Socialized healthcare, again

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-04-17 08:05am

In a discussion about socialized healthcare this guy started spouting horror stories about the canadian systems and gave these following links.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/is ... /wait.html
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/heal ... anage.html
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/heal ... first.html

Does anyone have any more info on this and their reliability? I mean here we got all the horror stories. Long waiting lines, people being turned away for being to old and so on. Any truth to these or are they being severely misrepresented?

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2006-04-17 09:26am

My suggestion would be to look at the broader picture. These are individualised cases and not neccessarioly representative of the whole of the system. Look for some horror stories of the private system, I daresay there are a few.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-04-17 09:52am

Like people not being able to afford basic diagnostic imaging?

Sounds great to me!

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-04-17 10:22am

Does anyone have any more info on this and their reliability?

The individual stories might be correct, but you have to wonder how much of this is just people complaining because they *think* they're not treated fast enough. IIRC the MRI scan waiting list only exists for elective cases; if you need the scan quickly you're bumped up. Can't quote a source, this just came up in a previous discussion on another board.

I'd also be wary of only using pages from something called "The Freedom Page"

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-04-17 11:56am

According to the article, Canada actively discourages a private health system. In Australia we allow both, if you can't be bothered waiting for the public system, then go to a private one if you are willing to pay. Otherwise you will get seen based on urgency.

Unfortunately when the number of patients is high relative to the number of medical staff, there is going to be a wait.

That being said, I find it strange that someone needed to wait 3 months for an electrocardiogram. Its a pretty straight forward test. I suspect there is a bit more than that, (? maybe its an exercise stress test which involves more than just the ECG) but I can't tell from the article.

Another thing is, how a family doctor refuses to see a patient because of age. I fail to see how that is related to socialised medicine, since a private doctor could likewise reject them as well on the same grounds (ie his reason was he was trying to make room for young families moving into the community).

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2006-04-17 12:00pm

I live in a city filled with aging, frail people, few young and healthy people, where almost all of our doctors seem to have immigrated from South Africa here. Not the best situation for health-care, you would think.

But both last year and this year, when I needed surgery on my right arm, I had it within four days.

My grandfather had only been a poor farmer in his life, but he had constant care throughout his last 2 years struggling with brain cancer from helpful doctors.

Public health care kicks ass.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2006-04-17 12:36pm

mr friendly guy wrote:That being said, I find it strange that someone needed to wait 3 months for an electrocardiogram. Its a pretty straight forward test. I suspect there is a bit more than that, (? maybe its an exercise stress test which involves more than just the ECG) but I can't tell from the article.

I agree, I've got a relative who works as an ECG technician. I do know ECGs are often used for mental patients, as a simple litmas test since it is so damn cheap and quick.

For someone who has an ongoing mental disorder who isnt life threatening or a periodic checkup, I could easily see multi-month long wait.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-04-17 12:58pm

I would expect looking for stress and mental disorders would involve an EEG and sampling of the bloods too, which can take ten minutes if you're lucky.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-04-17 08:03pm

Yeah, in AU the public system provides competition and lowers the cost of private care. That's my theory on why private care here doesn't cost the massive piles of money it does in the US - literally anyone, even people on welfare, can afford private cover if they're careful.

The wait on some things can be long - or so I hear from tabloid news services - but it's free. Who cares? It's better than the 'lolz you go into massive debt now' system in the US.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2006-04-18 12:59am

Stark wrote:The wait on some things can be long - or so I hear from tabloid news services - but it's free. Who cares? It's better than the 'lolz you go into massive debt now' system in the US.

I heard someone say recently that the opposite is better - that bankruptcy is a small price to pay for being healthy.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-04-18 01:07am

Don't be obtuse. Serious cases are rushed: people from car accidents aren't put in a months long waiting line. Further, those car accident victims won't have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for lifesaving surgery.

And thanks for ignoring the 'trivial to get private health care due to public competition' thrust of my post.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2006-04-18 09:40am

Bounty wrote:
Does anyone have any more info on this and their reliability?
The individual stories might be correct, but you have to wonder how much of this is just people complaining because they *think* they're not treated fast enough. IIRC the MRI scan waiting list only exists for elective cases; if you need the scan quickly you're bumped up. Can't quote a source, this just came up in a previous discussion on another board.

Elective just means that the problem is not immediately life threatening and they can schedule it for another day, not that it's some minor thing. Cataract surgery is considered "elective", IIRC.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2006-04-18 11:12am

Natorgator wrote: I heard someone say recently that the opposite is better - that bankruptcy is a small price to pay for being healthy.

It might be, if you could stay healthy.

Our system bankrupts you every friggin' time something happens.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-04-18 11:31am

Natorgator wrote:
Stark wrote:The wait on some things can be long - or so I hear from tabloid news services - but it's free. Who cares? It's better than the 'lolz you go into massive debt now' system in the US.
I heard someone say recently that the opposite is better - that bankruptcy is a small price to pay for being healthy.

Yeah, when compared to not paying anything and not being healthy. Such a thing doesn't apply to socialised health systems since the cost is minimal and you are still healthy. The only drawback is the wait for non-emergency cases.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2006-04-18 11:44am

And in some instances - childbirth for instance - the public health system offers a wider range of services. It might be more comfortable giving birth in a private hospital, but if something really screws up, you want to be in a public hospital, because they're the ones that'll be equipped for these low-probability occurences.

ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-04-19 03:17am

Natorgator wrote:
Stark wrote:The wait on some things can be long - or so I hear from tabloid news services - but it's free. Who cares? It's better than the 'lolz you go into massive debt now' system in the US.
I heard someone say recently that the opposite is better - that bankruptcy is a small price to pay for being healthy.

He's obviously an idiot.