Queue on 13/11/2013 at 15:00

---

That's one of the things that is, here, a talking-head-point of attack--the seeming lack of immediacy, or long wait times. One would argue, 'Why within the first few hours was a CT scan was performed, when a CT scan should have been performed immediately?'.

And, from experience, I have to say there is a bit of truth in that. When my son was finally diagnosed with a brain tumor, the CT scan that found the tumor had been performed within the first hour after being admitted to the ER--and it would have been much sooner if there had been a nurse on duty at that time of night that could assist in an emergency CT scan, though the one that was called in rushed to the hospital at breakneck speed through back roads and city traffic.

Now I will say that up until this point, the system had failed us. But this was fully because of a truly shitty doctor who refused to open his eyes and see what was really happening over an eight-week period. Once my son entered into an emergency room situation, things happened very fast and smoothly.

Because we were at a small-town, local hospital, he was quickly medevaced to a much larger and more capable hospital. Once there, now just past midnight, an MRI was performed immediately, with the neurologist already on site and waiting for the results (he was called in at the time the medivac was occurring). By 1am, my son, had been MRIed, was stabilized in intensive care, and we were in conference with the doctor who explained the situation, what needed to be done, and felt it was safe to wait until the following morning to do surgery because his team was off duty and hadn't been assembled--but assured us that if any signs arose that my son's condition was worsening, his team would be on site and and ready to go into surgery. By 4am, he suffered an unseen neurological episode due to increasing pressure in his head. The doctor's team was on site within 30-minutes, and surgery was scheduled immediately. By 7am, surgery had ended.

We went from an ER diagnosis, to a medivac trip to a hospital 40 miles away, to an MRI, to a conference, to assembling a team, to a successful brain surgery all within a seven-hour period--and this all happened while having to call people in for duty, several from rural areas, during the night on their day off. And the best part of all, we were approved for medicaid - since we were uninsured - during all this, which paid for everything and has continued to pay for my son's yearly MRIs.

So, I can see where some people may have anxiety over healthcare being administered in a timely fashion if the US went to a system like Canada's.



A truth is, though, that Canadians and most of the world pay less for American made prescription drugs - much less - than patients in the U.S. do for the exact same drugs. U.S. patients pay higher prices, insured or out-of-pocket, for name brand drugs for one reason: to further research into new drugs. The thought behind this is that without someone (namely us) paying the higher prices, drug companies would not make a profit, and would therefore not be compelled to, or have the funds needed to, develop new drugs.

I see this as capitalism gone wild, but I can also see the logic behind this...a have to agree with practice. No company exists to do things out of the goodness of their heart. The exist to make money, and if they cannot make money, then why are they in business.

---

For the record, I'm all for a national healthcare system; but a sensible one. The cost of healthcare is insane. For our little experience, if medicaid hadn't kicked in, our bills would be deep in the hundred-of-thousands of dollars, and we would be in ruin. But that's were the problem lies, that healthcare costs too much. And insurance is not the answer, insurance is the problem. It' simply: Healthcare in this country costs too much because of insurance companies trying to make outright profits from the insured, instead of investing premiums and making money off the investments. Over the years, the practice of whittling away at bills has forced medical providers to over-inflate the actual price to the point receive full compensation. It's like when you finally need to use the insurance you've been paying for all these years, and the company sends out an adjustor to see where the payoff can be reduced, or how to get the company out of having to pay for anything. So, this new price from the providers is now whittled away by the insurance company, causing prices to once again rise. And over and over this happens, throughout time, until the cost for a band-aid in now a $100. And then there is the notion of many insurance companies NOT paying the bill if it cost LESS than what they believe it should. So, the bill has to be inflated, or the patient gets stuck with the check. So, we are at the mercy of what insurance companies decide to pay, and how much they decide healthcare is worth.

With this new system, we are not making healthcare "affordable", instead it is forcing everyone to have insurance. So the problem continues, placing the cost of healthcare in the hands of an insurance company. Everyone being insured does not get rid of the $100 band-aids.

As for Obamacare, at least they tried, but the law is truly a bad law in the sense that nothing will change in the end--but the insurance companies certainly will have a lot more premiums being paid in. And the whole notion of opt-out fines.... Seriously, what struggling family or twenty-something-year old has the money to pay for health insurance - even "affordable" health insurance - when, even after discounts and government assistance, it's still cheaper to pay the tax fine?

faetal on 13/11/2013 at 19:05

---

I suppose when everyone is being treated equally, you might need to wait a little longer.
It's still better than the US system which costs too much for what you get, schedules unnecessary tests a lot of the time to get more money out of clients (patients) and is the single largest cause of personal bankruptcy in the US, with > 70% of those bankruptcies being people who have insurance. The words "co-pay" and "treatment cap" should not exist in a sane society.

faetal on 14/11/2013 at 12:08

---

Thank fuck for cysts!

Even medicaid isn't ideal though, since that is just giving tax payers' money to private business, so a lot of that will be consumed as profit. Plus the sheer amount of medicaid fraud which has been exposed over the year. I'm a firm believer in the notion that health care just does not suit markets. It's one of the few things which should be provided by the state and without any profit motivation whatsoever. That way, everyone gets the best deal, except people who just want to get rich from it.

Nicker on 15/11/2013 at 07:16

---

There was a period in the 80's, while Premier Ralph Klein and his minions were busy downsizing and privatising the province to make it a suitable source of wage slaves, when wait times were atrocious. People spent days being living and being treated in hallways by harried nurses and doctors who spent much of their time apologising for the short staffing situation and dealing with distraught relatives.

The Conservatives (read: Republicans) loved to point at the crisis they created as proof that universal medicare did not work. Sound familiar?

SubJeff on 19/11/2013 at 18:30

---

The government is eroding the NHS so much it's pretty certain that the entire system will "have" to change. Just look at the latest announcements re: regulating/measuring staff levels and healthcare staff now being subject to 5 years in jail if they neglect patients. It's all building up to a big announcement that the NHS is no longer fit for purpose and needs a big overhaul which will mean everything being privatised in reality even if you don't think it is from looking at the front doors. Then slowly slowly it'll all be revealed - means testing for subsidising your healthcare and finally a two tier system of private/subsidised and a government supplied alternate stream for the less well off.

It won't happen this year, but after that... any day.