Death, Canadian Style

[Michael Tee]

<<It's simple. As the market-oriented Fraser Institute in Vancouver, B.C., can tell you, Canada's vaunted "free" government health-care system cannot or deliberately will not provide its 33 million citizens with the nonemergency health care they want and need when they need or want it.>>

That's an old story.  You wait longer for elective surgery than an American with a decent health plan waits for his or hers.  That's just the cost of making sure that everybody in the country is covered and that the essentials - - the stuff that just can't wait - - is dealt with in a timely manner for everybody.

<<Average wait from time of referral to treatment by a specialist -- 17.8 weeks.
<<Shortest waiting time -- oncology, 4.9 weeks.>>

And again that is somewhat misleading - - if a GP thinks that there is a life-threatening or serious matter developing that needs immediate attention, the referral to the specialist is immediate.  Same day or next day for really urgent cancer cases, and I know this from personal stories of friends and relatives.  The average wait times are relatively meaningless since the average visit is non-urgent anyway.  I don't know if there's a measuring technique for waiting times in urgent cases, but if there were, that's the measure that ought to be employed.

BTW, whoever made that "waist-deep in snow" comment (probably plane) really oughtta check out some basic geography - - 90% of our population lives within a hundred miles of the U.S. border, so our climate isn't all that different from that of Michigan.  Toronto, for example, gets less snow than Buffalo, NY, and we're getting less with every passing year.  Our driveway needed to be shovelled out only two or three times last year, no worse than our cousins' drives in the Detroit suburbs.

[Plane]

I am in awe of all human habitation north of Tennessee.

I once was in Ohio for the onset of winter, not tempted to do that often.

[Plane]

<<It's simple. As the market-oriented Fraser Institute in Vancouver, B.C., can tell you, Canada's vaunted "free" government health-care system cannot or deliberately will not provide its 33 million citizens with the nonemergency health care they want and need when they need or want it.>>

That's an old story.  You wait longer for elective surgery than an American with a decent health plan waits for his or hers.  That's just the cost of making sure that everybody in the country is covered and that the essentials - - the stuff that just can't wait - - is dealt with in a timely manner for everybody.

<<Average wait from time of referral to treatment by a specialist -- 17.8 weeks.
<<Shortest waiting time -- oncology, 4.9 weeks.>>

And again that is somewhat misleading - - if a GP thinks that there is a life-threatening or serious matter developing that needs immediate attention, the referral to the specialist is immediate.  Same day or next day for really urgent cancer cases, and I know this from personal stories of friends and relatives.  The average wait times are relatively meaningless since the average visit is non-urgent anyway.  I don't know if there's a measuring technique for waiting times in urgent cases, but if there were, that's the measure that ought to be employed.

The wait for basic service can delay the first realisation of a problem , but that seems like a minor point to me , if the Canadian system is strictly a success it will ver likely be emulated by the US.

How much tho is the US helping the Canadian system succeed? After we convert to a simular system we will have no lternative to retreat to across the border .

[Michael Tee]

<<The wait for basic service can delay the first realisation of a problem , but that seems like a minor point to me , if the Canadian system is strictly a success it will ver likely be emulated by the US.>>

Well, it's not a minor point, it's important but you have to realize we don't have a perfect system.  In an ideal world, there wouldn't be a wait for any services.  The longer waiting periods are usually for elective surgery,typically hip joint or knee joint, so there isn't any major missed diagnostic opportunity.

I don't think Canada's is the only system to consider.  New Zealand I believe has a public health single-payer system, and I think there is one in Oregon, but I don't know how that works either.

<<How much tho is the US helping the Canadian system succeed? After we convert to a simular system we will have no lternative to retreat to across the border.>>

I figure the U.S. is taking up some of the slack in our system, but it really does not seem like a big factor to me.

[Plane]

"I figure the U.S. is taking up some of the slack in our system, but it really does not seem like a big factor to me.

This I don't know ,however much or little Canada benefits from US medicine, but it will be an entirely missing factorfor us if we were to attempt to emulate Canada so we need to learn how much it makes a difference.

Over the long term , will Canada produce the required number of Doctors and other medical personell to support its system ? The US already imports Doctors and Nurses and cannot be self supporting even though we promise wealth to candidate Doctors.

There must be a lag of many years in the problem of having enough Doctors , but since we are already insufficient can we risk a change that would make the profession less attractive and perhaps halt the inflow of expatriate talent we have become used to?

[Michael Tee]

<<There must be a lag of many years in the problem of haveing enough Doctors , but since we are already insuffecient can we risk a change thatwould make the profession less attractive and perhaps halt the inflow of expatriate talent we have become used to?>>

Here's a really radical idea for you.  Take the money that currently goes into the military for Iraq and other stupidities and invest it in education so that some of those millions of wasted lives from the inner cities actually get salvaged and can go on to medical school.

When you make the profession "attractive" by paying its practitioners obscene sums of money, what you get as doctors are a bunch of greedy, self-indulgent golfers and sailors who want to practice in California and Florida, work three-day weeks with four months off and drive the most expensive foreign cars that money can buy.  I suggest you focus more on education, "fostering" people who care and who are concerned about "giving back" and give more people a shot at the profession.

[Plane]

<<There must be a lag of many years in the problem of haveing enough Doctors , but since we are already insuffecient can we risk a change thatwould make the profession less attractive and perhaps halt the inflow of expatriate talent we have become used to?>>

Here's a really radical idea for you.  Take the money that currently goes into the military for Iraq and other stupidities and invest it in education so that some of those millions of wasted lives from the inner cities actually get salvaged and can go on to medical school.

When you make the profession "attractive" by paying its practitioners obscene sums of money, what you get as doctors are a bunch of greedy, self-indulgent golfers and sailors who want to practice in California and Florida, work three-day weeks with four months off and drive the most expensive foreign cars that money can buy.  I suggest you focus more on education, "fostering" people who care and who are concerned about "giving back" and give more people a shot at the profession.

Albert Swietzer learned medicine in spite of beng wealthy already the people with such motivation will become usefull under any system , but are not adequite in number under any system.