in advance, but 3 months? I've never even heard that assertion by the most ignorant of detractors before.

Oh wait, that's incorrect. I just did.

And btw, if the Canadian healthcare system was as abhorrent as you suggest, don't you think I and the other Canadians here would be completely onside with you? Think on that one a bit.

Maybe you live in a "Moo-country" that's why you weren't aware of it. But it's a known fact by everyone's sisters and brothers and step moms' dogs that Canadians have long wait for service. Here's a little bit of Googling will do to ya:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html
http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_07mar2006_e
http://www.insurance-canada.ca/consinfohealth/infonews/2008/Ipsos-Reid-Healthcare-Wait-Times-801.php
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-XIE2006002.htm
http://canadaonline.about.com/od/healthcarecanada/a/waittimes.htm
...

 

[Avatar]

Maybe you live in a "Moo-country" that's why you weren't aware of it. But it's a known fact by everyone's sisters and brothers and step moms' dogs that Canadians have long wait for service. Here's a little bit of Googling will do to ya:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html
http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_07mar2006_e
http://www.insurance-canada.ca/consinfohealth/infonews/2008/Ipsos-Reid-Healthcare-Wait-Times-801.php
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-XIE2006002.htm
http://canadaonline.about.com/od/healthcarecanada/a/waittimes.htm
...

For doc appointments? Nuh-uh. Maybe you'd be waiting in line for an MRI, but not an appointment with your doc as you so strenuously asserted. You don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. I live here. I use the Medical system. And if it was as broken as you say I'd be the first one condemning it. What about that don't you get?

Yeah there are wait lists. Same as in the US. The difference is the reason for placement on the wait list between our two countries. In Canada its triage-style - those most needing of help get it first. (my Dad in 2000 went to the hospital complaining of abdominal pain in 2000. He was diagnosed with a tumour in his large intestine, and was operated on 2 days later - if he'd gone in complaining of a hernia it could welll have been 6 weeks before an operation) In the US those most able to pay get it first. Yeah, sign me up for your system.

And when did you take me off ignore? You made a big show of saying additions to your supposedly lengthy ignore list were permanent.

 

[SallyNow]

Maybe you live in a "Moo-country" that's why you weren't aware of it. But it's a known fact by everyone's sisters and brothers and step moms' dogs that Canadians have long wait for service. Here's a little bit of Googling will do to ya:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html
http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_07mar2006_e
http://www.insurance-canada.ca/consinfohealth/infonews/2008/Ipsos-Reid-Healthcare-Wait-Times-801.php
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-XIE2006002.htm
http://canadaonline.about.com/od/healthcarecanada/a/waittimes.htm
...

Did you read the pages posted? The average wait times are comparable to many middle-income families in developed nations, even in America, and in fact people who in America would not get treatment at all are able to get it or who must jump through red-tape hoops or insurance court battles would be able to get the treatment if they lived in Canada with a lot less hassle.

People with serious illnesses get first dibs, something that is pretty common pretty much everywhere, so yes, there can be waitlists for those with less serious ailments. If someone goes in to a hospital with stomach pain and it's appendicitis, they get treated right away. If someone goes in with stomach pain from indigestion, they get put on the waiting list to see a gastrenterologist, because the specialist has more serious cases to treat first.

From one of your own links:

In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. (Table 4, Table 5, Table 6)
...
While most reported waiting times as acceptable – some deemed their waits unacceptably long and some experienced adverse effects

From http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-XIE2006002.htm

Yes, wait times need to be reduced. But even the links you posted to show how dire the situation is shows that it isn't actually dire. It needs to be fixed, yes. But it's far from the idea that a person has to wait three months to see a family doctor when most can call up and get an appointment for that week, and specialists range from a few days to a few weeks.

In fact, anyone can go to a local walk-in clinic any day and get treatment for minor emergencies, like a few stitches or for treatment of a broken wrist or any variety of services. Same-day treatment is so common it's not even talked about as an issue.

The term "diagnostic tests" also needs to be defined: for instance, a person with a broken wrist gets an x-ray when they go in that day; blood tests can be done any time labs are open, as most of them are walk-in and open 5-7 days a week.

Dogs may know the "fact" that Canadians have "long waits" for services, but dogs also know the "fact" that it's fun to roll around in smelly kitchen waste.

Canada's system isn't perfect, but it isn't "in ruins" by any stretch. Some of the problems - such as joint replacement waiting lists - have as much to do with population changes as anything else.

 

[Illuminatus]

http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_07mar2006_e

From that page:
"most CT exams are for outpatient diagnostic purposes with typical waits of a few weeks, although some patients wait less or more time. In contrast, one in three patients requiring a CT exam are referred while in a hospital emergency department or inpatient bed. This group typically will have their exam on the day it was requested or the next day."

Same-day CT scans? My goodness, the wait.

"In 2005, half of the 1.5 million adults who had non-emergency surgery in the past year reported waiting 30 days or less, according to a Statistics Canada survey."

Less than a month for non-emergency surgery is not unreasonable.

"In 2003–2004, seven out of eight Canadians underwent surgery to repair a hip fracture within two days of being admitted to hospital, according to new CIHI analysis based on hospital administrative data."

Again, seven out of eight within two days is not unreasonable - I'm willing to bet that the average American couldn't even get insurance approval in that time.

 

[Illuminatus]

People with serious illnesses get first dibs, something that is pretty common pretty much everywhere, so yes, there can be waitlists for those with less serious ailments. If someone goes in to a hospital with stomach pain and it's appendicitis, they get treated right away. If someone goes in with stomach pain from indigestion, they get put on the waiting list to see a gastrenterologist, because the specialist has more serious cases to treat first.

This is an excellent point. The longest I've had to wait to see a specialist was about two months. However, my problem was decidedly non-acute. On the other hand, when I've needed referral to specialists for pressing problems, I've usually gotten in within a week.

In fact, anyone can go to a local walk-in clinic any day and get treatment for minor emergencies, like a few stitches or for treatment of a broken wrist or any variety of services. Same-day treatment is so common it's not even talked about as an issue.

The term "diagnostic tests" also needs to be defined: for instance, a person with a broken wrist gets an x-ray when they go in that day; blood tests can be done any time labs are open, as most of them are walk-in and open 5-7 days a week.

This is something that's definitely worth noting. I went to a local walk-in clinic last week to have a sore shoulder checked out. (My regular doctor's on vacation.) I got there around 7:45am, the clinic opened at 8, I saw a doctor by 8:15, had an xray by 8:45, followed up with the doctor and was out shortly after 9. The last time I was at the emergency room, I saw a doctor within half an hour.

Canada's system isn't perfect, but it isn't "in ruins" by any stretch. Some of the problems - such as joint replacement waiting lists - have as much to do with population changes as anything else.

Yes. The demographic shift towards the elderly that's occurring across North America is straining all healthcare systems. Canada is being struck particularly hard at the moment because provinces like Ontario suffered severe healthcare cutbacks during the 1990s, largely due to conservative governments that were aiming to introduce private healthcare. It's unfortunate that the rebuilding process is coming at the same time as the additional strain on the system, but things are slowly getting better.

 

[SallyNow]

This is an excellent point. The longest I've had to wait to see a specialist was about two months. However, my problem was decidedly non-acute. On the other hand, when I've needed referral to specialists for pressing problems, I've usually gotten in within a week.

I've never known anyone who's had to wait more than a few weeks. I've heard a horror story of a friend's grandma's cousin's wife who had to wait six months to get her hips replaced. (I'm not exagerating. That was what I was told) However, there was no talk about why her hips had to be replaced, or why the wait was so long. I later heard she had other underlying factors that caused the delay, and it had nothing to with lack of treatment or resources.

I know there are tragic stories out there of people who have to wait for months for treatment, but usually there's an underlying cause that has nothing to do with lack of access to care.

This is something that's definitely worth noting. I went to a local walk-in clinic last week to have a sore shoulder checked out. (My regular doctor's on vacation.) I got there around 7:45am, the clinic opened at 8, I saw a doctor by 8:15, had an xray by 8:45, followed up with the doctor and was out shortly after 9. The last time I was at the emergency room, I saw a doctor within half an hour.

Well, that's the benefit of the triage system that many Canadian E.R.s have, and in many other E.R.s around the world.

In the past few years I've had to take a few people to the E.R. for minor issues, and even on the busiest Saturday night, the wait was under 3 hours. Usually it's less than an hour.

There are times when E.R.s get swamped by suprise and end up with half-day waiting times for those with minor injuries. However, this isn't the norm.

Yes. The demographic shift towards the elderly that's occurring across North America is straining all healthcare systems. Canada is being struck particularly hard at the moment because provinces like Ontario suffered severe healthcare cutbacks during the 1990s, largely due to conservative governments that were aiming to introduce private healthcare. It's unfortunate that the rebuilding process is coming at the same time as the additional strain on the system, but things are slowly getting better.

Well, it's not only that many of the governments in the 90's didn't forsee the aging population, they didn't forsee that the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boomers would continue to lead active lives. We're not living the "good old days" when at 65 a person takes off their workclothes and sits in a rocker. Now, it's not uncommon to see people in their 60's jogging, people in their 80's on bicycles. With that comes a need for sports medicine and orthopedic surgery that wouldn't be needed if the over 60 set was docile.

Also, the previous generation of doctors is retiring, and as there are fewer Gen Xers there are fewer Gen X doctors, and my generation of doctors is just starting to get medical training.

As I said before, there are issues that need to be solved in the Canadian healthcare system, but it's still a good system.

 

[jamesrwright3]

I think that Illuminatus has a point.

Is anyone aware that the lack of rural doctors and rural hospitals in the US has been a serious problem for decades?

In the Florida county where I live, 20% of the population does not have health insurance. Some of those without insurance may be young people who assume they are healthy. Others may be unemployed and lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs. Some work for employers who don't provide any health insurance. Some may not be able to afford health insurance and some have applied and been denied by companies that make fabulous profits.

Even when Americans are lucky enough to have coverage it is likely to have huge holes. If you have diabetes and apply for health insurance, the company will stipulate that the policy does not cover diabetes. The same goes for any other condition you know you have. Again, this may be one reason that some choose to forego health insurance. Why pay steep rates for insurance when you already know that it won't cover your greatest health risk? Or costs you already know you are going to have?

In my case, my health insurance stipulates that it does not cover my kidneys. Why? When I was twelve years old a doctor said I had a kidney infection and prescribed penicillin. Today, if someone shoots me and a bullet passes through a kidney, my health insurance won't cover that.

I agree..Government should make discriminating for pre-existing conditions illegal or people with pre-existing conditions could buy into a separate government funded system..either way they need to be covered.

 

[Dale]

If the profit motive is necessary for medical innovation, why are most medical innovations the result of government grants? Or grants from Foundations?