The Vent - Part 2

[Krikit 1,164]

I don't know if this is true or not, but I've heard that Ontario doesn't allow any private health care options. Given that Ontario has the largest population, I can see how getting treatment might be very difficult if private options don't exist.

Not sure where you heard that but it's not true.

[~Laura and Nick~ 5]

I realize not everyone needs an MRI, but the point is that if someone requires it and there's only a few, whoever needs it might have to wait a long, long time. That's just about as inefficient as the U.S. system where it costs a ton without insurance. Both systems hinder access to something that a patient needs.

I disagree.

If you really need it, you'll get it. You may have to travel a bit but it would be available.

P.S. Hi Deadpool

[DeadPoolX 9]

I realize not everyone needs an MRI, but the point is that if someone requires it and there's only a few, whoever needs it might have to wait a long, long time. That's just about as inefficient as the U.S. system where it costs a ton without insurance. Both systems hinder access to something that a patient needs.

I disagree.

If you really need it, you'll get it. You may have to travel a bit but it would be available.

P.S. Hi Deadpool

Hi

If you get health care when you really need it, what's with some Canadians going down to the U.S. when they'd otherwise be on a huge waiting list?

And I don't mean elective procedures or anything. There have been cases of people needing surgery, cancer treatments or even diagnostic tests (like an MRI) who would've had to wait six months to a year. Those people went to the U.S. to receive immediate care.

[Danu 19]

I think it depends a bit on where you are too. In Kingston we have 3 hospitals, and Toronto and Ottawa aren't that far away, so generally getting in for speciallized stuff isnt too bad, but I imagine trying to get specialist stuff in North Bay or something might be a little harder.

[MrsCat 6]

I realize not everyone needs an MRI, but the point is that if someone requires it and there's only a few, whoever needs it might have to wait a long, long time. That's just about as inefficient as the U.S. system where it costs a ton without insurance. Both systems hinder access to something that a patient needs.

I disagree.

If you really need it, you'll get it. You may have to travel a bit but it would be available.

P.S. Hi Deadpool

Hi

If you get health care when you really need it, what's with some Canadians going down to the U.S. when they'd otherwise be on a huge waiting list?

And I don't mean elective procedures or anything. There have been cases of people needing surgery, cancer treatments or even diagnostic tests (like an MRI) who would've had to wait six months to a year. Those people went to the U.S. to receive immediate care.

I hear all of these "horror stories" of people going to the US for treatment. But I've lived in Canada for 27 years and have never known anyone who had to go to the US. I've never known anyone who knows someone where this was the case.

Just as anecdotal proof of needing services and them being available. My dad had some weird heart problems two weeks ago. It was 4am on Sunday morning and he decided that he should go to the hospital. He arrived at the ER, he was assessed by a nurse immediately. He was taken in, and by 9am that morning he was meeting with a cardiologist to go over his symptoms. He had an MRI on Monday morning and met with the cardiologist again at 2pm that Monday. He didn't have to wait for anything. No bill, no copay at the end of it.

[minnew 4]

It does depend on the province you live in, the doctors and services that are available. The experiences can differ greatly. I can't tell you how many stories I have heard of delayed diagnosis, or months of waiting time for surgery, rarer are the ones that actually spend the $$$ to travel to the U.S. Trying to find a family doctor that will actually see you, because their caseload is so huge they are not accepting any more patients, there are long waiting lists just for general care. Just because you don't know someone or haven't experienced it for yourself, does not mean its not happening.

Unfortunately one of my friends who was a Canadian and studying in the U.S. with me needed to get an MRI because of disk problems in her back. Granted not an emergency like heart conditions or trying to get cancer diagnosed, but I have heard those too where it takes months just to get diagnosed, her back issues were causing her so much pain. She was from SK, with no insurance in the U.S. besides extended health care plan through GMS in SK for students studying outside of SK. The doctor in SK had told her its going to be 6 months for an MRI, and alot longer just to have surgery. They looked into SK Health paying for the MRI in the U.S. because she was still a SK resident-temporarily studying and I believe SK did pay for it, and she had her MRI within 2 weeks.

Edited July 28, 2009 by minnew

[DeadPoolX 9]

I realize not everyone needs an MRI, but the point is that if someone requires it and there's only a few, whoever needs it might have to wait a long, long time. That's just about as inefficient as the U.S. system where it costs a ton without insurance. Both systems hinder access to something that a patient needs.

I disagree.

If you really need it, you'll get it. You may have to travel a bit but it would be available.

P.S. Hi Deadpool

Hi

If you get health care when you really need it, what's with some Canadians going down to the U.S. when they'd otherwise be on a huge waiting list?

And I don't mean elective procedures or anything. There have been cases of people needing surgery, cancer treatments or even diagnostic tests (like an MRI) who would've had to wait six months to a year. Those people went to the U.S. to receive immediate care.

I hear all of these "horror stories" of people going to the US for treatment. But I've lived in Canada for 27 years and have never known anyone who had to go to the US. I've never known anyone who knows someone where this was the case.

Just as anecdotal proof of needing services and them being available. My dad had some weird heart problems two weeks ago. It was 4am on Sunday morning and he decided that he should go to the hospital. He arrived at the ER, he was assessed by a nurse immediately. He was taken in, and by 9am that morning he was meeting with a cardiologist to go over his symptoms. He had an MRI on Monday morning and met with the cardiologist again at 2pm that Monday. He didn't have to wait for anything. No bill, no copay at the end of it.

Well, before visiting this board, I'd never known anyone who had either immigrated to Canada from the U.S. or immigrated to the U.S. from Canada. That doesn't mean it never happens.

I've heard many of the horror stories, too. I can't imagine all of these tales are quite as clear cut as they're made out to be. Location probably matters as do the number of services available in any one city, region and province.

However, I distinctly remember seeing an episode of "20/20" (a well-respected television news program that's been on the air since 1978) where the show profiled two elderly Canadians who came to the U.S. for treatment. What happened was the husband needed cancer treatments and surgery. He would've had to wait a year (if not more) to get treatment due to the backlog of people requiring services. So he and his wife visited the U.S. and not only received treatment, but had an MRI which revealed more physiological problems than originally known (and wouldn't have been known until much later under the Canadian health care system).

The reason I bring up "20/20" when other programs have televised similar situations is because "20/20" is generally considered a somewhat left-wing news show. More often than not, the show sides with the Democrats and other liberal ideals. So it's interesting when a left-wing show sides with the American health care system as many Democrats are in-favor of a single-payer system like what's used in Canada.

So while the concept of "Canadians rushing down to the U.S. to get medical help" may not be a very common one, it has and still does occur. Plus, Minnew's story just goes to further reinforce the idea.

Edited July 28, 2009 by DeadPoolX

[Ontarkie 14,193]

I'm one of the many ppl who lived on the border, our hospital in Sault ste. Marie On, and the hospital in Sault Ste. Marie Mi. Had some kinda of deal often they would send over patients to each other. I actually had a women in the same room as me when I had my first son, she was sent over to Canada to have her baby, we also had student nurses from the US. I said had cause since now the passport requirement they don't know how they will get patients back and forth in emergencies and have to deal with passports they are still working that out.

But anyways I think sometimes we hear of ppl going to the States to get treatment and ya they may pay some out of pocket but I think for alot of them the Canadian gov pays. My mom drove down into the states to get an MRI back when I was a kid cause it was closer then her driving to Toronto she never payed a cent. And the Sault is one of those places where their is a major doctor shortage, they just can't seem to get Doctors to go there. I can't really blame em theres nothing in the SOO unless your and outdoors person then theres tons to do.

[BermyCat 1]

However, I distinctly remember seeing an episode of "20/20" (a well-respected television news program that's been on the air since 1978) where the show profiled two elderly Canadians who came to the U.S. for treatment. What happened was the husband needed cancer treatments and surgery. He would've had to wait a year (if not more) to get treatment due to the backlog of people requiring services. So he and his wife visited the U.S. and not only received treatment, but had an MRI which revealed more physiological problems than originally known (and wouldn't have been known until much later under the Canadian health care system).

The reason I bring up "20/20" when other programs have televised similar situations is because "20/20" is generally considered a somewhat left-wing news show. More often than not, the show sides with the Democrats and other liberal ideals. So it's interesting when a left-wing show sides with the American health care system as many Democrats are in-favor of a single-payer system like what's used in Canada.

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that 20/20 does it's research. Many years ago they did a program about money wasted at US bases overseas. They reported that officers at the base in Bermuda were given memberships at exclusive golf clubs on the US taxpayers' tab. They had footage to prove it. Of course, their footage was of a couple of officers playing at Port Royal. The PUBLIC golf course. No membership fees. You pay to play.

I'm assuming that they failed to do their research and weren't spinning things to push an agenda.

~ Catherine

[TheATeam 0]

While I do think that there is some truth to the "horror" stories that you hear about Canadian health care, I can also say that I don't know anyone in Canada personally who is bankrupt because of medical bills. It's not a concern for most people. So, yes, if you've got money down here or a really great insurance plan, then you don't have to worry about going to the doctor because you might not be able to pay the copay for your insurance. I think it's wrong that you have to second guess whether you'll just get better on your own or if you really need to see the doctor just because you're concerned about money.

Also, hip replacement is a surgery in Canada that seems to take a long time to get but both my grandmother and aunt had their hips replaced within 6 months of being placed on the list. That is because they weren't emergent cases. The same can be said for my mother and her MRI. She needed an MRI for her shoulder and I believe she waited 3 weeksish because she wasn't emergent either. Now, in a small town or smaller city in the US you may need to wait that long anyway.

There are pros and cons to universal healthcare that's for sure. I do think that doctor's visits and blood tests, at the very least, should be part of the universal healthcare, so no one has to worry about going to the doctor.

[moni_calla 0]

I am ranting about the stupid Waterdown Ontario woman Shona who is on CNN ranting her head off about universal healthcare.

What the heck is she thinking?

My parents know her personally.....she had a brain tumor and was misdiagnosed in Canada.

She ended up going to Texas and got treatment for a huge amount of money...

Now she's on CNN telling everyone to stay far away from Universal health care in the States.

Is she a moron or what??? As my Dad would say "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"

Yes it's horrible what happened to her...but lady, this could have happened anywhere in the world.

I don't get why the U.S. can't get with it. They are so busy holding onto their freedom and independence but they are not taking care of their own people...unless those people happen to be loaded.

It's an uphill battle and we just took two steps back.

sigh.

I don't know if this is true or not, but I've heard that Ontario doesn't allow any private health care options. Given that Ontario has the largest population, I can see how getting treatment might be very difficult if private options don't exist.

This is not true!! LOL

Something else to consider is that the Texas Medical Center (the largest concentration of medical facilities in the world) is housed in Houston, TX. I don't know if this woman went to Houston and the TMC, but if she did, that's probably why her treatment was so good. It's not unusual for people all over the world to go to the TMC for health care.

Yes, it'll cost a lot of money, but the treatment is fantastic. Having said that, there are many places within Texas -- and every other state -- that have poor health care, as well. It really depends on the location and the medical staff themselves. Having good health insurance also opens up many more opportunities.

I am of two minds on public healthcare in the U.S.. On a personal level, I have incredible health insurance through my employer. They pay for me and my family with no deductions off my paychecks. I know, I am one of the few who are this lucky. But truth be told, if this were put to a referrendum, I would have a very tough time voting for it. I know that it is to the benefit of millions, but from my personal point of view, it would decrease my standard of living, and inevitably lower my standard of care. But some things are bigger than just yourself.

You're lucky to have such great HC through your job... but what would happen if you lost your job, and lost your HC? Would you change your opinion

Depends upon the coverage I'd get from my next job. Like I said, I know that universal healthcare is something that benefits everyone in the long run. It is just hard for people like me who would be adversely effected here and now by this to support it. I guess I will need to see more details about the funding and scope of the proposed system.

I can definitely see your point. The health coverage I had in Texas made me feel the same way. Maybe I was exceptionally lucky, but then again, I had a PPO instead of an HMO. There's a big difference there and in fact, many physicians have stopped seeing patients who're only covered by HMOs. The reason for this is that HMOs are too difficult to deal with when treating the patient and receiving payment.

I agree with basic universal health coverage (for doctor visits and so forth), but anything beyond that should not be the responsibility of the tax payer. Canada's main problems are a lack of funding and overall efficiency. That's not the health care program's fault, but how government runs it. Money is often extracted from health care to pay for other projects and that leaves health care hurting. If health care lacks the appropriate funds, treatment will suffer and wait times will extend.

There are more MRIs in most U.S. cities than all of Canada. I realize not everyone needs an MRI, but the point is that if someone requires it and there's only a few, whoever needs it might have to wait a long, long time. That's just about as inefficient as the U.S. system where it costs a ton without insurance. Both systems hinder access to something that a patient needs.

I don't know if this is true or not, but I've heard that Ontario doesn't allow any private health care options. Given that Ontario has the largest population, I can see how getting treatment might be very difficult if private options don't exist.

This is not true!! LOL

The wait for MRI's is not long at all, and their are also private clinics you can go to that are authorized to perform them.

Edited July 29, 2009 by moni_calla

[DeadPoolX 9]

However, I distinctly remember seeing an episode of "20/20" (a well-respected television news program that's been on the air since 1978) where the show profiled two elderly Canadians who came to the U.S. for treatment. What happened was the husband needed cancer treatments and surgery. He would've had to wait a year (if not more) to get treatment due to the backlog of people requiring services. So he and his wife visited the U.S. and not only received treatment, but had an MRI which revealed more physiological problems than originally known (and wouldn't have been known until much later under the Canadian health care system).

The reason I bring up "20/20" when other programs have televised similar situations is because "20/20" is generally considered a somewhat left-wing news show. More often than not, the show sides with the Democrats and other liberal ideals. So it's interesting when a left-wing show sides with the American health care system as many Democrats are in-favor of a single-payer system like what's used in Canada.

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that 20/20 does it's research. Many years ago they did a program about money wasted at US bases overseas. They reported that officers at the base in Bermuda were given memberships at exclusive golf clubs on the US taxpayers' tab. They had footage to prove it. Of course, their footage was of a couple of officers playing at Port Royal. The PUBLIC golf course. No membership fees. You pay to play.

I'm assuming that they failed to do their research and weren't spinning things to push an agenda.

~ Catherine

Based upon my experiences with the Canadian health care system so far, I believe 20/20 did do its research. Simply because you haven't experienced something and/or disagree with someone's assessment doesn't make their information wrong. Is it possible 20/20 didn't do a good job researching it or even had an agenda to push? Yes, it is. I don't think that's case since my experiences so far only prove that Canadian health care is an unbelievable mess.

While I do think that there is some truth to the "horror" stories that you hear about Canadian health care, I can also say that I don't know anyone in Canada personally who is bankrupt because of medical bills. It's not a concern for most people. So, yes, if you've got money down here or a really great insurance plan, then you don't have to worry about going to the doctor because you might not be able to pay the copay for your insurance. I think it's wrong that you have to second guess whether you'll just get better on your own or if you really need to see the doctor just because you're concerned about money.

Also, hip replacement is a surgery in Canada that seems to take a long time to get but both my grandmother and aunt had their hips replaced within 6 months of being placed on the list. That is because they weren't emergent cases. The same can be said for my mother and her MRI. She needed an MRI for her shoulder and I believe she waited 3 weeksish because she wasn't emergent either. Now, in a small town or smaller city in the US you may need to wait that long anyway.

There are pros and cons to universal healthcare that's for sure. I do think that doctor's visits and blood tests, at the very least, should be part of the universal healthcare, so no one has to worry about going to the doctor.

It's not a whole lot different from wondering if you can even FIND a doctor accepting new patients or get to see a specialist within a reasonable time frame.

Waiting three weeks for an MRI isn't bad. That's still longer than I've ever had to wait, but three weeks is acceptable. Six months for hip replacement surgery is definitely unacceptable. Who is the government to decide whether or not someone's case is an "emergency?" If I feel it's an emergency then it is one -- which is why I like the American system. I wouldn't have to wait anywhere near as long -- maybe a month at the most and very likely much, much less.

Yeah, I know some people might say your medical situation is up for approval from insurance companies, but that's why you get a GOOD one. You can't pick and choose anything in the Canadian system. You take what it is given to you. There are tons of options in the U.S. and while some cost more than others, the options still exist. The same cannot be said in Canada.

Edited July 29, 2009 by DeadPoolX

[JillA 2]

Looks like we need to start a new thread about health care issues

[DeadPoolX 9]

Looks like we need to start a new thread about health care issues

Maybe, but it's really a "go nowhere" debate. It seems people either love or hate their respective health care system.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I would rather have one medical system that I could 'afford' rather than access to 20 that I couldn't. I would also rather have my 'emergency' be determined based upon medical need rather than the depth of my pocketbook. The emergencies I have experienced or my family in Canada have experienced have been dealt with immediately - like within minutes, not even hours. Here, my emergency of the same degree wasn't even seen by a doctor for over 6 hours - and I had to pay for it. Based on personal experience, if it were a life and death situation, believe me, I would rather receive medical treatment in Canada than in the US - I know I would receive it there while it could still benefit me - I don't have that assurance here at all.