Waiting time for a Doc, most important issue in Canada

[southsider2k5]

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3287

 

Canadians Agree That A Patient Wait Time Guarantee Is The Most Important Priority For Canada’s New Government

A Majority Of Canadians Want The CMA To Take The Lead On Wait Times And Health Human Resources

November 29, 2006

 

Ottawa, ON –According to an Ipsos Reid survey among the general public, a majority of Canadian adults rank a patient wait times guarantee as more important than any other of the Government’s priorities. Of the five policy promises made by the Government of Canada during the last federal election, 42% of Canadians said that “a patient wait time guarantee that would reduce wait times for key health services” was the most important to them personally. This compares to lowering taxes (19%), restoring accountability to Ottawa (14%), tackling crime (14%), and implementing a choice in childcare program (9%).

 

 

Furthermore, Canadians say they want the CMA to take the lead in several important issues, chief among these being “issues such as lengthy wait times for medical care” – almost nine in ten (86%) strongly or somewhat agree that the CMA should take the lead in this area. Almost as many adults surveyed also support the CMA in taking the lead on improving access to physicians and other health professionals (86% strongly or somewhat agree). Least popular for the CMA is a lead role in determining the public and private sector responsibilities in de-livering health care; however, a clear majority still agree that the CMA should take the lead on this issue (72% strongly or somewhat agree).

 

 

Canadians also trust the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) to act in the interests of patients. More than two-thirds (74%) of adults surveyed strongly or somewhat agree that they “trust the CMA to do what is best for patients”. This number is slightly higher in Quebec (78%) and among those who have completed high school (82%).

 

 

The general public data in this study are the findings of an Ipsos-Reid/Canadian Medical Association poll conducted between November 7th and November 16th, 2006. The survey included 1,1001 randomly chosen individuals. For a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate to within ±3.1%, 19 times out of 20, compared to what they would have been had the entire Canadian population over the age of 18 years been polled. The margin of error is larger within regions, and for other sub-groupings of the survey population. These data were weighted to ensure the sample’s regional, age and gender composition reflects that of the actual Canadian population according to the 2001 Census data.

 

 

For more information on this news release, please contact:

Mike.Colledge

Senior Vice President, Ipsos Reid

Public Affairs

(613) 241-5802

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3287

 

 

quick! universal health care for all! let's set it up like the Canadian system cuz it works so well!

 

[Balta1701]

quick! universal health care for all! let's set it up like the Canadian system cuz it works so well!

 

You wouldn't say that if you had a family member sitting around suffering because they don't have health insurance.

[FlaSoxxJim]

quick! universal health care for all! let's set it up like the Canadian system cuz it works so well!

 

 

Agreed. The sooner the better.

[Jenksismyhero]

You wouldn't say that if you had a family member sitting around suffering because they don't have health insurance.

 

You're right. My family members all invested in themselves, went to school, and have decent jobs that give them the choice of obtaining health insurance. They're not sitting around waiting for handouts.

 

And before you ask, no, my parents weren't all that wealthy. They assisted three children in going to college as much as they could, but both of my siblings, and myself took out massive amounts of federal aid. I'm taking an extra 80k out to go to law school. I have zero sympathy for people who don't work for what is available. Me working my ass off and taking the risk of recieving these loans equates to me being able to go to a doctor I choose and get treated when I want to, instead of waiting next to the bum on the street who hasn't done a damned thing to deserve it.

 

 

Goverment assistance to those that contribute? Sure. I'll sign up for that. Universal healthcare for everyone? Not a chance.

[Balta1701]

You're right. My family members all invested in themselves, went to school, and have decent jobs that give them the choice of obtaining health insurance. They're not sitting around waiting for handouts.

And what happens when a person is so sick no one will hire them?

[mr_genius]

man, Candians must get sick a lot because health care is all they talk about. or should i say abooot.

[Soxy]

You're right. My family members all invested in themselves, went to school, and have decent jobs that give them the choice of obtaining health insurance. They're not sitting around waiting for handouts.

 

And before you ask, no, my parents weren't all that wealthy. They assisted three children in going to college as much as they could, but both of my siblings, and myself took out massive amounts of federal aid. I'm taking an extra 80k out to go to law school. I have zero sympathy for people who don't work for what is available. Me working my ass off and taking the risk of recieving these loans equates to me being able to go to a doctor I choose and get treated when I want to, instead of waiting next to the bum on the street who hasn't done a damned thing to deserve it.

Goverment assistance to those that contribute? Sure. I'll sign up for that. Universal healthcare for everyone? Not a chance.

What about the kids of those don't have healthcare? For the record, I have a masters and am currently employed, but I don't have dental or vision insurance. Nor are any x-rays or other imaging techniques available to me if I don't have pre-approval from my company. And should I ever need to be hospitalized, well, I don't even want to think about that. So, I think you can get off your high horse a bit, not everyone with advanced degrees and a history of hard work gets good healthcare coverage.

 

On a somewhat related note, we didn't have decent health insurance until my dad (who has a college degree and has worked 50-60 hours a week my whole life) joined a union--which I imagine you're also against.

[NorthSideSox72]

You're right. My family members all invested in themselves, went to school, and have decent jobs that give them the choice of obtaining health insurance. They're not sitting around waiting for handouts.

 

And before you ask, no, my parents weren't all that wealthy. They assisted three children in going to college as much as they could, but both of my siblings, and myself took out massive amounts of federal aid. I'm taking an extra 80k out to go to law school. I have zero sympathy for people who don't work for what is available. Me working my ass off and taking the risk of recieving these loans equates to me being able to go to a doctor I choose and get treated when I want to, instead of waiting next to the bum on the street who hasn't done a damned thing to deserve it.

Goverment assistance to those that contribute? Sure. I'll sign up for that. Universal healthcare for everyone? Not a chance.

I happen to know someone who had just finished grad school, and was doing part-time contract work while looking for full time work. Then she got pregnant. And had no health insurance.

 

While I agree that some people wait around for hand-outs, I hope you realize that is not universally the case. Some people get stuck in a very bad place, due to no fault of their own. The question is, what do you do with them? If you simply abandon them, they'll end up costing all of us money later anyway in some way. Preventative health care may be the cheaper option.

[EvilMonkey]

What about the kids of those don't have healthcare? For the record, I have a masters and am currently employed, but I don't have dental or vision insurance. Nor are any x-rays or other imaging techniques available to me if I don't have pre-approval from my company. And should I ever need to be hospitalized, well, I don't even want to think about that. So, I think you can get off your high horse a bit, not everyone with advanced degrees and a history of hard work gets good healthcare coverage.

 

On a somewhat related note, we didn't have decent health insurance until my dad (who has a college degree and has worked 50-60 hours a week my whole life) joined a union--which I imagine you're also against.

Soxy, what kind of car(s) do youdrive? How big is your house? Do you eat out often? Drive a less expensive car, downgrade your house and eat out less, maybe you can afford better insurance. For alot of people, the type of coverage is a 'lifestyle' choice. Why spend the extra $200 a week on insurance when we can get the new sportscar, or take the vacation to Europe. Unfortunatly, those people who can 'afford' insurance but choose not to get it also fall under the uninsured catagory. I bet the amount spent on season tickets would get a nice upgrade in coverage. And before you join him on the high horse, I know that there are always exception.

[Balta1701]

Soxy, what kind of car(s) do youdrive? How big is your house? Do you eat out often? Drive a less expensive car, downgrade your house and eat out less, maybe you can afford better insurance. For alot of people, the type of coverage is a 'lifestyle' choice. Why spend the extra $200 a week on insurance when we can get the new sportscar, or take the vacation to Europe. Unfortunatly, those people who can 'afford' insurance but choose not to get it also fall under the uninsured catagory. I bet the amount spent on season tickets would get a nice upgrade in coverage. And before you join him on the high horse, I know that there are always exception.

Spent most of the last 4 years doing nothing but driving a bike, no car. Never eat out. Rent, don't own a house. Still can't afford insurance for the Fiancee.

[mr_genius]

the government should give everyone a free house, food, car, health care, utilities and maybe a XBOX 360.

 

that would fix everything. so what if taxes are 99.4%.

[EvilMonkey]

Spent most of the last 4 years doing nothing but driving a bike, no car. Never eat out. Rent, don't own a house. Still can't afford insurance for the Fiancee.

I know that there are always exceptions.

Edited December 2, 2006 by EvilMonkey

[NorthSideSox72]

Just curious... which is the exception? Do we know? Is it the selfish user, or the unfortunate circumstances? Anyone have any numbers or evidence?

[Jenksismyhero]

What about the kids of those don't have healthcare? For the record, I have a masters and am currently employed, but I don't have dental or vision insurance. Nor are any x-rays or other imaging techniques available to me if I don't have pre-approval from my company. And should I ever need to be hospitalized, well, I don't even want to think about that. So, I think you can get off your high horse a bit, not everyone with advanced degrees and a history of hard work gets good healthcare coverage.

 

On a somewhat related note, we didn't have decent health insurance until my dad (who has a college degree and has worked 50-60 hours a week my whole life) joined a union--which I imagine you're also against.

 

 

The vast majority do. And does your employer force you to work daily? Is there a reason you can't get a different job that offers you those benefits?

 

I'm not opposed to unions. They were needed 50-75 years ago and grew way too powerful 25 years ago. I think they do some good and some bad, but it evens out in the end I'm sure. I have no problem with people coming together and demanding something they feel they're entitled to receive. Why don't you and your co-workers do that?

 

My main problem is I have little sympathy for the hardships of life. You choose your path, you choose what you make of your life. If you decide to spend hundreds of thousands to get an advanced degree in a field notorious for low wages and poor benefits, well, you made a poor choice. Or, like me, you're taking a big risk. Thats what you do in life. Also, like another poster mentioned, more often than not the peope complaining about not getting enough from the government are the same people who buy/own ridiculous things. I used to work at a grocery store and would get the women with Link/Wic and food stamps (all welfare for food programs). They'd buy everything they could on whatever program they were on and then have a second cart full of premo items and drop 250-300 bucks on crap. Where did they get money to do that?

 

I have no problem assisting people in getting a leg up in life, or a little help now and again. But no one should be given a hand out just because life is difficult. There are exceptions. As you pointed out, children growing up in a crappy home with irresponible parents shouldn't be punished for being born in the wrong family. Our great moronic governor of Illinois had a good idea to give all children in the state free education/healthcare. I would have been for it if our state had the money to fund such a program. But unfortunately he's running our state into the ground and we don't.

 

 

The question is, what do you do with them? If you simply abandon them, they'll end up costing all of us money later anyway in some way. Preventative health care may be the cheaper option.

 

I have no doubt this happens. More rare than the handouts I suspect, but in such a case they're most likely contributing to society and I have no problem helping them. Again though, ASSISTANCE is the key.

 

Oh and just so everyone knows I'm not coming from the position of the safe and secured either. I do have full benefits now, but ill be taking a law clerk position in January that has zero benefits. If something happens to me I'm screwed and I'll be paying out the wahzoo for it. But I don't expect the government (your tax dollars) to help me because I chose to take that job.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Jenksismybitch

[FlaSoxxJim]

Oh and just so everyone knows I'm not coming from the position of the safe and secured either. I do have full benefits now, but ill be taking a law clerk position in January that has zero benefits. If something happens to me I'm screwed and I'll be paying out the wahzoo for it. But I don't expect the government (your tax dollars) to help me because I chose to take that job.

 

But why as a nation should we accept a healthcare system that lets people who are contributing to society fall through the cracks like that?

 

And, as far as your assessment of people like academics who enter poor-wage/no benefit sectors as having "made a bad choice". . . That is some fµcking arrogance, brother.

[YASNY]

But why as a nation should we accept a healthcare system that lets people who are contributing to society fall through the cracks like that?

 

And, as far as your assessment of people like academics who enter poor-wage/no benefit sectors as having "made a bad choice". . . That is some fµcking arrogance, brother.

 

Because whenever the Govt gets their hands on something, they f*** it up big time.

[kapkomet]

But why as a nation should we accept a healthcare system that lets people who are contributing to society fall through the cracks like that?

 

And, as far as your assessment of people like academics who enter poor-wage/no benefit sectors as having "made a bad choice". . . That is some fµcking arrogance, brother.

 

 

Because whenever the Govt gets their hands on something, they f*** it up big time.

That's generally my stance on it as well. This country has the best health care systemin the world, bar none. Hand it to the government, and it will become second rate faster then you can blink.

 

I used to work at a health care company... and the CEO always walked around saying "why do people think that health care coverage is a God-given right"? Even though it's a fairly arrogant stance, I for the most part agree with it.

 

But that still doesn't help those who are in a strange or exceptional situation.

 

The question then becomes, how do we get the 'fall through the cracks' situations taken care of, and keep the government out of it?

[Balta1701]

Because whenever the Govt gets their hands on something, they f*** it up big time.

To my eyes, there's a lot more depth to that problem than just saying that the government f***s everything up big time. Specifically, I would say that from the point of view of just a relatively average citizen, every time lobbyists get their hands on something, they f*** it up big time for everyone except the company they're lobbying for.

 

The one other point someone in this thread ought to say is this: just because some other system isn't 100% perfect doesn't mean that it isn't better than ours.

 

Does Canada's sytem have some problems? Yes of course. But that doesn't mean ours is a priori better...Canada spends like 7-8% of its GDP on health care, we spend like 15% of our GDP on health care. Canada has longer wait times for doctors, but 15-20% of Americans can't even see doctors, and you can't by any means tell me that America doesn't have problems with wait times for doctors through HMO's (because I've seen them on my own). Canada doesn't allow, if I recall correctly, people to purchase their own insurance plans above and beyond what the government offers, so choices are limited, but on the other hand, companies like Toyota are choosing to put new factories in Canada instead of the U.S. because the cost of paying for its employees health care there is so much lower.

 

There are a wide variety of health care systems around the world. Just because Canada's has some problems doesn't mean it's not better than ours, and it doesn't mean that any system that even looks like Canada's would be bad. France, for example, actually has, as far as I can tell, a remarkably good system, which costs much less than ours, but which does provide better care than Canada at the same time.

 

The one thing that you have to admit, all of you, is that our system, as it is constructed right now, is on the verge of collapse. The employee-based health care system is falling apart. Companies are cutting benefits left and right to save costs, the number of uninsured keeps going up, and costs on every front, from insurance to drugs, is going through the roof. The system is approaching crisis level. Something has to change.

[Queen Prawn]

You choose your path, you choose what you make of your life.

 

While an individual chooses their path, they don't choose the potholes that sometimes show up. My dad worked for the Steel Mills and loved that job. Because of issues out of his controlled, they closed. My dad isn't a citizen, but is a legal resident and started paying taxes the second day he was here (that was when he started his job). He doesn't have much of an education, but tons of experience building houses (besides the farm, that is what he and his dad did back in Ireland). In this country, without that piece of paper, you cannot do much. He did find a job (a janitor at an office building downtown) and has been there for 20 years. In the 2 years where he was out of work, with a wife and three kids, he busted ass to do what he could to provide. Insurance wasn't one of those things, but we lucked out and the things that did require medical attention waited until he was back to work (a gift from God is the way we see that).

 

My point is, my dad made a great decision taking the job at the Mills, through no fault of his own, they closed and there were NO jobs to be had at that time. We managed to survive, but that is a perfect example of potholes in the paths we choose that we have no control over.

[sox4lifeinPA]

What I have a problem with is spending money on insurance when I didn't need it. It's like car insurance when I don't need it. All of that money goes down the drain, or rather to those in the system who need it. (I understand that's how it works and why my premiums are low.)

 

So my question is where do we draw the line on treatable or preventable, rather, diseases? I don't have the statistics on hand, but much of our health problems are due to obesity.

 

It's something that I've had to personal fight and the only way i've overcome it (mostly ) is by eating much more healthily (marrying a nutritionist helps) and exercising as frequently and consistently as I can.

 

So we can argue about who should pay for what, but until we drastically change our health perspectives, we're always going to be throwing money out the window.

[Balta1701]

What I have a problem with is spending money on insurance when I didn't need it. It's like car insurance when I don't need it. All of that money goes down the drain, or rather to those in the system who need it. (I understand that's how it works and why my premiums are low.)

But you see, here's the remarkable thing about how poorly our health care system is constructed...it is exactly that statement which will be the death of the current American health care system.

 

Right now, I'm pretty damn healthy. I exercise regularly, eat pretty well, don't get sick much. Have some bad knees, but that's about it. Probably similar to you. But the key about the health care system is...if people like you and I aren't paying into the large pool of insurance, if we judge that it's so expensive that it makes more sense for us to just take ourselves out of the pool for a while until our risk goes up...then it winds up leaving fewer healthy people for the insurance pool.

 

And of course, when healthy people start to leave the insurance pool, that drives up the cost for the people who remain in the insurance pool. And when the cost goes up, it is more incentive to drive more people from the insurance pool, which literally creates a cycle that doesn't end until the system is reformed.

[Jenksismyhero]

But why as a nation should we accept a healthcare system that lets people who are contributing to society fall through the cracks like that?

 

And, as far as your assessment of people like academics who enter poor-wage/no benefit sectors as having "made a bad choice". . . That is some fµcking arrogance, brother.

 

How is that arrogant? I'm not saying being an academic is a bad thing. I'm saying that if you require certain benefits and you choose a career that doesn't offer those benefits then you've made a poor choice for yourself. What's wrong with that?

[Jenksismyhero]

But you see, here's the remarkable thing about how poorly our health care system is constructed...it is exactly that statement which will be the death of the current American health care system.

 

Right now, I'm pretty damn healthy. I exercise regularly, eat pretty well, don't get sick much. Have some bad knees, but that's about it. Probably similar to you. But the key about the health care system is...if people like you and I aren't paying into the large pool of insurance, if we judge that it's so expensive that it makes more sense for us to just take ourselves out of the pool for a while until our risk goes up...then it winds up leaving fewer healthy people for the insurance pool.

 

And of course, when healthy people start to leave the insurance pool, that drives up the cost for the people who remain in the insurance pool. And when the cost goes up, it is more incentive to drive more people from the insurance pool, which literally creates a cycle that doesn't end until the system is reformed.

 

 

I think the odds of this are low. More and more people have medical problems that are treated earlier and earlier. It would take a lot of people to have this affect on the system. I dunno that there are that many problem-free americans that could afford to stop participating. Especially now that 1 in every 3 or 4 kids is obese.

[NorthSideSox72]

How is that arrogant? I'm not saying being an academic is a bad thing. I'm saying that if you require certain benefits and you choose a career that doesn't offer those benefits then you've made a poor choice for yourself. What's wrong with that?

Is it a poor choice, or a noble one? I'd say there is a pretty substantial list of life-enhancing things you benefit from everyday that were created or bettered by low-paid scientists.

 

I am not saying universal government health care is a good idea... but I think your characterization of this choice as a bad one is very short-sighted.