This is why politicians and politically-appointed bureaucrats should not be running a health care system.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

1. I thought you said I'd have to wait but I get it I've heard that before. It won't change how I feel though and I want that to be closer to top of mind of the system's administrators. 

2. Good, I've definitely learned that being proactive when it comes to the health system helps.

3. The measure of any system's success is the buy-in it generates.  I'm not interested in breaking things that work.

4.  I'd probably be with the Vikings - they had some pretty cool boats.

1. Nobody believes change can happen.  That guarantees that it won't happen.  That's why I said two-tier has to guarantee significant overall improvements to wait times.  Enough so people notice.

2. You have to realize that when the government HAS to do something it happens.  Like a teenager the night of the big test, they get it together and pull off the all-nighter.  I saw this during Covid - makeshift vaccination centres, staffed by citizen volunteers... how did we do something so amazing and then just shrug that off ?

3.  Very wise indeed.  The life cycle of our systems seems to end in loooooong sloooooooooooow decay

4. It's always the boats with you.... My father-in-law is a pleasure sailor and I have come to appreciate the passtime.  Anchoring out in the middle of nowhere and the wife and kids jump in for a swim... quite a pleasure.  I am guessing you don't jump in on purpose very often on the high seas though...

Speaking of boats and fishing, I've only read a few books that cover that topic - one was Jaws, which was a yawner, the other being The Perfect Storm.  I'd recommend it... oops, gotta adjust the mainsail... the thread she's a driftin'

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Nobody believes change can happen.  That guarantees that it won't happen.  That's why I said two-tier has to guarantee significant overall improvements to wait times.  Enough so people notice.

2. You have to realize that when the government HAS to do something it happens.  Like a teenager the night of the big test, they get it together and pull off the all-nighter.  I saw this during Covid - makeshift vaccination centres, staffed by citizen volunteers... how did we do something so amazing and then just shrug that off ?

3.  Very wise indeed.  The life cycle of our systems seems to end in loooooong sloooooooooooow decay

4. It's always the boats with you.... My father-in-law is a pleasure sailor and I have come to appreciate the passtime.  Anchoring out in the middle of nowhere and the wife and kids jump in for a swim... quite a pleasure.  I am guessing you don't jump in on purpose very often on the high seas though...

Speaking of boats and fishing, I've only read a few books that cover that topic - one was Jaws, which was a yawner, the other being The Perfect Storm.  I'd recommend it... oops, gotta adjust the mainsail... the thread she's a driftin'

1. I don't know why, change is just as often the most constant thing.

I think what people would notice the most is a surge of doctors and nurses in the system. Why this still hasn't changed, like the lowering of provincial trade barriers, is almost verging on criminal given the great need.

2. I don't think everyone shrugged it off. I just think a lot of stupid people shit all over it.

3. From a fear of change I guess. My hope for change is probably best characterized by the lack of progress with doing away with DST. It's the perfect litmus test for revealing the likeliest outcome for government action.

4. Boats forever...and yes I have had to reluctantly jump over the side a couple of times on the open sea. Once to reattach a rudder, it was flat calm in the middle of the summer, a 1/4 mile from shore so not that bad.  The other time was in 3 meter seas in February while 10 miles off northern Vancouver Island. That really sucked. 

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. I don't know why, change is just as often the most constant thing.

2. I think what people would notice the most is a surge of doctors and nurses in the system. Why this still hasn't changed, like the lowering of provincial trade barriers, is almost verging on criminal given the great need.

3. I don't think everyone shrugged it off. I just think a lot of stupid people shit all over it.

4. From a fear of change I guess. My hope for change is probably best characterized by the lack of progress with doing away with DST. It's the perfect litmus test for revealing the likeliest outcome for government action.

5. Boats forever...and yes I have had to reluctantly jump over the side a couple of times on the open sea.

6. Once to reattach a rudder, it was flat calm in the middle of the summer, a 1/4 mile from shore so not that bad.  The other time was in 3 meter seas in February while 10 miles off northern Vancouver Island. That really sucked. 

1. For sure.  Our senses are attuned to looking for and somewhat expecting BIG changes.  Mostly bad.  The big SLOW changes happen under our feet and then we all of a sudden realize they're there.  Like... wars in Africa, population aging, infrastructure deterioration, Buffalo sports teams improving

2. Yes but the kind of surge that would elicit true recognition is probably a lot.  Improvement of wait times would likely happen more slowly but even then you might not notice for awhile.  Lowering of trade barriers: barely perceptible change.  

3. There was requisite applause for the 'health care workers' but that work was done by the faceless bureaucrats (somewhere) who constantly are blamed and never credited - no matter whether they deserve either.

4.  Sometimes big change happens quickly.  Look up the decline of Robert Moses, who ran New York City in a sense, until a strange little scandal involving Shakespeare in the Park brought him down out of nowhere.

5.  JFC that is my nightmare...  Did you ever see The Finest Hours - 2016 film ?  An actual historical sea rescue.. which I saw in big screen with full sound.  Terrifying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Finest_Hours_(2016_film)

6. You lived to tell the tale.  I can't look at a box of Fish Sticks without thinking of you.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1....Our senses are attuned to looking for and somewhat expecting BIG changes. Mostly bad. The big SLOW changes happen under our feet and then we all of a sudden realize they're there.  

2. Yes but the kind of surge that would elicit true recognition is probably a lot. Improvement of wait times would likely happen more slowly but even then you might not notice for awhile. Lowering of trade barriers: barely perceptible change. 

5.  JFC that is my nightmare...  Did you ever see The Finest Hours - 2016 film ?  An actual historical sea rescue.. which I saw in big screen with full sound.  Terrifying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Finest_Hours_(2016_film)
 

6. You lived to tell the tale. I can't look at a box of Fish Sticks without thinking of you.

1. & 2. I think people get this and also understand small changes can lead to an outcome larger than the input. But in the case of something like addressing the need to certify more drs and nurses everyone gets the sense there is a deliberate effort to resist changing the things that could make that happen. No one can see much progress at all.

It's like DST and trade-barrier hesitancy on steroids. This is the sort of stuff that could lead to populism, especially these days.

A potential for the bad change you mention

 

5. Sure did. I know those rescue boats well, I've driven one and while they're designed to be self-righting I took issue with the scene where the rescue boat turned into a submarine. It was as cringe worthy as many a Deadliest Catch episode - biggest drama queens on the Seven Seas.

6. Someone had to go retrieve the broken dicky-line so we could bring the cod-end around the side of the boat. I was the youngest newest guy on board so I got elected.

There were 85000 lbs in the net so it's possible you bought some as fish-sticks. Instead of a half-share I was paid a full-share. 👍

 

Edited January 20 by eyeball

[blackbird]

ER physicians say recent string of deaths indicative of decades of provincial neglect | Watch

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

ER physicians say recent string of deaths indicative of decades of provincial neglect | Watch

Also voter neglect...

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also voter neglect...

Don't expect politicians or voters to know how to run an efficient health care system.  They have long proven they simply can't do it.  For starters, voters have no real control over health care through the ballot box.  That's not how health care can be run.  It never has worked and never will.

Our health care system is run on the principle that the elected government contributes X amount of dollars to it and it theoretically gives equal access or care to everyone regardless of income or wealth.  However, that has never worked out in practice for many reasons. 

Politicians believe they have done all they can do, and whatever happens in the system is beyond their control and responsibility.  As long as it says on paper somewhere, that healthcare is available to everyone equally, they wash their hands of it.  The thousands that are dying on waiting lists every year and millions that don't have a family doctor is not their fault as far as they're concerned.  They have obeyed the decree that as long as a public system exists, everyone has equal access to it regardless of income.  Even if the system is a farce, they believe they have done their duty.  That's Canada.

Edited January 22 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

1. Don't expect politicians or voters to know how to run an efficient health care system.  They have long proven they simply can't do it.  For starters, voters have no real control over health care through the ballot box.  That's not how health care can be run.  It never has worked and never will.

2.  However, that has never worked out in practice for many reasons. 

3. Politicians believe they have done all they can do, and whatever happens in the system is beyond their control and responsibility.  As long as it says on paper somewhere, that healthcare is available to everyone equally, they wash their hands of it.  The thousands that are dying on waiting lists every year and millions that don't have a family doctor is not their fault as far as they're concerned.  They have obeyed the decree that as long as a public system exists, everyone has equal access to it regardless of income.  Even if the system is a farce, they believe they have done their duty.  That's Canada.

1. Very true.  And yet, since we have no 'market' as such we have to somehow connect the public with healthcare management.  The ballot box is too limited a device.

2. I would say that it worked better in the past, and with competent management could work again.  Other countries do better, in terms of results and costs.

3. Once again you have accurate observations, but don't go deeper into underlying reasons.  We need to have a group of people, a dedicated subset of THE public, that can do that and monitor the system, as it undergoes drastic reform.

[Barquentine]

On 1/20/2026 at 2:38 PM, eyeball said:

People with life-threatening conditions, no matter who they are, should be at or as close to the front of the line as possible.

From personal experience and what I have observed they are. Problems and mistakes in ERs are a different topic.

[blackbird]

On 1/20/2026 at 9:47 AM, eyeball said:

I suggest we fire most of the people who are doing the certifying, licensing and maintaining the integration barriers.

Most people working in the health care system are strongly protected by their associations and political apparatus.  I doubt anyone ever gets fired no matter how bad the decisions they make.  

I have a question for the health authorities and the minister of health as well as the Premier.

If an emergency room says it is going to close in the coming weekend, why do the authorities not order one or more doctors from a nearby town or city, maybe a hundred or several hundred kilometers away, to get packed and go to that town to fill in the short-staffed ER department?  Why are doctors not required to fill in urgent needs on a temporary basis?  In many other occupations, employees are required to travel to fill in for urgent positions.  What is so special about doctors that they do not?   Who is in control, the health care authorities or the doctors?  I think we know the answer.

Edited January 22 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

By asking such questions, we're identifying ourselves here as a public interest group. 🤔

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

From personal experience and what I have observed they are. Problems and mistakes in ERs are a different topic.

That's been my experience. During my near bout with death I went from check in to beep beep beep and a couple doctors scratching their heads over me in the ICU within about 45 minutes.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Most people working in the health care system are strongly protected by their associations and political apparatus.  I doubt anyone ever gets fired no matter how bad the decisions they make.  

Well, don't tell the COVID conspiracy people that. Apparently thousands were fired, drummed out and had their bank accounts seized...some probably even got a double tap to the head.

But seriously, it's these very associations and physician colleges and such who've been given responsibility for certifying  new practitioners. What or who are these protecting by withholding certificates? The public?  It's kind of hard to make that case given how much suffering is due to shortages. Are we to believe there'd be worse suffering if there was a surge of new health professionals into the system?

Are certifiers protecting doctors from competition, their own little fiefdoms...what?

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I have a question for the health authorities and the minister of health as well as the Premier.

If an emergency room says it is going to close in the coming weekend, why do the authorities not order one or more doctors from a nearby town or city, maybe a hundred or several hundred kilometers away, to get packed and go to that town to fill in the short-staffed ER department?

Why are doctors not required to fill in urgent needs on a temporary basis? In many other occupations, employees are required to travel to fill in for urgent positions. What is so special about doctors that they do not? 

Probably because doctors and nurses are not public employees who can just be dispatched like a highways or hydro crew to effect repairs on something.

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Who is in control, the health care authorities or the doctors?  I think we know the answer.

Really? There's thousands of unemployed doctors and waiting patients who would sure like to know.

[herbie]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

By asking such questions, we're identifying ourselves here as a public interest group. 🤔

Not by posing questions with a 'common ground' in that the conditions of the opening statement are true.
Then asking it of people with no actual knowledge regarding the question asked, and worse exempting those that do from answering.

In this case the conclusion is the opening statement. It is not a question at all. It is being made to an audience of whom none are politicians, political appointees, health care professionals or bureaucrats. Further it asks that you rule any input by those mentioned above as invalid.

IOW cheap hackery and ragebait. No answer, further discussion, or counter argument actually wanted,

 

[Michael Hardner]

59 minutes ago, herbie said:

Not by posing questions with a 'common ground' in that the conditions of the opening statement are true.
Then asking it of people with no actual knowledge regarding the question asked, and worse exempting those that do from answering.

In this case the conclusion is the opening statement. It is not a question at all. It is being made to an audience of whom none are politicians, political appointees, health care professionals or bureaucrats. Further it asks that you rule any input by those mentioned above as invalid.

IOW cheap hackery and ragebait. No answer, further discussion, or counter argument actually wanted,

 

Regardless, it's a germ of a group.

 

There may well be some professional types who know, but there will be smart people who can help with answers.