"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a849ed2@news.povray.org...
> On 08/13/09 17:24, somebody wrote:

> > magically become better or worse because it's public or private. Health
care
> > in both USA and Canada stinks, and the latter is public (and arguably
stinks
> > more, since well to do Canadians rely on USA for their timely health
care
> > needs). Granted, the private vs public or how much of each is a major
>
> And the Americans rely on India for their timely health care needs as
well.
>
> Your point?

That both systems/implementations are flawed.

> I have an article sitting around here somewhere that claims that in
> Canada (or at least some of the provinces) if someone gets put on a very
> long waiting list, and the doctor feels that it could be really
> dangerous/fatal to wait that long, they're allowed to seek treatment
> elsewhere (e.g. US) and get refunded.
>
> Can't find a way to confirm it...

Possible in some life threatening cases. But health care is not just about
keeping dying people alive. Quality of life should be a big part of health
care. With limited and mismanaged resources, Canada has no option but to act
retroactively and in panic mode, keep pushing life threatening conditions to
the front of the long and growing wait lines. In the meantime, some in the
months or years long list either progress to the point of becoming life
threatening (a mixed blessing, for then they will be pushed to the front),
or if they are wealthy enough, or if they value their quality of life, seek
threatment out of the country with out of pocket expenses. Late treatment in
this manner is a losing battle.

Recently publicized story (and sometimes mis-publicized as a life
threatening case):

http://www.mayoclinic.org/patientstories/story-339.html

Sure, it's not life threatening, but if I were in her shoes, I'd not wait to
risk blindness either, not should I be expected to, in a developed country.

Besides the obvious months and years long waiting lists (6 months for MRI,
another 2-3 years for surgery is fairly common for knee surgeries, for
instance), and risks associated with late diagnosis and threatment, the
inability for a sizeable portion in some provinces of Canadians to have
access to family practicioners also overburderns an already stretched system
when patients are more or less left to use emergency rooms for diagnosis.

> The point being that the long wait times are not necessarily due to
> shortage of money, but due to shortage of doctors.

And where exactly do shortage of doctors and nurses come from? Are we saying
Canadian students are inherently dumber than their US counterparts and
cannot finish medical school? Of course not, it's mismanagement and/or
shortage of money. Many doctors and nurses move south of the border because
they can make more money, work under better conditions (which comes back to
money)... etc. Like it or not, money is what makes the world go around.

> And just as an FYI, health care in Canada is almost completely private.
> It's merely government funded. Doctors don't work for the government,
> though.

True (but it's more complicated - much of drugs, vision or dental care are
not government funded either, and government funding also brings government
regulation, of course, so it's not "merely" funded by government), but the
difference may be without distinction anyway. I don't believe Canada's
health care problems are due to doctors not working directly under
government payroll. Either implementation could be made to work equally
well, should there be enough money and good management.

Post a reply to this message