Newbie
Posts: 20 
February 29th, 2008, 01:39 PM
Waiting list are getting so long for soem people they are willing to go to India, Cuba and China to get the medical care they need. For someone in dire need of medical care to go to one of these countries is an indication of the poor services received here (or lack there of).
The latest story from the halifax herald involves a grandmother going to India to get a hip surgury after being told it would be a 2 year wait for an INFERIOR procedure in Nova Scotia. So 10's of thousands of dollars later she gets it done in India, it's an overwhelming success and there's one less person in the 2 year long line in Nova Scotia.
So why can't she give the bill to the government? It will require one person to be the first and they will have a lengthy court battle a head of them, which is enough to discourage most. personally i would be willing to pay a small amount of money to fund her legal bills.
Besides denying her timely care Nova Scotia also prevents any private sector clinic from providing this service, ensuring a monopoly for the unions. It seems union healthcare jobs are more important than those requiring the actual healthcare.
On top of this, it's estimated that the Medical Tourism trip for this hip surgery works out to be less costly than doing it in Nova Scotia even with all the travel expenses ! Why shouldn't the government cover her bills if it would save the tax payer money if done there as well as reduce the wait times for others, it win win for the patient and government. Goes to show how powerful and selfish our unions are.
---
P.Fezziwig, contributor for Healthcare Reviews , http://www.healthcarereviews.com , building a better healthcare system through patient feedback.
Waiting list are getting so long for soem people they are willing to go to India, Cuba and China to get the medical care they need. For someone in dire need of medical care to go to one of these countries is an indication of the poor services received here (or lack there of).
The latest story from the halifax herald involves a grandmother going to India to get a hip surgury after being told it would be a 2 year wait for an INFERIOR procedure in Nova Scotia. So 10's of thousands of dollars later she gets it done in India, it's an overwhelming success and there's one less person in the 2 year long line in Nova Scotia.
So why can't she give the bill to the government? It will require one person to be the first and they will have a lengthy court battle a head of them, which is enough to discourage most. personally i would be willing to pay a small amount of money to fund her legal bills.
Besides denying her timely care Nova Scotia also prevents any private sector clinic from providing this service, ensuring a monopoly for the unions. It seems union healthcare jobs are more important than those requiring the actual healthcare.
On top of this, it's estimated that the Medical Tourism trip for this hip surgery works out to be less costly than doing it in Nova Scotia even with all the travel expenses ! Why shouldn't the government cover her bills if it would save the tax payer money if done there as well as reduce the wait times for others, it win win for the patient and government. Goes to show how powerful and selfish our unions are.
---
P.Fezziwig, contributor for Healthcare Reviews , http://www.healthcarereviews.com , building a better healthcare system through patient feedback.
Time Out
Posts: 165
Location: International
Location: International
February 29th, 2008, 02:33 PM
I am all for if getting surgery done elsewhere if you have to, go for it.
Quoting paullind10
So should the government pay for her surgery only, or for her whole holiday. This may open doors to opportunists, looking to fund a holiday and surgery all in one. It will never float. Better not.
Waiting list are getting so long for soem people they are willing to go to India, Cuba and China to get the medical care they need. For someone in dire need of medical care to go to one of these countries is an indication of the poor services received here (or lack there of).
The latest story from the halifax herald involves a grandmother going to India to get a hip surgury after being told it would be a 2 year wait for an INFERIOR procedure in Nova Scotia. So 10's of thousands of dollars later she gets it done in India, it's an overwhelming success and there's one less person in the 2 year long line in Nova Scotia.
So why can't she give the bill to the government? It will require one person to be the first and they will have a lengthy court battle a head of them, which is enough to discourage most. personally i would be willing to pay a small amount of money to fund her legal bills.
Besides denying her timely care Nova Scotia also prevents any private sector clinic from providing this service, ensuring a monopoly for the unions. It seems union healthcare jobs are more important than those requiring the actual healthcare.
On top of this, it's estimated that the Medical Tourism trip for this hip surgery works out to be less costly than doing it in Nova Scotia even with all the travel expenses ! Why shouldn't the government cover her bills if it would save the tax payer money if done there as well as reduce the wait times for others, it win win for the patient and government. Goes to show how powerful and selfish our unions are.
The latest story from the halifax herald involves a grandmother going to India to get a hip surgury after being told it would be a 2 year wait for an INFERIOR procedure in Nova Scotia. So 10's of thousands of dollars later she gets it done in India, it's an overwhelming success and there's one less person in the 2 year long line in Nova Scotia.
So why can't she give the bill to the government? It will require one person to be the first and they will have a lengthy court battle a head of them, which is enough to discourage most. personally i would be willing to pay a small amount of money to fund her legal bills.
Besides denying her timely care Nova Scotia also prevents any private sector clinic from providing this service, ensuring a monopoly for the unions. It seems union healthcare jobs are more important than those requiring the actual healthcare.
On top of this, it's estimated that the Medical Tourism trip for this hip surgery works out to be less costly than doing it in Nova Scotia even with all the travel expenses ! Why shouldn't the government cover her bills if it would save the tax payer money if done there as well as reduce the wait times for others, it win win for the patient and government. Goes to show how powerful and selfish our unions are.
I am all for if getting surgery done elsewhere if you have to, go for it.
Time Out
Posts: 165
Location: International
Location: International
February 29th, 2008, 02:36 PM
There is always someone else looking for someone else to foot the bill for them, this country is getting pathetic with this. It is usually the tax payer that gets it in the end.
Which is why more and more are moving out to a tax free, or less tax lifestyle elsewhere.
There is always someone else looking for someone else to foot the bill for them, this country is getting pathetic with this. It is usually the tax payer that gets it in the end.
Which is why more and more are moving out to a tax free, or less tax lifestyle elsewhere.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,773 
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
February 29th, 2008, 03:33 PM
Woof!
Quoting karrie
In Northern Ontario, it's policy now. The doctor shortage is critical. It's reached the level where Soo Area Hospital is talking about closing their ER. Emergencies will be handled through Saulte Ste Marie Michigan and most electives have to travel here to Sudbury. I can't imagine anyone wanting to go out dancing at Kewadin after hip replacement surgery, or going to a Sabres game following a stent placement.
Frankly, I think harley has a point. BUT. The 'vacation' argument doesn't address why she shouldn't be able to bill the gov for the medical bills, minus flights/food/etc.
Woof!
February 29th, 2008, 03:36 PM
Quoting lone wolf
No, but, if I were traveling to India for a hip replacement, I guarantee I'd leave a week early to see the sights. And there's a difference between the gov telling you where they've arranged for you to go, and you deciding, THEN sending the bill to them.
In Northern Ontario, it's policy now. The doctor shortage is critical. It's reached the level where Soo Area Hospital is talking about closing their ER. Emergencies will be handled through Saulte Ste Marie Michigan and most electives have to travel here to Sudbury. I can't imagine anyone wanting to go out dancing at Kewadin after hip replacement surgery, or going to a Sabres game following a stent placement.
Woof!
Woof!
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,773
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
February 29th, 2008, 03:40 PM
Woof!
Quoting karrie
Yeah ... I'd go early too. There's all that pre-surgery stuff. Somehow, I think they'd keep really close tabs if they're footing the bill. Damn I hate explaining in specific dialects of bureaucratese....
No, but, if I were traveling to India for a hip replacement, I guarantee I'd leave a week early to see the sights. And there's a difference between the gov telling you where they've arranged for you to go, and you deciding, THEN sending the bill to them.
Woof!
Time Out
Posts: 165
Location: International
Location: International
March 1st, 2008, 09:09 AM
I don't think the medical part of it should be paid for by the government either, remember the government does not pay for a damn thing,it will be the tax payer, and we are tired of footing the bill because someone is cheap, or thinks the world owes them. If you can afford to go elsewhere for surgery, (halfway across the world etc), then you can bloody damn well afford to pay youself the whole bill.
That is what is wrong with Canada, everyone and their damn dog wants a hand out, and someone else to pay, even those that can.
I don't think the medical part of it should be paid for by the government either, remember the government does not pay for a damn thing,it will be the tax payer, and we are tired of footing the bill because someone is cheap, or thinks the world owes them. If you can afford to go elsewhere for surgery, (halfway across the world etc), then you can bloody damn well afford to pay youself the whole bill.
That is what is wrong with Canada, everyone and their damn dog wants a hand out, and someone else to pay, even those that can.
March 1st, 2008, 09:59 AM
Quoting harleyhunny
The flaw with that logic is, the government DOES owe us medical care. Timely and effective medical care. We've paid for it. It's not a hand out. In these cases, they're failing to provide what they've already been paid for. I sure as heck wouldn't want to have to put my life on hold for two years while I wait for a new hip, new knee, or some other such thing. That's not fair. And it's further injury to many people's health to have to do that (lack of exercise over two years is a lot).
I don't think the medical part of it should be paid for by the government either, remember the government does not pay for a damn thing,it will be the tax payer, and we are tired of footing the bill because someone is cheap, or thinks the world owes them. If you can afford to go elsewhere for surgery, (halfway across the world etc), then you can bloody damn well afford to pay youself the whole bill.
That is what is wrong with Canada, everyone and their damn dog wants a hand out, and someone else to pay, even those that can.
That is what is wrong with Canada, everyone and their damn dog wants a hand out, and someone else to pay, even those that can.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,524
Location: California
Location: California
March 1st, 2008, 12:10 PM
My problem with Canadians is that they think they have put so much money into healthcare when they haven't. We pay WAY less than Americans do and they accept that a good percentage of their population doesn't even have basic insurance. Canadians think that on that much smaller budget we should have way better coverage and in general we don't do too badly thanks to our ability to stretch a buck. But, something still has to give. Waiting times caused by staff shortages are unavoidable given our resources.
Quoting karrie
Does the government really have a timeline they have to meet with procedures when waiting doesn't cause harm? My dad needed a knee replacement and didn't wait long at all, but even if he had, it wouldn't have truly affected his health. People who have gotten to the point of needing a joint replacement usually haven't been doing much exercise for a while. He could swim, walk, bike, etc. (not that he would before or after his surgery).
The flaw with that logic is, the government DOES owe us medical care. Timely and effective medical care. We've paid for it. It's not a hand out. In these cases, they're failing to provide what they've already been paid for. I sure as heck wouldn't want to have to put my life on hold for two years while I wait for a new hip, new knee, or some other such thing. That's not fair. And it's further injury to many people's health to have to do that (lack of exercise over two years is a lot).
My problem with Canadians is that they think they have put so much money into healthcare when they haven't. We pay WAY less than Americans do and they accept that a good percentage of their population doesn't even have basic insurance. Canadians think that on that much smaller budget we should have way better coverage and in general we don't do too badly thanks to our ability to stretch a buck. But, something still has to give. Waiting times caused by staff shortages are unavoidable given our resources.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,524
Location: California
Location: California
March 1st, 2008, 12:29 PM
Unfortunately there are limited clinical training spots for doctors.
According to the Fraser Institute, the median wait time for orthopedic procedures was 38 weeks in 2004 (that's from the time you've been refered to a specialist until you actually get your surgery). It's not great. I don't think it's terrible either. Between 1994 and 2004, the demand for total knee replacements and total hip replacements has increased by 54%. Wait times increased from less than 20 weeks to 37 weeks during that time.
Unfortunately there are limited clinical training spots for doctors.
According to the Fraser Institute, the median wait time for orthopedic procedures was 38 weeks in 2004 (that's from the time you've been refered to a specialist until you actually get your surgery). It's not great. I don't think it's terrible either. Between 1994 and 2004, the demand for total knee replacements and total hip replacements has increased by 54%. Wait times increased from less than 20 weeks to 37 weeks during that time.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,773
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
March 1st, 2008, 01:30 PM
Woof!
Quoting tracy
I'm not so sure the Fraser Institute is the greatest of places to gather information. They're noted for being Tory yes men. The two years my father had to wait for knee replacement seemed almost as unreasonable to me as it did to him. The fact it had to be re-replaced when the part turned out to be defective (worn pins?) should have been criminal. He wasn't one of those folks who hadn't exercised before the surgery either. His was the result of a chainsaw accident. The wait almost killed him.
Unfortunately there are limited clinical training spots for doctors.
According to the Fraser Institute, the median wait time for orthopedic procedures was 38 weeks in 2004 (that's from the time you've been refered to a specialist until you actually get your surgery). It's not great. I don't think it's terrible either. Between 1994 and 2004, the demand for total knee replacements and total hip replacements has increased by 54%. Wait times increased from less than 20 weeks to 37 weeks during that time.
According to the Fraser Institute, the median wait time for orthopedic procedures was 38 weeks in 2004 (that's from the time you've been refered to a specialist until you actually get your surgery). It's not great. I don't think it's terrible either. Between 1994 and 2004, the demand for total knee replacements and total hip replacements has increased by 54%. Wait times increased from less than 20 weeks to 37 weeks during that time.
Woof!
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,524
Location: California
Location: California
March 1st, 2008, 03:01 PM
My dad waited a few months and fortunately hasn't had any problems since. The need for the replacement wasn't caused by a lack of exercise, though the extra 50lbs he carries around probably doesn't help. He just has osteoarthritis so didn't find exercise comfortable for a long time before he actually decided to get the surgery. 3 of his siblings have also had knee replacements (my aunt has had them both replaced). The waits were inconvenient for all of them and prolonged the pain they'd had for a long time already but I can't say it caused any kind of permanent damage.
One would assume the median wait time the Fraser Institute reports would be the highest possible since they take any chance they can to attack our health care system.
My dad waited a few months and fortunately hasn't had any problems since. The need for the replacement wasn't caused by a lack of exercise, though the extra 50lbs he carries around probably doesn't help. He just has osteoarthritis so didn't find exercise comfortable for a long time before he actually decided to get the surgery. 3 of his siblings have also had knee replacements (my aunt has had them both replaced). The waits were inconvenient for all of them and prolonged the pain they'd had for a long time already but I can't say it caused any kind of permanent damage.
One would assume the median wait time the Fraser Institute reports would be the highest possible since they take any chance they can to attack our health care system.
March 1st, 2008, 03:51 PM
According to the Canada Health Act ". It is... the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers."
One could easily argue that a 2 year wait time is a barrier to health care, and that as such, due to our shortages, we may need to start finding some other ways of providing access.
I'm not entirely convinced... just sort of playing devil's advocate and feeling my way around this one.
Quoting tracy
You've heard me discuss (I believe it was in an abortion debate) the unique challenges that come from being such a sparsely populated country. I get that we don't pay as much, and that it needs to stretch an awful long way.
Does the government really have a timeline they have to meet with procedures when waiting doesn't cause harm? My dad needed a knee replacement and didn't wait long at all, but even if he had, it wouldn't have truly affected his health. People who have gotten to the point of needing a joint replacement usually haven't been doing much exercise for a while. He could swim, walk, bike, etc. (not that he would before or after his surgery).
My problem with Canadians is that they think they have put so much money into healthcare when they haven't. We pay WAY less than Americans do and they accept that a good percentage of their population doesn't even have basic insurance. Canadians think that on that much smaller budget we should have way better coverage and in general we don't do too badly thanks to our ability to stretch a buck. But, something still has to give. Waiting times caused by staff shortages are unavoidable given our resources.
My problem with Canadians is that they think they have put so much money into healthcare when they haven't. We pay WAY less than Americans do and they accept that a good percentage of their population doesn't even have basic insurance. Canadians think that on that much smaller budget we should have way better coverage and in general we don't do too badly thanks to our ability to stretch a buck. But, something still has to give. Waiting times caused by staff shortages are unavoidable given our resources.
According to the Canada Health Act ". It is... the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers."
One could easily argue that a 2 year wait time is a barrier to health care, and that as such, due to our shortages, we may need to start finding some other ways of providing access.
I'm not entirely convinced... just sort of playing devil's advocate and feeling my way around this one.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,524
Location: California
Location: California
March 1st, 2008, 05:05 PM
I definitely agree that it's an argument that could be made, though I would need to know what level of functionning that woman had. I just don't know what the actual solution is. The problem is only going to get worse as our population ages, and because people today tend to lead more sedentary lives and don't eat particularly well. The combination of those three factors is going to put a tremendous strain on healthcare.
I definitely agree that it's an argument that could be made, though I would need to know what level of functionning that woman had. I just don't know what the actual solution is. The problem is only going to get worse as our population ages, and because people today tend to lead more sedentary lives and don't eat particularly well. The combination of those three factors is going to put a tremendous strain on healthcare.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 640
Location: Baja Canada
Location: Baja Canada
March 1st, 2008, 05:09 PM
Medical tourisim is becoming quite the rage here in the US too. Several times, I have read articles or seen TV specials on this subject. The hot spot for teeth is Czechoslovakia! There are even travel agencies who specialize in coordinating the entire trip.
And yes, most people take a few days to see the sights. I think one reason India is popular is simply because so many people there speak English. I would worry about
going to a country where I didn't speak the language...especially for a medical procedure.
Uncle
Medical tourisim is becoming quite the rage here in the US too. Several times, I have read articles or seen TV specials on this subject. The hot spot for teeth is Czechoslovakia! There are even travel agencies who specialize in coordinating the entire trip.
And yes, most people take a few days to see the sights. I think one reason India is popular is simply because so many people there speak English. I would worry about
going to a country where I didn't speak the language...especially for a medical procedure.
Uncle
March 1st, 2008, 05:27 PM
Quoting tracy
We could have medical clinics right in McDonalds outlets.
I definitely agree that it's an argument that could be made, though I would need to know what level of functionning that woman had. I just don't know what the actual solution is. The problem is only going to get worse as our population ages, and because people today tend to lead more sedentary lives and don't eat particularly well. The combination of those three factors is going to put a tremendous strain on healthcare.
