Canada's health care system sucks

[Shady]

Pregnant Canadian woman miscarries after 3 hours in waiting room.

Peakes woman loses her baby, dignity while awaiting hospital treatment

There she waited more than three hours, blood seeping out of her jeans, tears rolling down her face as she feared she was losing her baby — or that she might be bleeding to death.

Still, she waited and waited.

Link

[Shady]

1 France

France has a system of universal health care largely financed by government through a system of national health insurance.

That's a pretty bad mischaracterization of the France healthcare system. You've completely disregarded the private aspects of it, probably on purpose, because it doesn't fit with your premise.

[punked]

Pregnant Canadian woman miscarries after 3 hours in waiting room.

The funny thing here is Shady found this story on the Drudge report, and the women had no real issue with the wait she seems mad she didn't get a room. Like it or not after the miscarriage starts there is no saving the child, and the mother was in no danger. Her situation is terrible but should she have gone in front of someone whos life was in danger?

Edited August 3, 2010 by punked

[punked]

That's a pretty bad mischaracterization of the France healthcare system. You've completely disregarded the private aspects of it, probably on purpose, because it doesn't fit with your premise.

Yeah in France you pay taxes for healthcare then you have to go out AND BUY Health insurance. The worst of both worlds.

[Shady]

The funny thing here is Shady found this story on the Drudge report

What's funny? Is the story any less true? Nope.

and the women had no real issue with the wait she seems mad she didn't get a room.

Only in punked's world does a person bleeding profusely not care about waiting 3 hours. It's nice to see you speak on her behalf. Keep defending the indefensible. It's humorous and disgusting all at the same time.

[punked]

What's funny? Is the story any less true? Nope.

Only in punked's world does a person bleeding profusely not care about waiting 3 hours. It's nice to see you speak on her behalf. Keep defending the indefensible. It's humorous and disgusting all at the same time.

She says in the article you did not read "the issues is they had me in the waiting room, they could have given me a room anywhere so I did not have to go through this in the waiting room." Now if they had a integrated telephone system like in NS she could have called and they would have told her that she could have gone through the miscarriage in home with her husband because there is nothing anyone can do for that.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/08/03/ns-telehealth-line-year-one.html

I know you would rather have a system where if she can pay she SHOULD go ahead of the child who is bleeding to death who doesn't have any money even though there was nothing any medical professional could do for her.

We agree the system is Under funded maybe those 50 billion in tax cuts from Harper for big business was a terrible idea after all.

Edited August 4, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

She says in the article you did not read "the issues is they had me in the waiting room, they could have given me a room anywhere so I did not have to go through this in the waiting room."

I don't see how that means she was ok with waiting 3 hours. Nice try.

she could have gone through the miscarriage in home with her husband because there is nothing anyone can do for that.

The point is that they didn't know it was a miscarriage until after the fact. What if it had been something else genius?

We agree the system is Under funded maybe those 50 billion in tax cuts from Harper for big business was a terrible idea after all.

The system is broken. Pouring more money in a system that doesn't work doesn't solve the long term problems. There's many ways that wait times could be shortenend without more money. But you people don't want that. You people want government to continue its iron grip on our healthcare.

Your solution to healthcare problems seems to be that people should die quickly.

[Smallc]

The system is broken. Pouring more money in a system that doesn't work doesn't solve the long term problems.

The only thing that will fix the system is money and people. There is nothing else that can fix it. There is enough money now, there just isn't enough people.

A system that allows everyone the same access isn't broken at all. There's nothing wrong with the system itself.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Smallc

[punked]

I don't see how that means she was ok with waiting 3 hours. Nice try.

The point is that they didn't know it was a miscarriage until after the fact. What if it had been something else genius?

The system is broken. Pouring more money in a system that doesn't work doesn't solve the long term problems. There's many ways that wait times could be shortenend without more money. But you people don't want that. You people want government to continue its iron grip on our healthcare.

Your solution to healthcare problems seems to be that people should die quickly.

If they had a telehealth system like the other maritime provinces they could have called and a qualified health care professional could have told it was a miscarriage (any healthcare professional could have told them what it was, they diagnosed it as soon as she came in to the emrg there is a reason she waited) and what they should have done. The problem isn't the health care system itself it is that some provinces do not want to spend the money to bring their health care system in the 21st century. 40,000 visits to Emrg rooms were prevented in NS year due to the system. (BTW this is a way wait times have been shortened. See real solutions not Shady's crap about how US PEOPLE don't want it fixed.)

YOU DON'T SEE WHY SHE WAITED 3 HOURS WHEN NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE FOR HER WHILE PEOPLE WHO WERE DYING WENT AHEAD OF HER?!?!

Taking money out of the system in the 90s is what broke it so yes putting that money back into the system is going to help it. It has to be updated and streamlined. It does not have to gutted even the US saw that there shitty system was broke and they changed it.

My solution is to have an adult discussion about it. About its costs and what it means. It isn't about making up buggy men, lying about death panels or being an idiot. Yes the Health care system can be better but we have very different ideas on how to get there.

People that actually need help die in wait rooms all around the world. Sorry to hear this happened to this women it would not have happened if they had an telephone system like NS.

http://www.naturalnews.com/028993_waiting_room_hospital.html

Edited August 4, 2010 by punked

[Bonam]

A system that allows everyone the same access isn't broken at all.

Umm, equality of access is not the only and I would argue not even the most important feature of a system to qualify it as "not broken". Quality and promptness of service are of greater importance.

I'd much rather 50% of people get great care and 50% of people get only fair care rather than 100% of people get poor care, even though the latter system "allows everyone the same access".

(Note: this is just hypothetical, not about Canada).

Edited August 4, 2010 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Well, I was leaving unstated there the idea that everyone would get at least a fair level of care, which is what we have now.

[Bonam]

Well, I was leaving unstated there the idea that everyone would get at least a fair level of care, which is what we have now.

So would you prefer a system where:

1) 50% of people get great care and 50% get "fair" care

or

2) 100% of people get "fair" care

[Smallc]

So would you prefer a system where:

1) 50% of people get great care and 50% get "fair" care

or

2) 100% of people get "fair" care

I would prefer that we strive for everyone to get great care, and not be happy with such inequality. I would obviously prefer the second system with the included condition that we try to get everyone to the stage where they're getting great care.

This is a bit different direction than I was looking though.

[Bonam]

I would prefer that we strive for everyone to get great care, and not be happy with such inequality. I would obviously prefer the second system with the included condition that we try to get everyone to the stage where they're getting great care.

This is a bit different direction than I was looking though.

See this is where we disagree. I think the first system is clearly better, when half of pesople can get great care and the other half still gets the fair care that they would have gotten with the first system. A system that is "trying to get everyone to the stage where they're getting great care" would naturally move through a period where great care is available to more and more people more of the time but not yet to everyone all of the time.

My main disagreement with you is on your emphasis on "equality" as one of / the primary yardstick of the success of a system.

That is, if we could get more people better healthcare in Canada by allowing a private health system that could exist in parallel with our public one, even if this reduced "equality of access" in the process, I would support that.

[Smallc]

That is, if we could get more people better healthcare in Canada by allowing a private health system that could exist in parallel with our public one, even if this reduced "equality of access" in the process, I would support that.

And I wouldn't, because firstly, there's no reason to believe we could get more people better care that way, and second, such a system supposes that the health of some (those who can afford a higher standard of care - which can be found in the public system anyway) is more important.

Also, people like you would then declare the uselessness of the public system. You would say that people should have to pay for their own care, and if they can't we have no obligation to help them.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Smallc

[punked]

So would you prefer a system where:

1) 50% of people get great care and 50% get "fair" care

or

2) 100% of people get "fair" care

This isn't the way it is. The choice is.

1) A system where 5% of people get great care, 50% get fair care, 30% get shitty care and 15% get no care.

Or

2) 100% get the care they need to live a healthy life.

See what happens when you frame the question I pick option 2 BTW.

[Smallc]

See what happens when you frame the question I pick option 2 BTW.

Yes, I was also going to mention that. The system he mentions is a fairy tale...or a public system run well with urban people generally getting better care than those in rural areas simply by nature of geography and population.

[punked]

Yes, I was also going to mention that. The system he mentions is a fairy tale...or a public system run well with urban people generally getting better care than those in rural areas simply by nature of geography and population.

If it was as simple as he made it there wouldn't be a debate at all which is why he made the question simple. In the real world the question is complex with many variables. I always remember that while the system is far from perfect there is a reason why the system he talks about we got rid of long ago.

[Bonam]

If it was as simple as he made it there wouldn't be a debate at all which is why he made the question simple. In the real world the question is complex with many variables. I always remember that while the system is far from perfect there is a reason why the system he talks about we got rid of long ago.

And yet the system I talk about (a combination of public and private) exists and is quite successful in several European countries, which are routinely cited as ahead of Canada in terms of their quality of health care.

[Bonam]

Also, people like you would then declare the uselessness of the public system. You would say that people should have to pay for their own care, and if they can't we have no obligation to help them.

What? People who hold this opinion are not stopped from expressing it by the fact of our system's existence...

[punked]

And yet the system I talk about (a combination of public and private) exists and is quite successful in several European countries, which are routinely cited as ahead of Canada in terms of their quality of health care.

And those cost more. In France you pay taxes and most people have private insurance through their place of employment, however this deters employers from hiring on more people to pay health care costs.

You get what you pay for and all systems have their draw backs.

Edited August 4, 2010 by punked

[Bonam]

And those cost more.

You get what you pay for and all systems have their draw backs.

Sure, better things cost more. If I ever have a serious health issue, I have nothing against paying more to get the best care possible.

[Wilber]

There are other problems than just money. My mother is in hospital right now with a serious infection. She was in for the same thing a couple of months ago, was diagnosed, given antibiotics and sent home. What amazed me is that after the first time no follow up was scheduled, nor was her family doctor informed so that he could do one. You might say that was up to her to arrange but you can only expect so much from a 92 year old. Bottom line is she is now spending three days in hospital undergoing aggressive treatment for her condition. They did it cheap and dirty the first time and it is ending up costing the system a lot more because of it, not to mention the stress, wear and tear on someone who is least equipped to deal with it.

[capricorn]

Sorry to hear that Wilber. Hope your mom gets well soon.

[Bonam]

There are other problems than just money. My mother is in hospital right now with a serious infection. She was in for the same thing a couple of months ago, was diagnosed, given antibiotics and sent home. What amazed me is that after the first time no follow up was scheduled, nor was her family doctor informed so that he could do one. You might say that was up to her to arrange but you can only expect so much from a 92 year old.

I also hope she gets better.

However, and I guess this isn't a very nice thing to point out but oh well, one might also say that it was up to an able family member to arrange, her son perhaps...