Argus Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 A recent study of seven major industralized nations was not kind to Canada insofar as it's vaunted health care system goes. Canada recieved failing grades in virtually every category, and it's wait times were among the worst in the world. Ontario, despite doubling health funding over the last decade, has made only incremental improvements, with MRI wait times actually going UP, not down, and long, long hospital wait times which show no signs of improvement. It is clear that money alone is not going to change the system. What we need is a radical overhaul which centralizes planning and control, removing it from the provinces. There is just no way the separate provinces either have the money or organizational abilities to do anything about improving health care. Canadians are dissatisfied with health care, but the duality of who supplies and who pays for health care makes it difficult to hold anyone's feet to the fire. This is leading to a sort of blase acceptance that nothing to can be done about an incompetent, overspending system which produces poor health results. The final measure, quality, is the most troubling of all. The Commonwealth Fund defines high-quality care as “care that is effective, safe, co-ordinated and patient-centred.” Canada ranks dead last. Globe and Mail The report compared Canada with other countries 18 times in the text. These included two favourable comparisons and 16 unfavourable ones, including indictments for long waits, the poor management of chronic conditions (like diabetes), the lack of electronic systems, poor care coordination and the failure to involve patients in decisions about their care. Other countries, such as the U.K., scored better than Canada while spending a smaller share of their economy on health. And the U.K.’s system is actually more public than ours. Toronto Star In Canada, for example, provincial governments have been buying lots more MRIs and CT scanners, but the country remains far, far below the OECD average for both. Jeffrey Simpson Take the United States. Despite the heated political rhetoric north of the 49th parallel about American health care, their patients are more likely to survive cancer (66.3 per cent over five years for American men, but 58 per cent for Canadian men, based on recent data from national databases). Their outcomes are also better for heart attacks and transplants. And, based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health, Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses, and the poor under our public system seem to be less healthy relative to the non-poor than their American system Globe Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 Yeah AND IF the Feds kicked in the 50% they were suppose to instead of 16% we wouldn't have this problem. I blame the Liberals and Conservatives who downloaded the debt over the years. End of story. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 I heard that something needs to be done with our health care system, like introduce a fee to see a doctor. People are running to the Dr. when they have a runny nose, which is outrageous, if they were charged a fee maybe they'd think twice about it. Else by 2025 or some such $0.70 from every tax dollar collected will be going to health care if we continue on the road we're on now. Exempt from such a fee would be the our most vulnerable of coarse. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Handsome Rob Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 I heard that something needs to be done with our health care system, like introduce a fee to see a doctor. People are running to the Dr. when they have a runny nose, which is outrageous, if they were charged a fee maybe they'd think twice about it. Else by 2025 or some such $0.70 from every tax dollar collected will be going to health care if we continue on the road we're on now. Exempt from such a fee would be the our most vulnerable of coarse. Wholeheartedly agree. My last trip to the ER was an exacto blade netting 5 stitches in the hand. I was waiting for over two hours, by the time I was seen, their was a puddle of blood on the floor, through the gauze the nurse gave me. 5 other people in the waiting room, I was the only one bleeding, their was one case of a sore throat I heard about, didn't catch any of the others. Didn't see a single ambulance come in with lights on. Quote
William Ashley Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 (edited) I think we need to look at a couple factors: Chronic Illness Death Rate Instances of maiming or injury aggravation (lower level of care) due to medical intervention ----------------- There are serious issues with the institutionalization of the medical sector -subscribership is better as long as the government has a health insurance plan that is an alternative to private plans. People need not buy the government insurance plan - BUT they have to have one. With people under the poverty line getting a subsidy basic package. Residents would also have to buy a plan. There would be a temporary plan fee on visas - for air lift out of country, or emergency care to a certain amount - where travel insurance wasn't taken. This really ought to be a provincial politics issue though, not federal. The Federal government should only set health standards for imports, or territorial needs. Or in industries on federal territories - provinces should set health standards for the provinces - or residential health codes. The federal government really ought to not conduct this - except for research and crown corporation purposes eg. running for profit crown hospitals. Health insurance shows itself NOT ONLY to be profitable, but to keep costs down for "routine care". Costs will only go up and up with a larger aged population. It ain't wrong to keep them alive, but if they are passing on thousands to their children while joe blow is paying for their hip replacement surgery it doesn't seem right. Let the wealthy pay for their own medical costs. I also advocate for removal of personal income taxes - that would more than offset a health insurance plan costs. Edited July 20, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Smallc Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 This is but one study though. There are others that rank Canada much higher (such as the suvery from a few years ago measuring prevetino of death). Wait times though, still are a problem,and need to be improved. Quote
nicky10013 Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 I don't doubt that there's a problem with the system but the hard thing about this is what is the answer? First of all I think we need to look at what the NHS system in the UK and the French system do right, because they're continually rated the highest in the world. Quote
nicky10013 Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 I think we need to look at a couple factors: Chronic Illness Death Rate Instances of maiming or injury aggravation (lower level of care) due to medical intervention ----------------- There are serious issues with the institutionalization of the medical sector -subscribership is better as long as the government has a health insurance plan that is an alternative to private plans. People need not buy the government insurance plan - BUT they have to have one. With people under the poverty line getting a subsidy basic package. Residents would also have to buy a plan. There would be a temporary plan fee on visas - for air lift out of country, or emergency care to a certain amount - where travel insurance wasn't taken. This really ought to be a provincial politics issue though, not federal. The Federal government should only set health standards for imports, or territorial needs. Or in industries on federal territories - provinces should set health standards for the provinces - or residential health codes. The federal government really ought to not conduct this - except for research and crown corporation purposes eg. running for profit crown hospitals. Health insurance shows itself NOT ONLY to be profitable, but to keep costs down for "routine care". Costs will only go up and up with a larger aged population. It ain't wrong to keep them alive, but if they are passing on thousands to their children while joe blow is paying for their hip replacement surgery it doesn't seem right. Let the wealthy pay for their own medical costs. I also advocate for removal of personal income taxes - that would more than offset a health insurance plan costs. Ethically I don't want for profit anything to do with our health care system. Period. Secondly, I'm of the opposite opinion. I think that the federal government should completely take over the health care system. Having one administrator instead of 10 improves efficiency, ensures the same level of care for all Canadians and can move health services to where they're needed most. A lot of people who have problems are in rural areas. I live in Toronto. A couple years back I had to have a CT scan and I got one within a week. My dad had an MRI and got one incredibly quickly as well, though I can't remember the time frame. I know someone who played soccer for our high school soccer team when I was in grade 12 blew out her knee and had one the same day. That just doesn't happen in other parts of the country. Quote
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 I don't doubt that there's a problem with the system but the hard thing about this is what is the answer? First of all I think we need to look at what the NHS system in the UK and the French system do right, because they're continually rated the highest in the world. Accept the UK said and I quote "We will look to Canada and the cuts they made in the 90s to bring our budget gaps down" you can have an amazing system when running huge deficits but they are going to start cutting. They will have our system soon. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 I've had some personal experience with one of our local hospitals over the past few decades. It used to be routine at the St. Joseph's Hospital here in Hamilton to wait several hours before even getting to see the triage nurse, the first step in the process. One visit brought home to me just how detached the "upper management" seemed to be from the front line situation. They fired the parking lot attendant for the emergency room parking lot and put in meters instead. The meters had a 1 hour maximum time limit so you can guess the obvious. You'd see a steady stream of people having to leave their place in line to go out and feed the meter. Local citizens were used to this and it was the custom to hold someone's place in line. The unfortunate thing was those patrons who had no one with them and had to go out to their meter themselves. Often they were in much pain and discomfort and didn't need the extra aggravation. The only attention I could see that the "upper management" gave was to put a bill changer machine on the waiting room wall, in order to provide change for the meter! Through multiple visits I can't recall ever getting through a visit to emergency in less than 8 hours. A few years ago my wife was running a very high and prolonged fever so off we went again! Right away I noticed they had done some changes. There was an entry machine to give you a waiting ticket to see the triage nurse! There were two triage stations but of course only one was manned. It did not appear that the second one had ever actually been opened, come to think of it. Anyhow, there was a fancy LED sign over the nurse to show the number being processed. "Great!" I thought. "They've advanced as far as a supermarket deli! Take a number!" The process did speed things up. We saw the triage nurse in about 15 minutes. However, all this meant was that we were admitted to a second, inner waiting room. Everyone there was waiting just as long if not longer than before! I will admit that at least to get a triage decision within 15 minutes was a huge improvement. Previously there had been an incident where a patient bled to death in the waiting room, waiting to be seen. Probably that was what had prompted the new changes. Anyhow, my wife was in much pain and I had asked if it was alright for her to have a Tylenol or something. The nurse said it was ok so I went off to the hospital pharmacy and bought the most expensive small bottle of such pills I had ever bought in my life! My wife took a couple and in 30 minutes or so the fever had dropped somewhat and she felt a bit better. Taking the Tylenol proved to be a mistake. About an hour later a nurse came by for another quick triage checkup. She quickly moved on and began to take patients who had come in after my wife. I was a bit puzzled when a nearby lady who had been watching whispered over to us "Did your wife take any fever pills?" When I admitted that she had the lady said "Oh dear! You see, when the fever goes down you move into a "safe" category and you become a lesser priority. It makes you wait longer!" Straight out of a Kafka novel! My wife didn't take another pill. Sure enough, when the nurse came back an hour and a half later the fever was up and my wife was then sent to an actual doctor! They admitted my wife right away to a bed in the actual hospital. It was then that things moved into high gear. Suddenly a doctor appeared an introduced herself as a specialist in respiratory diseases. My wife had a battery of tests over several more hours. Finally (over 8 hours later in total, naturally) she was allowed to go home with some prescriptions. We came out to find a parking ticket on our windshield. Afterwards we realized why she had had a respiratory specialist. This was in the middle of the SARS epidemic! My wife did have some of the symptoms. Fortunately, she didn't as the long delay before she actually got some attention could have been quite dangerous. I didn't give the system any credit. The delays were obviously NOT because someone had decided she didn't have SARS! For the longest time I thought that the problem was not money but brains! It really seemed that the changes at the hospital were lacking in common sense. They seemed cosmetic rather than attempts at truly improving wait times. It took me a while to realize that things DID make sense if I redefined my initial premise. They weren't trying to actually improve wait times! They were trying to make it APPEAR they were improving things by making the system look more modern and seem more complicated! This would get some political pressure off their back! People would be dazzled by LED marquee signs and more rooms with people buzzing around. Unless you went through the process yourself you would never know that the wait times were no shorter than before! Putting more money into their budgets just seems like a way to pay them more for doing the same. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Sir Bandelot Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 The problem is clear and obvious, and will not be dealt with by adding more money- Too many beaurocrats and administrators making 6-figure incomes, for desk jobs. Too many incompetent managers who only care about progressing up the ladder, to get those desk jobs. Too many lazy-assed unionized workers who don't give a damn about doing their jobs. Simply too many hogs at the trough. From a person who has worked inside the system now for almost 25 years. Quote
Bryan Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 Count me as one who's never seen these wait times. Not for me or my family. We've always gotten remarkably fast service, almost always a lot quicker than I'm expecting. Last trip to emergency saw me taken right in, assessed, stitched up, and back in my car in under an hour. Last incident of low back pain got me a same day specialist appointment, a one hour wait for x-rays, and a two day wait for an MRI. I wrote about some of my previous experiences in this thread: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9417&st=180&p=235517entry235517 The only things that have changed for me since I wrote that is The Provincial NDP took over Pan Am Sports Medicine Clinic and turned it into a geriatric care centre. That's OK though, because Legacy Sports stepped up to fill that gap, and they're providing as good if not better service than Pan Am ever did. Quote
Smallc Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 Count me as another person who has never had to wait too long (or anyone in my family). I have seen it hapen to others though...almost all of it to do with MRI Quote
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 Me to actually. I have never waited excessively for treatment or surgery. Quote
Argus Posted July 20, 2010 Author Report Posted July 20, 2010 The standard wait time for a non critical visit to the ER in the Ottawa area is about 10 hours. And things are so bad across the river in Gatineau that they come HERE to avoid the long waits THERE. The wait time for a non-critical MRI about a year. Not sure about other procedures. I once had severe wrist pain I thought might be something related to or signs of approaching Carpel Tunnel Syndrome, and I had to wait 3 months to see a specialist to test for that. My doctor said just take pain pills till then and try not to use my wrist so much. Point is McGuinty has doubled spending on health care and there are no visible results. The health care system is a black hole which will devour every single penny of taxpayer money and show little in the way of improvements unless there are systemic changes in how things are run. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 20, 2010 Author Report Posted July 20, 2010 The problem is clear and obvious, and will not be dealt with by adding more money- Too many beaurocrats and administrators making 6-figure incomes, for desk jobs. The ceo of the Ottawa Hospital, which was laying off nurses just days after canceling outpatient surgery due to - lack of nurses - makes twice the salary of the prime minister. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 The ceo of the Ottawa Hospital, which was laying off nurses just days after canceling outpatient surgery due to - lack of nurses - makes twice the salary of the prime minister. I agree making private health care zones so as to not have "socialized medicine" was the worst compromise Tommy ever struck with the doctors. It was also the only he could have done to get health care for all. Now that we see it is failing maybe we can actually take the private out of the system all together. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 I agree making private health care zones so as to not have "socialized medicine" was the worst compromise Tommy ever struck with the doctors. It was also the only he could have done to get health care for all. Now that we see it is failing maybe we can actually take the private out of the system all together. Yay! There is hope for those commie dreams yet, eh comrade? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 Yay! There is hope for those commie dreams yet, eh comrade? No there is hope in fixing our health care system because it is a human right. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 No there is hope in fixing our health care system because it is a human right. No it's not...not even a constitutional right in Canada. You have a lot of work to do for the proletariat, comrade. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 No it's not...not even a constitutional right in Canada. You have a lot of work to do for the proletariat, comrade. That is because it is in the provincial jurisdiction. However the Canadian constitution is a living document so you really can't say that. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 That is because it is in the provincial jurisdiction. However the Canadian constitution is a living document so you really can't say that. Yes I can....read the damn documents. Health care is not a right in Canada. Sorry comrade. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 (edited) double post. Edited July 20, 2010 by punked Quote
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 Yes I can....read the damn documents. Health care is not a right in Canada. Sorry comrade. Accept Chaoulli v. Quebec found health care as a right under section 7 of the Charter of rights and freedoms. Sorry you know nothing about Canada big guy. Quote
Moonbox Posted July 20, 2010 Report Posted July 20, 2010 Point is McGuinty has doubled spending on health care and there are no visible results. The health care system is a black hole which will devour every single penny of taxpayer money and show little in the way of improvements unless there are systemic changes in how things are run. That's about my view of things. Anytime I've been to emergency (for myself or for someone else) it's taken HOURS to be seen. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
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.