Aa
To Canadian and Former Canadian members
I don’t want this to turn into a political debate. HCV Is a Health Issue that goes hand in hand with Health Care. There would be no logical reason for this thread to be deleted unless it is abused.
I would just like to hear from our Canadian members a truthful opinion about their Health Care System. Please include both Pros and Cons. I would also like to know the truth about how long it takes to see a Dr., get test/results, approval for treatment, time waiting in the lobby for emergency room visits, etc.
I don’t care to hear any conspiracy theories, only reality.
Since I keep hearing about a Health Care System compared to Canada’s, I would love to hear “from the Horses Mouth” about what we may be getting into.
So far we hear about how Great it is going to be from the one’s that are pushing for Reform and Horror Stories from the one’s against it. I would appreciate if only Canadian or former Canadian members respond. If other members use this thread for an opportunity to vent, the chances are, it will be deleted. Thank you for you honesty in advance.
But how does Canada's system handle people from other countries while they are in Canada? The treatment of illegal residents in the U.S. seems to be a relevant and controversial issue. If care is a human right, then do we restrict the definition of human to just our citizens? How do Canada and other countries handle this issue? If I am in Canada and I am in urgent need of medical care, would I receive it?
I don't know if we should be idealistic about providing health care as a human right or if we need to be more practical. If we take the practical route, should we ration care, and if so based on what criteria?
I don't know if we should be idealistic about providing health care as a human right or if we need to be more practical. If we take the practical route, should we ration care, and if so based on what criteria?
" The link you provided indicated fees for say private hospital rooms or botox injections are standard - but apparently that's not the case for MRIs or patient-ordered PCRs. Is there a move towards widening or narrowing the fee-based part of the system? "
Think about it - botox and private hospital rooms are perks. No government funded coverage for that, nor for non-essential surgery. Facelifts and cosmetic surgery are not covered, for example. It has to be essential.
You can't get an MRI without a doc's order. You can't get a private MRI to speed things up. You also can't get a patient-ordered PCR that the healthcare system doesn't cover or that would have been easy for me. I could be wrong on that, however. The Toronto hospital I went to when I was getting ready to enter regular SOC treatment indicated that their hands were tied on the types and number of tests they could order and that the ones at 4, 8, 12 and 24 were the best they could do and they were quals except for the 12 and perhaps the 24. My family doc gave me a script for a PCR once a month though and I was about to test that theory. I was talking to a fellow hepper on the weekend and he got his first PCR at 12 weeks. He indicated that was standard in the treatment centre he goes to. And this is a Geno 2 who has had a liver transplant. Now that upsets me, particularly because he's being treated out of a hospital that does liver transplants. I have to tell you, that would not have happened in the Toronto hospital I went to. But I think I'm getting offtrack here (I have plans to do something about all this and I'm putting my steps in place - again, another topic.)
Anyway, my usual long answer to your short question is no, they aren't planning on adding essential services to the list of things we can pay for. Some things we pay for aren't so non-essential such as an optometrist visit. I pay $89 for that and not all of our work insurance plans cover that. Mine happens to, my previous one didn't. For the life of me, I don't understand why that's not covered. You can't get glasses without it. But it's not. So maybe there's a move more in the other direction, to start being more discriminating about what is considered essential. And that I see more of, because there are things that I think should be covered, such as treatment drugs for Geno 1's (within certain parameters of course) and they're not. So again, I would say more of a move to cover less than to cover more.
An interesting situation - an organization representing persons with autism lobbied the government hard for coverage for a particular kind of treatment or extra services for children with autism. They were unsuccessful. They would have to hope that their insurance saw that differently. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Just that if you want something covered by the government plan that's not, you will have alot of work on your hands. So it becomes a big question on private care being against the law and how you fit private care into a public health care system. A question I hope your country has answered better than we have.
Trish
Think about it - botox and private hospital rooms are perks. No government funded coverage for that, nor for non-essential surgery. Facelifts and cosmetic surgery are not covered, for example. It has to be essential.
You can't get an MRI without a doc's order. You can't get a private MRI to speed things up. You also can't get a patient-ordered PCR that the healthcare system doesn't cover or that would have been easy for me. I could be wrong on that, however. The Toronto hospital I went to when I was getting ready to enter regular SOC treatment indicated that their hands were tied on the types and number of tests they could order and that the ones at 4, 8, 12 and 24 were the best they could do and they were quals except for the 12 and perhaps the 24. My family doc gave me a script for a PCR once a month though and I was about to test that theory. I was talking to a fellow hepper on the weekend and he got his first PCR at 12 weeks. He indicated that was standard in the treatment centre he goes to. And this is a Geno 2 who has had a liver transplant. Now that upsets me, particularly because he's being treated out of a hospital that does liver transplants. I have to tell you, that would not have happened in the Toronto hospital I went to. But I think I'm getting offtrack here (I have plans to do something about all this and I'm putting my steps in place - again, another topic.)
Anyway, my usual long answer to your short question is no, they aren't planning on adding essential services to the list of things we can pay for. Some things we pay for aren't so non-essential such as an optometrist visit. I pay $89 for that and not all of our work insurance plans cover that. Mine happens to, my previous one didn't. For the life of me, I don't understand why that's not covered. You can't get glasses without it. But it's not. So maybe there's a move more in the other direction, to start being more discriminating about what is considered essential. And that I see more of, because there are things that I think should be covered, such as treatment drugs for Geno 1's (within certain parameters of course) and they're not. So again, I would say more of a move to cover less than to cover more.
An interesting situation - an organization representing persons with autism lobbied the government hard for coverage for a particular kind of treatment or extra services for children with autism. They were unsuccessful. They would have to hope that their insurance saw that differently. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Just that if you want something covered by the government plan that's not, you will have alot of work on your hands. So it becomes a big question on private care being against the law and how you fit private care into a public health care system. A question I hope your country has answered better than we have.
Trish
Willing - I think the article you quote on if Canada's healthcare system needs fixing is reasonably accurate but a little rosy and Can-Do, the one you quote comes across as more dire than it is. Both quote doctors as their resources.
The system is certainly in need of fixing but we would also never give it up. There have been mistakes along the way that need to be corrected and it's an ongoing source of frustration for ME to see millions of dollars poured into trying to figure out how to fix the things that are broke and see very little change. Perhaps that's the downside of a government-run healthcare system. Change happens slowly and inefficiently. Government decisions were made here that created this situation and I keep waiting for someone with guts and vision to correct the situation and it just ain't happening yet.
In the meantime, when I went to Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto to see my thyroid specialist, I had a conversation with the nurse who took my blood. I had been reading the paper and didn't hear her call me, so she joked and asked me if there was anything interesting and coincidentally, I'd been reading an article about Obamacare. (If that is a derogatory term, my apologies - it's just easier to say and something I read - if it's derogatory, please let me know and I'll stop using it) So I mentioned that to her and we got in to a discussion. She has relatives down in the U.S. and she talked about what trouble they have compared to us and we both agreed that while our system needs fixing, we'd both take this any day. Witness the waiting room just in the blood clinic in that hospital. Didn't matter who those people were or what walk of life. We were all equal and none of us saw a bill. We all had health issues and we were all being treated and none of us had to worry about how we were going to make that happen.
Your current healthcare discussion is big news in my papers here.
The system is certainly in need of fixing but we would also never give it up. There have been mistakes along the way that need to be corrected and it's an ongoing source of frustration for ME to see millions of dollars poured into trying to figure out how to fix the things that are broke and see very little change. Perhaps that's the downside of a government-run healthcare system. Change happens slowly and inefficiently. Government decisions were made here that created this situation and I keep waiting for someone with guts and vision to correct the situation and it just ain't happening yet.
In the meantime, when I went to Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto to see my thyroid specialist, I had a conversation with the nurse who took my blood. I had been reading the paper and didn't hear her call me, so she joked and asked me if there was anything interesting and coincidentally, I'd been reading an article about Obamacare. (If that is a derogatory term, my apologies - it's just easier to say and something I read - if it's derogatory, please let me know and I'll stop using it) So I mentioned that to her and we got in to a discussion. She has relatives down in the U.S. and she talked about what trouble they have compared to us and we both agreed that while our system needs fixing, we'd both take this any day. Witness the waiting room just in the blood clinic in that hospital. Didn't matter who those people were or what walk of life. We were all equal and none of us saw a bill. We all had health issues and we were all being treated and none of us had to worry about how we were going to make that happen.
Your current healthcare discussion is big news in my papers here.
I have never been subjected to a drug test in all of my 48 years. Not on any job. I was on welfare top-up for a short period of time after my marriage ended and the child support quit coming in suddenly - feel compelled to say I replaced that with a couple of jobs from there forward and never went back even though I could have - and was never, I repeat, ever in my life subjected to drug testing. In fact, I'm thinking that would be incredibly controversial here.
They do draw the line here. There are regulations around what procedures are covered, we have a doctor shortage and private health care is not allowed.
Drawing the line at a drug addict not allowed to get healthcare? Or an alcoholic? While those people are contributing to the costs, where do you draw the line? Obesity? People who don't exercise enough? People who exercise too much? Ask people to undergo a diet test before you allow them access to healthcare?
Think for a minute about all the ways you might have contributed to your own healthcare needs. Would you want to be denied healthcare based on that? The government promotes healthy living and all that and society demands it but to deny healthcare is an extreme measure. Some things you hold your nose and do. To deny welfare to able-bodied people who could work, that's something else but denying healthcare. That one is a hard one for me to swallow. Big topic.
They do draw the line here. There are regulations around what procedures are covered, we have a doctor shortage and private health care is not allowed.
Drawing the line at a drug addict not allowed to get healthcare? Or an alcoholic? While those people are contributing to the costs, where do you draw the line? Obesity? People who don't exercise enough? People who exercise too much? Ask people to undergo a diet test before you allow them access to healthcare?
Think for a minute about all the ways you might have contributed to your own healthcare needs. Would you want to be denied healthcare based on that? The government promotes healthy living and all that and society demands it but to deny healthcare is an extreme measure. Some things you hold your nose and do. To deny welfare to able-bodied people who could work, that's something else but denying healthcare. That one is a hard one for me to swallow. Big topic.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis Social Community
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
