Smallc Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) I have had people in may family who were going to have to wait too long. They talked to their doctors and the appointments and procedures were often moved up. There is so much about her story that I find hard to believe, especially if she was losing her vision. Oh, and: http://www.mayoclinic.org/patientstories/story-339.html Edited July 27, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 We have a shortage of Child Neurologists in Manitoba. There is a very long wait for that particular specialist (and only that particular specialist). There is a serious case where a person was going to wait a year, and even the Health Minister worked to get it moved up or moved out of province. I find the story impossible to believe. She also lies. She says that she couldn't go to another doctor. That's not true, she could have gone to any doctor to get a second opinion and to get the appointment moved up. She said she had no diagnosis...yet when she brings one back nothing changes? Really? None of it makes any sense. If the story is true, then everything simply conspired to go wrong, but I really have trouble with this story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 I must ask you what I asked Smallc. What is your problem with someone who did not receive timely treatment in the Canadian system? If her story is true, I have no problem with it, and it should serve as an example of what needs improvement. I have a problem with her misrepresentation of our system based on her one case. I have a problem with what seems to be opportunism on her part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 The minor changes contravened the Canada Health Act. They were illegal while Alberta was receiving the CHT. You don't like the system, you've made your points (fact less and baseless as they are). Canadians like their system and they're willing to fight for it. You will have a real battle if you want to destroy the system. So I am not a Canadian? So those who want to make changes in an effort to improve it are not Canadian? This is what I was talking about earlier, the demonizing of your own countrymen, because they don't worship at the scared cow, and see the flaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 So I am not a Canadian? So those who want to make changes in an effort to improve it are not Canadian? This is what I was talking about earlier, the demonizing of your own countrymen, because they don't worship at the scared cow, and see the flaws. You are being crazy here. I bet if I said Canadians like their hockey you would not take issue with that even though every Canadian does not like hockey. A huge majority something like 85% of Canadians like their Health Care what Smallc said is right and you are just looking to pick at something. This is not demonizing there is small minority who would love the free market to do everything that goes with out saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 In Canada, the opinion of the Canadian people is what counts. Generally, Canadians share certain values. About 70 - 80% of us share a commitment to universal access to healthcare and our universal system. You are in the minority, because not only do you see the flaws (many of us see those), but you only see the flaws. Canadians overall experience a system that works. They sometimes want parts to work better, and so they fight for that needed change. They aren't going to go along with you in your quest to fundamentally change and dismantle the system though. Your opinion counts, but you're outvoted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) She had more than one condition. A cyst and a tumor. I appreciate you posting the difference between a cyst and a tumor and defining both for us.I must ask you what I asked Smallc. What is your problem with someone who did not receive timely treatment in the Canadian system? It is a sore point with a lot of people. Defending the system is ok but let's not defend it's faults. She should be compensated for the diagnosis because it could have been serious but she could have waited for the treatment so it's her problem I already covered this and she only had a cyst, the tumour diagnosis was a misdiagnosis. Is it just me or are we repeating ourselves? Edited July 27, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 In Canada, the opinion of the Canadian people is what counts. Generally, Canadians share certain values. About 70 - 80% of us share a commitment to universal access to healthcare and our universal system. You are in the minority, because not only do you see the flaws (many of us see those), but you only see the flaws.Canadians overall experience a system that works. They sometimes want parts to work better, and so they fight for that needed change. They aren't going to go along with you in your quest to fundamentally change and dismantle the system though. Your opinion counts, but you're outvoted. You are incorrect Canadians share citizenship, and my values do not make me anyless Canadian nor do yours make you any more Canadian. I take great exception to the labeling of Canadian values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Well that's fine. but overall Canadians share a set of values, and they don't mimic yours. It doesn't necessarily make you less Canadian, but it does remove you from the mainstream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Well that's fine. but overall Canadians share a set of values, and they don't mimic yours. It doesn't necessarily make you less Canadian, but it does remove you from the mainstream. So their are "mainstream" Canadians and "other" types of Canadians? Interesting..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 That's true of every society. Don't be obtuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) If her story is true, I have no problem with it, and it should serve as an example of what needs improvement. Only if her story is true though. I agree, it should serve as an example of what needs improvement. I have a problem with her misrepresentation of our system based on her one case. I have a problem with what seems to be opportunism on her part. Her case is her case. It doesn't misrepresent the system. It is opportunism on the part of the American opposition to Obama's health care initiative, not on her part, she has nothing to gain. We all agree we want the best in health care - should we defend being 30th? Shona Holmes' case highlights a problem in the Canadian system which no Canadian denies - long wait lists. Ms. Holmes may be lying through her teeth as some claim but saying so doesn't help us resolve the real problem of long wait lists, especially for potentially life threatening illnesses. I am not a proponent of socialized medicine. I see problems in our health care system, one of them being long wait lists and another being rising to mediocrity. The standards set by a universal health care system can only be of the minimal standard. So everyone will strive to meet the minimal standard and achieve, at best, mediocrity. Now I speak in general terms, so you may cite some exemplary situations in which all was done beyond the call of duty and excellence was achieved. But, what is the incentive to strive above the minimal standards? That is good enough isn't it? No one can complain - if they do, they are anti-Canadian. No entirely socialized system can achieve excellence. The French system offers private medical services. I think that is good because the bar is not set to meet minimal standards. The public system must strive to meet private standards of excellence. Perhaps this is the reason it is rated so high. The American system is the only system in the world where the government does not run health care. It heavily regulates it, which isn't great, but it isn't entirely a socialist system. In my view there is no system that is optimal and we still have to work it out. If you don't call our system to task we will never change and as it is, per your view, we are not looking for change, Canadians are happy with their health care, ay? How can we achieve excellence should be the question! Edited July 27, 2009 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 I am not a proponent of socialized medicine. Good thing you don't live in the United Kingdom then. We have a single payer system. Private delivery and public funding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 The standards set by a universal health care system can only be of the minimal standard. So everyone will strive to meet the minimal standard and achieve, at best, mediocrity. That makes no sense. We don't have to set low standards and we don't. Everyone strives to meet a standard, but it isn't necessarily minimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 So their are "mainstream" Canadians and "other" types of Canadians? Interesting..... Isn't it interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_ON Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Why? Have you made such a determination for any other non-compliant nations?Bopping seals on the head also needs to stop, but I have no say in the matter. Oh I'm certain you're not suggesting that the US never interferes in the affairs of other sovereign nations... Reversed your post WWII foreign policy have you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 I call complete bullshit on that. You cannot get a CAT scan or MRI the next day. Sorry. When I dislocated my hip, I got an MRI in less than an hour (in Manitoba). When my son got cross-checked head-first in the boards, he got one in about three hours (in Ontario). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Oh I'm certain you're not suggesting that the US never interferes in the affairs of other sovereign nations... Reversed your post WWII foreign policy have you? What?...Like specious geographical claims to the NorthWest Passage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 When I dislocated my hip, I got an MRI in less than an hour (in Manitoba). When my son got cross-checked head-first in the boards, he got one in about three hours (in Ontario). Precisely...It all depends on the severity of the issue...If one has a boo boo on ones finger,one does not go ahead of another having a brain hemmorage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Precisely...It all depends on the severity of the issue...If one has a boo boo on ones finger,one does not go ahead of another having a brain hemmorage... Jack, this view is just not logical! Just because one person has a good experience doesn't mean there are NO bad ones! Or the converse, for that matter. It just means that you yourself had ONE good experience! You can't plot a curve from one point! A LOT of people have had problems! Just because you personally did not, does that mean that anyone who claims he did must be either lying or a tool of the American lackeys of the bourgeoisie? Did they imagine what they experienced? I'm struck by the digital thinking of so many in this thread. It would seem that because there are so many good things about our system that there can't be ANY BAD! This is not logic or reason. This is just faith! Patriotic jingoism! Any system made by man will have flaws, ESPECIALLY one rooted in politics! The idea is to recognize faults and correct them, so that the system in question is constantly corrected and improved. To hide behind a wall of defensive pride and fear of admitting problems (especially in any comparisons with America!) is frankly juvenile. However, when we do fool ourselves in this way it sure lets a lot of politicians off the hook! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Yes. Free transportation to the Gulag. Government doesn't want to pay for these things - they like to appear alruistic but when it comes down to the crunch - see you later! Government heads, like Stalin, often suffer from hidden mental heath problems themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Oh I'm certain you're not suggesting that the US never interferes in the affairs of other sovereign nations... Reversed your post WWII foreign policy have you? Post WWII ?.....the intervention history goes back much farther than that. But while Canada has certainly done the same recently (e.g. Haiti, Afghanistan, Serbia).....it certainly will not prevail in pressuring US health care to joins its definition of the "developed world"....whatever that means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 its definition of the "developed world"....whatever that means. A definition gives meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 A definition gives meaning. A meaning gives definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 A meaning gives definition. "meaning" must have a definition first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.