[BartSimpson]

Full title:

Canadians are one in a million -- while waiting for medical treatment


https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes ... 8d47803e7d

$1:

Canada's single-payer healthcare system forced over 1 million patients to wait for necessary medical treatments last year. That's an all-time record.

Those long wait times were more than just a nuisance; they cost patients $1.9 billion in lost wages, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think-tank.

Lengthy treatment delays are the norm in Canada and other single-payer nations, which ration care to keep costs down. Yet more and more Democratic leaders are pushing for a single-payer system -- and more and more voters are clamoring for one.


Indeed, three in four Americans now support a national health plan -- and a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that health care is the most important issue for voters in the coming election.

The leading proponent of transitioning the United States to a single-payer system is Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont's firebrand independent. If Sanders and his allies succeed, Americans will face the same delays and low-quality care as their neighbors to the north.

[llama66]

You wait for "elective" surgery, sure. I'd rather wait than owe tens of thousands for medical care. 10 years ago I suffered a Pulmonary Embolism. Is spent 4 days in hospital, 3 of those days were in Cardiac Care. I had 2 CT scans a number of D-Dime tests. I paid nothing. I shudder to think how much that would have cost me if we didn't have a single payer system. The system works.

[Zipperfish]

No system is perfect but Canada has higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates than the US. So, I don't agree that Canada has low quality care. Probably low quality compared to rich Americans, and high-quality compare3d to poor ones.

[fifeboy]

I got as far as Fraser Institute.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

No system is perfect but Canada has higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates than the US. So, I don't agree that Canada has low quality care. Probably low quality compared to rich Americans, and high-quality compare3d to poor ones.

My coworker just got back from Toronto a week ago and when we were out for a walk this morning she told me of her hospitalized elderly relative who can't get a bath even after a week in the hospital. The doctor informed her that this service is not provided in Canada. So she and some other ladies bathed the relative themselves after telling the hospital staff to fuck off when they objected. The doctor was just fine with this, by the way.

[llama66]

Odd. What hospital was she in? The PLC in Calgary had a bath or at least a shower in the room. Maybe its a safety thing? They don't want people losing consciousness and drowning?

I have trouble believing that Baths are not offered in Canada.

[BartSimpson]

She's out for lunch. When she gets back I'll ask her what hospital she is talking about.

[BartSimpson]

Etobicoke General Hospital. And this would have happened last week.

[llama66]

I wonder if it was in relation to her illness. I remember being told to bathe so I wouldn't get infection. Odd. Very Odd.

[Coach85]

Based on Bart's level of credibility and his overwhelming desire to shit on everything Canada, this story a likely without fact.

[llama66]

I don't think he's lying here. I'm thinking there is a medical reason why they said no to a bath. I suspect its to prevent her from drowning, were she to lose consciousness...

[peck420]

I don't think Bart is lying either, but for a different reasons.

The lack of information, and the BS excuse given to his friend, would be throwing some serious red flags up for me.

My single experience with this involves a person with dementia, and her persistent bouts of ablutophobia (fear of bathing). They stopped bathing her because the strain on her body was worse then the strain caused by not bathing her. It was, ultimately, for the best and she was able to pass with some dignity but, at no point were we not aware of why and how her treatments were being handled. And, never was the thought of "we don't cover that" ever mentioned.

That was at the U of A hospital, in Alberta.

[BartSimpson]

Thanks for the feedback. When I can I will ask more about the situation.

[Freakinoldguy]

We don't have "low" quality care. So, unless it's a life threatening emergency we have "slow" quality care which is 100% different.

Our health care system is in flux right now but it still gives people without vast amounts of money the best chance of survival and a decent quality of life. But, if we don't get a handle on it in the near future it's going to self destruct from overuse, abuse and cost.

Unfortunately the system wasn't designed to be the complete care system it has morphed into. It was designed to prevent people from going bankrupt or dying because they couldn't afford emergency costly health care for themselves or family members.

It was never designed to take care of people with non life threatening minor diseases and ailments that people could and should have taken care of themselves. It also wasn't designed as a first stop treatment facility for the mentally ill and drug addicted. So, somewhere somehow our health care system has morphed itself into this all encompassing feel good system that is supposed to be all things to all people but, the only thing it's doing at the moment is making some people rich while bankrupting gov'ts and individuals through higher and higher taxes.

We've gone to far to bring it back to it's original intent and now we're on the slippery slope so, all we can do is either continue paying more and more for less and less or, formally break it into a two tiered system for everything like some European countries do. Something I don't want to see but is almost inevitable.

[BartSimpson]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

We don't have "low" quality care. So, unless it's a life threatening emergency we have "slow" quality care which is 100% different.

Our health care system is in flux right now but it still gives people without vast amounts of money the best chance of survival and a decent quality of life. But, if we don't get a handle on it in the near future it's going to self destruct from overuse, abuse and cost.

Unfortunately the system wasn't designed to be the complete care system it has morphed into. It was designed to prevent people from going bankrupt or dying because they couldn't afford health care for themselves or family members.

It was never designed to take care of people with non life threatening minor diseases and ailments that people could and should have taken care of themselves. It also wasn't designed as a first stop treatment facility for the mentally ill and drug addicted. So, somewhere somehow our health care system has morphed itself into this all encompassing feel good system that is supposed to be all things to all people but, the only thing it's doing at the moment is making some people rich while bankrupting gov'ts and individuals.

We've gone to far to bring it back to it's original intent and now we're on the slippery slope so, all we can do is either continue paying more and more for less and less service or, formally break it into a two tiered system for everything like some European countries do. Something I don't want to see but is almost inevitable.

The primary limitation of socialized healthcare is always going to be economic. As much as it would be nice to be able to lavish first class resources on every patient the fact of the matter is that, for now, our societies can't bear the expense.

Perhaps as technology and medicine evolve we can make some headway to where even people like myself would support a national care system. But we're not there yet.