Canadian Health Care

konakat, terrible how our lives change in an instant, isn't it. Many people just don't understand. I was thinking of posting the article on the "other" thread but I don't want to receive the wrath of the Americans who don't like Canadians saying our system is better even though we acknowledge it's not perfect. ......thanks for the compliment on the avatar ... it's my fantasy look!!!! LOL

hrf, you look hot girl!  And you were worried about your hair!

Konkat, I can see that there are a lot of 'borderline' cases that triage would have to be very careful about.  But anyone coming to emergency to have eye drops put in (she was in her 30's) should be sent to a clinic.  

Layne, your story and that of Paprika on the other thread are the 2 big reasons the US needs reform in their healthcare, ideally universal care.  How can anyone ignore people in these circumstances!!!  Would people change their minds if the ones with sick children and losing their houses were their own family members and neighbours?  It seems like out of sight, out of mind.

Spiffy!  I think you're spiffy, neat-o Layne!

Gracie

If the user fee were small enough(for those without income) anyone could afford to pay it. Keep in mind that it isnt just those with social assistance wasting er time. There are alot of reasons why the er isnt used just for emergencies. During one re visit when we were there we met a family who was there to have the mothers dressing changed on a cyst. I think they realized I looked somewhat surprised and commented that because she didnt have a family Dr. "the nursing home" had instructed them to take her there. Bout a year ago I had passed out and dh called our family gp after I came to...they couldnt see me that week and "suggested" the emerg...we didnt go( I couldnt bear the 9 hour wait which is what they said they had when my dh called when I was feeling that lousy and instead had my surgeon order another mri for me which I promptly got done in Buffalo the next day ) but I suspect many would have. But im not just saying user fees for emerg...Im saying it should be for everything as opposed to the tax increase which then gets allocated to everything but health care.

Konakat

I am not aware of any Gp in our area that one can actually reach after hours. It used to be that way but now most of them either have recordings or registies and they simply and sadly tell you to guess what....go to the emerg. Part of the problem is the ohip fee schedule which quite frankly imho takes away any incentive that a Dr. might have to do anything "extra". Another problem(depending on where one lives) is availability of health care after hours. In our area after 10:00 pm when prompt care closes there is nothing other than emerg. And of course lets not forget the thousands who dont have a family Dr. at all.

Linda

Our local hospital is not allowed to turn anyone away from emerg and send them to prompt care because of "liability" issues and I just recently found out that the reason prompt care isnt in the same building(which would have solved that problem) is because of politics between the two hospitals(as it was back then).

mke, thanks for sharing that info with us.  Perhaps, just as is happening in the U.S. with the misinformation about healthcare reform, we are also not hearing many of the actualities!  My last experience in emerg was with my dh at St. Mike's; his gp had called ahead and they looked after him immediately.  Kept him overnight and performed surgery early the next morning.  Well, I suppose that was unusual.

My GP works in an office with 6 doctors. Many times I have to wait in the office because when she is with a patient she gives that person her undivided attention. I book my physicals a year in advance but if I am sick she will see me. If it's bad, she'll see me that day. If it's not bad, I might have to wait a day or two. Her office has also coordinated with a number of other doctors and they all take turns at the after hours walk in clinic which is located at a local Loblaws store. It's very convenient. She's also very good about calling back.....she saves her calls for the end of the day so it's not unusual for her to call in the evening but she always calls back the same day.

Why does the American Cancer Society set a standard of care for women at 40 and over to have annual mammograms,  and in Canada, this is not the standard? 

With 3 out of 10 breast cancers now diagnosed in women under 50, this seems wrong to me.  If your GP gives you a scrip and you are under 40, you can have a mammo, and generally, you must stipulate some condition (fibrocystic breasts, family history) to justify it.  Some screening centres are more relaxed about this than others.  But I have been telling friends and family to get in there and if their doctor won't give them a scrip, find a doctor who will, if you are 40 years old.   Yes, I'm slightly biased - my second-ever mammo diagnose me with IDC at 43, no history, no risk factors - just a docor who believes all women over 40 should have annual mammograms.

You can have a mammo if your doctor recommends it, but it's not the automatic standard of care here as it is in the States.  So unless your doctor does recommend it,you don't get one.

Barb, in Ontario you can get a mammo at any age. My first was in my 20's, 30 years ago! At the age of 50, you can book your own. I was so excited last year when I turned 50 that I finally had control. The first mammo I booked myself gave me my bc diagnosis. Damn I'm good! I expect my daughter (26) to start mammos either after pregnancy or at 30 whichever comes first. You just have to ask.

I met my current doctor in a walk-in clinic and he is God to me. I can walk into his office and be seen as he knows I don't abuse it. He even gave me his cell phone once to call back during my tests for cancer. After I called him I threw out the number, knowing I'd never use it again unless he asked me to. It is mutual respect.

I have called Telehealth twice. Once for the Walkerton Virus I had (where you pray to die; you actually slough off the lining of your bowel it is so wicked!) and the second time for my kidney problems I just had. Both times they sent me to the ER with paperwork faxed to the hospital I'm going to. It doesn't get you in faster, but it shows the triage nurse that you tried an alternate.

When I was recently in the ER the day of my kidney surgery (shouldn't red flags go off if I've just had surgery?) there were a lot of drunks and bar fights which slowed the whole process as some people had bleeding boo-boos (one guy fainted when he looked at his arm and they had to take him right away because of that). Those people should be charged. If you order an ambulance and it is not deemed necessary, you pay the full $245 fee. If it is validated, you only pay $45. People who use the ER to sort our their drinking issues should have to pay before they're treated. Annoys the hell out of me! I was finally admitted and spent a week in the hospital. My ER visit was justified. The drunks walked out with band-aids!!

Okay, I'll get off my soap-box now!

Aha! And that's the difference between Canadian and American health systems. We aim to cover our costs, you all aim to make a profit! My sister has lived in the states for 30 years and I've been hearing horror stories for that long! And she was a nurse!

Just want to say that I am enjoying this thread very much. It is a relief to discuss our Canadian issues.

Of course, I am one who will say that I have had excellent timely care. Indeed, the day I had my recall mammogram, I also had an ultrasound. When the radiology doctor came in, it was clear that I was in trouble but oh was he ever kind and compassionate. After he did more of the ultrasound thing he showed me the suspicious part and said "we ought to do a biopsy on that". Having been through this before I thought that meant a referral to the surgeon, then a referral to the bigger hospital for the biopsy, then a wait for the results. Instead, the radiologist said we could do it right now if that was all right with me. It flashed through my mind even then how greatful I was to be Canadian and not have to wonder if a biopsy would be covered by insurance. My decision was solely based on medical issues. Of course, I opted to have it immediately and had the results in less than a week.  Surgery followed within about 10 days and chemo as soon as practicable when my surgery had healed. 

Of course there are parts of our health care that could be tweaked but I am constantly grateful only to concern myself with medical needs, never the cost of the care. Being within walking distance of the hospital and retired with kids grown up makes me even more grateful that there are so many other things I don't have to put on my worry list. I can't imagine going through this nonsense and having to fight with an insurance company or worse yet, not have one with which to fight as our American friends are experiencing.

Dreamwriter...totally off topic but I had to laugh(though I wasnt at the time) but dh's prostate cancer was discovered because of a kidney stone. When you said your friend had a stent put in and was out of pain because of it dh's experience was completely different as a result of the stent. He had a stent put in after they lasered and removed the stone(to help let the pieces pass)..the stent was soooooo painful for him he actually ripped the towel rack right off the wall(needed to redecorate the bathroom anyway...he had to have the stent removed within 48 hours of it going in....when they were getting him organized for his prostate surgery they found another stone which still has to be dealt with. He's already told anyone who will listen that he'll keep the stone before he ever agrees to another stent again...lol

PiP mentioned on the other healthcare thread an interview on The Daily Show last night.  Jon Stewart's guest was Betsy McCaughey, a former lieut-governor of New York State.  They discussed the part of the healthcare reform bill that dealt with doctors discussing end-of-life decisions with their elderly patients.  I think Stewart invited her on the show for the sole purpose of illustrating how opponents of the bill "choose" to interpret (distort) parts of the bill in order to scare people.  I think you can see the entire interview at www.comedycentral.com  She kept playing to the audience, trying her best to get them to believe her.  If it wasn't such a serious matter, it would have been hysterically funny.....

Now I'm not at all fond of our current administration in Ottawa, and I hate that the Conservative Party has chosen to go the Karl Rove route with negative ads that are nothing short of nasty BUT, I don't think I could ever muster up the passion I see on that other thread.  It just can't be good for their blood pressure.

Lindasa - I think you might be on to something. The Faux News (love that!) thing is like some of the evangelical religions where thought is not expected, indeed, it is discouraged. "Just listen to us and we will tell you what to think (whatever suits those who have the most money} , what to fear - and where to protest." It really is quite scarey. I noticed that even watching MSNBC (when they aren't showing things about prisons or crimes) they talk really fast and really loud with something quite unlike the quieter CBC type voice. I guess even they need to shout to get people's attention. Watching Canadian news is much better for the blood pressure. I confess to ocassionally watching Fox - it came with one of my packages - much like watching a train wreck. But not too long. One of the posters on the other thread said she watches Fox because she wants to get "the bigger picture." Ouch.