Fraser Institute Study Says Canada Health Care Sucks

[Kramer]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=145341

A study released on Canada's socialized medical system reveals that the average patient spends over 16 weeks – in some cases more than twice as long as doctors deem "reasonable" – waiting for health-care treatment, costing both estimated thousands of dollars per year per patient and, potentially, lives.

"The promise of the Canadian health-care system is not being realized," concludes the 19th annual study released by the independent Fraser Institute. "This grim portrait is the legacy of a medical system offering low expectations cloaked in lofty rhetoric."

[sirs]

ahhh, it has to be just some right wing neo nazi think tank.  Everyone needs to learn to wait anyhow.  Except of course if you're some elite member of society, then you can get your care elsewhere....which is perfectly ok.  Those that just know better than the rest of us, have a priority in staying healthy, over the rest of us serf

right?

[Michael Tee]

<<A study released on Canada's socialized medical system reveals that the average patient spends over 16 weeks – in some cases more than twice as long as doctors deem "reasonable" – waiting for health-care treatment, costing both estimated thousands of dollars per year per patient and, potentially, lives.>>

This is just more ridiculous crap from a right-wing "think tank" whose sponsors have never been fully revealed but whose business seems to be pushing an agenda that benefits the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else.  It's not a think tank, it's a propaganda organ for the rich.   Moreover it sounds (from what you wrote) as if 16 weeks is the total of ALL the waits for treatment over some unspecified period of time that an average patient has to endure - - 1 week for a biopsy, two weeks for colonoscopy, six for minor surgery, etc., total 16 weeks.

Since all our specialist visits are on referral from GP's, the waiting times are often waits for appointments, not waits for treatment.  But the GP is the screener - - if a case is urgent, he sets up urgent appointments with the specialist and there is no appreciable delay at all.  I've had to wait a couple of weeks to see a dermatologist for skin tags, but when I had a rapid-growth tag on my arm, I got to see the dermatologist and have a biopsy in less than 24 hours (next-day service on a late-afternoon trip to the GP) 

My GP is same-day or next-day appointments.  The longer waits are for non-life-threatening joint operations.  They are not emergencies.  The guy hops around on crutches for a few weeks more.  BFD.  The price of him hopping is that every Canadian gets adequate health care and nobody is shut out because they can't afford it.

<<"The promise of the Canadian health-care system is not being realized," concludes the 19th annual study released by the independent Fraser Institute. "This grim portrait is the legacy of a medical system offering low expectations cloaked in lofty rhetoric." >>

"Independent" my ass.  When is the Fraser Inst. going to release the real source of its funding?  THEN you'll see how "independent" it really is.  This whole thing is a crock of shit, once again cooked up by the insurance industry.  When they tell you the other side of the story, not the "16 weeks" waits but the lives saved, the suffering prevented, by the availability of medical care to the entire population, not just those who can afford it, then you'll have an "independent" study.

Nobody in the U.S.A. understands the Fraser Institute.  It has a respectable-sounding name, it must be a respectable institution.  It is a fucking joke.

[Kramer]

<<A study released on Canada's socialized medical system reveals that the average patient spends over 16 weeks – in some cases more than twice as long as doctors deem "reasonable" – waiting for health-care treatment, costing both estimated thousands of dollars per year per patient and, potentially, lives.>>

This is just more ridiculous crap from a right-wing "think tank" whose sponsors have never been fully revealed but whose business seems to be pushing an agenda that benefits the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else.  It's not a think tank, it's a propaganda organ for the rich.   Moreover it sounds (from what you wrote) as if 16 weeks is the total of ALL the waits for treatment over some unspecified period of time that an average patient has to endure - - 1 week for a biopsy, two weeks for colonoscopy, six for minor surgery, etc., total 16 weeks.

Since all our specialist visits are on referral from GP's, the waiting times are often waits for appointments, not waits for treatment.  But the GP is the screener - - if a case is urgent, he sets up urgent appointments with the specialist and there is no appreciable delay at all.  I've had to wait a couple of weeks to see a dermatologist for skin tags, but when I had a rapid-growth tag on my arm, I got to see the dermatologist and have a biopsy in less than 24 hours (next-day service on a late-afternoon trip to the GP) 

My GP is same-day or next-day appointments.  The longer waits are for non-life-threatening joint operations.  They are not emergencies.  The guy hops around on crutches for a few weeks more.  BFD.  The price of him hopping is that every Canadian gets adequate health care and nobody is shut out because they can't afford it.

<<"The promise of the Canadian health-care system is not being realized," concludes the 19th annual study released by the independent Fraser Institute. "This grim portrait is the legacy of a medical system offering low expectations cloaked in lofty rhetoric." >>

"Independent" my ass.  When is the Fraser Inst. going to release the real source of its funding?  THEN you'll see how "independent" it really is.  This whole thing is a crock of shit, once again cooked up by the insurance industry.  When they tell you the other side of the story, not the "16 weeks" waits but the lives saved, the suffering prevented, by the availability of medical care to the entire population, not just those who can afford it, then you'll have an "independent" study.

Nobody in the U.S.A. understands the Fraser Institute.  It has a respectable-sounding name, it must be a respectable institution.  It is a fucking joke.

What would you say if the Fraser Institute came out with a study that Americans are killing innocent Afghan people in record numbers -- then would they be OK in your book?

[sirs]

<<A study released on Canada's socialized medical system reveals that the average patient spends over 16 weeks – in some cases more than twice as long as doctors deem "reasonable" – waiting for health-care treatment, costing both estimated thousands of dollars per year per patient and, potentially, lives.>>

This is just more ridiculous crap from a right-wing "think tank"...This whole thing is a crock of shit, once again cooked up by the insurance industry...It is a fucking joke

LOL...did I nail that, or what.  Used a bazooka on that messenger     

[Amianthus]

"Independent" my ass.  When is the Fraser Inst. going to release the real source of its funding?  THEN you'll see how "independent" it really is.  This whole thing is a crock of shit, once again cooked up by the insurance industry.

It's a "charity corporation" in Canada, so their tax returns (which include income sources) should be public record. And get your conspiracy theories correct - the Fraser Inst. was started to protect logging interests, not the insurance industry.

When they tell you the other side of the story, not the "16 weeks" waits but the lives saved, the suffering prevented, by the availability of medical care to the entire population, not just those who can afford it, then you'll have an "independent" study.

So, if they don't agree with you, they're obviously not "independent"?

[Michael Tee]

<<And get your conspiracy theories correct - the Fraser Inst. was started to protect logging interests, not the insurance industry.>>

I never stated who they were started to protect, I stated that the report clearly served the interests of the insurance industry.

Tax returns of the Fraser Institute do not show where their money comes from - - it's been a source of editorial questioning for a long time.  They are consistently right-wing and pro-business, which IMHO shows exactly who is buttering their bread.

[Michael Tee]

<<What would you say if the Fraser Institute came out with a study that Americans are killing innocent Afghan people in record numbers -- then would they be OK in your book?>>

Sure, because it's the God's truth.  Even the fucking Americans who are responsible for all the carnage admit that.  But the Fraser Inst. would never publish the truth if it killed them to keep it covered.  It's like asking what if OBL restored to life all those Americans he killed and begged their forgiveness, would he then be OK in your book?

[Plane]

  You really shouldn't expect anyone in a system to report the shortcomings of that system.

    It is almost universal in the civil service to write up the improvements recently accomplished in every annual report , even if you have to make them up.

     Who is really competant to produce the grades?


     I don't think that an impartial agency exists to compare the Canadian systam to the American system , or to the previous Canadian system, or to the proposed American system .

   No one is interested in paying for a truely impartial study.

     MT might be right on that point , but I don't think that is any proof of what we are really intrested in .

      What is the best we can do here?
   WE have to fit together all the relivant facts , being aware all the time that almost all of the facts are being provided by Partizens.

[kimba1]

I can`t much about the system since I only visit canada ,not live there.

but that study is very incomplete.

 
every single person I know back home likes it period

does it have problems- absolutely.

thought that needed to be brought up.

p.s. I still think they need co-pay to cut down excessive use.

I seriously think healthcare is encouraging the emerging chunky canuck population.

just like colesterol meds are making my more steak eaters

[Michael Tee]

<<every single person I know back home likes it period>>

Kimba, you just hit the nail on the head.  If it's so terrible, why is even the Conservative government afraid to roll it back?

Even the TV ad of that lying bitch complaining how our system almost killed her was a total lie - - she claimed she had to wait for surgery on a brain tumor in Canada but got taken in right away for surgery in the U.S.    She got taken alright - - the surgery, which would have been free of charge to her in Canada, cost her $80K in the U.S.A. and it turned out that it was a benign cyst and not a tumor at all.

If the system is so terrible, why doesn't the pro-business Conservative government propose, "Hey let's scrap this socialist garbage and get REAL health care like our neighbours to the south of us have?"

LMFAO - - they'd be lynched if they even hinted at it.

[sirs]

<<every single person I know back home likes it period>>

Kimba, you just hit the nail on the head.  If it's so terrible, why is even the Conservative government afraid to roll it back?

Right back atcha...if the vast majority of U.S. citizens liked their current healthcare system, flaws and all, and a majority don't want the current incarnation referred to as Obamacare, why are liberals intent on ramming it down our throats??

*whistle*

(and here's a hint....there won't be any lynchings when the GOP is able to repeal much of it in 2013.  In fact, expect some landslide wins by Conservative candidates running on that platform.  Mass. showed us that message.  Florida may be next)

[kimba1]

hmm

on paper I read that people like the current system but in my circle I hear complaint about raising cost and how hard for thier plans without repeated inquiries to cover cost.

and besides cost has anybody notice how hard it is to fill a prescription when checked out of the hospital?

this happen to my mom and dad it got almost life threatening.

even my dad`s nurse said this is very common

what I`m getting at is thier maybe some things in healthcare that needs serious review that at least in some partial way hurting patients and making unneeded cost.

[sirs]

We've already broached this subject earlier, Kimba.  This disaster of a bill has been shown to be the sham of "cutting costs" that it always was.  yes, many of folk were watching thier premiums continually creeping upwards.  But the most substantive means at bringing those costs down were never addressed in the 2000+page legislative monstrosity, such as tort reform

Doing "something" just to give the impression of doing something, can frequently lead to far worse repercussions.  But in this case, those behind Obamacare knew far more than we might believe.  The goal was in no way bringing costs down, or even get everyone covered, especially since it does neither.  This was the best scenario the liberals in DC could muster in lurching this country into a center-left european style government structure.  Oh, they wanted far more, like single payer, but they wouldn't have even got that thru the reconciliation process.  That's how bad it is.  so they settled for a little less socialism, but got the lurch they wanted.

Come Nov, watch the power get lurched from the Democrats

[Amianthus]

and besides cost has anybody notice how hard it is to fill a prescription when checked out of the hospital?

Before I left the hospital, they asked me what pharmacy I used. I told them, and they sent the prescription to the pharmacy electronically. The prescription was filled and ready for me when I went through the pharmacy's drive through on the way home.