[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Actually what would be better is for the Federal Government to restore funding to the provinces for health care, more accountability in the operation of the health care system and less worry about getting reelected by balancing the budget.

I will have to diagree with you about the single payer system. Yes, up to a point our health care is single payer, but, by definition, as soon as a Government controls it, the system becomes socialized.

So the reality is that we're actually using two systems for our health care and neither to very good effect, which leads to horribly underfunded hospitals having to beg borrow and steal to keep operating which, under either system is wrong.

I'm not sure what diff it makes if the Feds or provinces fund Medicare. I'd like to see the feds fund it 100%, but then administer it 100%, saving in administrative costs, cheaper drug buys, squeeze docs salaries a bit more and provide the same care for every Canadian. But as long as provinces administer it, let them pay for it too.

I would actually go for socialized medicine - make docs govt employees and make the system totally govt owned. Then take a look at European countries, especially France, that seem to use a public/private system to very good effect - much better health outcomes for less money. I would also like to see some of Palin's death panels up here - the terminally ill or very old we should not be spending fortunes on to keep alive. Same with the very prematurely born. Very poor chances of survival, very expensive to keep alive. Keep health care from people who actually have a good chance of benefiting from it.

As it is now they won't even let people die with dignity so can you really expect them to take up the ideas you're espousing?

It might save money but who decides about who lives and who dies? The doctors? They can't, or at least aren't supposed to be making those decisions because of their hypocratic oath, so that leaves bureaucrats and we all know how well they do their other jobs. Besides how big a step is it till we start pulling the plug on the mentally handicapped, the poor and so on and so on.

The system was never designed to give unlimited health care free of charge like it's doing now. It was designed to give "basic" health care and in the years since 1968 people have abused it. Just sit in any doctors waiting room and watch what ailments the people in the room are waiting to see the doctor for.

So for the Governments to say it's collapsing because of the elderly is a complete fallacy. It's collapsing because of misuse..............by everyone and they won't come out and say it because any party that did would lose a ton of votes.

Can you imagine Jack Layton saying, the health care system is fucked because all you soccer moms, psuedo atheletes, union members, and socially elite have abused it for so longs its broken beyond repair?

[andyt]

What are these abuses exactly? If you have good ideas in this regard, how the system is being abused to a large extent, and could save it a lot of money, you should speak out about it. I've never run to the doc just for shits and giggles, nor do I know anybody else who has.

[ShepherdsDog]

Well if the shits won't stop, you'd better go see a doctor.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

What are these abuses exactly? If you have good ideas in this regard, how the system is being abused to a large extent, and could save it a lot of money, you should speak out about it. I've never run to the doc just for shits and giggles, nor do I know anybody else who has.

Maybe not so much abused as misused. But like I said all you have to do is sit in a Clinic waiting room. You'll see people with ailments that they wouldn't have thought about seeing a doctor for 40 years ago sitting there waiting. Hell everytime someone gets the common cold they take their sorry ass to the doctor rather than using a little common sense.

Another problem is that doctors are seeing patients on an average out here of one person every 15 minutes, which doesn't leave them enough time to actually do their job, so they tell these people to make an appointment again in a week, even if it was for something trivial.

All these little things add up to put a major drain on the system and like I said before no politician is going to point out to his constituents that they're misuing the system, at the peril of not getting reelected.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

andyt andyt:

What are these abuses exactly? If you have good ideas in this regard, how the system is being abused to a large extent, and could save it a lot of money, you should speak out about it. I've never run to the doc just for shits and giggles, nor do I know anybody else who has.

Maybe not so much abused as misused. But like I said all you have to do is sit in a Clinic waiting room. You'll see people with ailments that they wouldn't have thought about seeing a doctor for 40 years ago sitting there waiting. Hell everytime someone gets the common cold they take their sorry ass to the doctor rather than using a little common sense.

Another problem is that doctors are seeing patients on an average out here of one person every 15 minutes, which doesn't leave them enough time to actually do their job, so they tell these people to make an appointment again in a week, even if it was for something trivial.

All these little things add up to put a major drain on the system and like I said before no politician is going to point out to his constituents that they're misuing the system, at the peril of not getting reelected.

I doubt if the sort of misuse you describe is a huge factor. One year I got the flu, and it went into my lungs. For 3 months I was getting weaker and weaker and still waiting for it to clear. Finally went to the doctor who told me I had walking pneumonia. He prescribed some anti-biotics, and bingo, I was OK. I doubt that cost the system very much, and I should have gone in a bit sooner.

The 80% of health care costs are spent on a person's last year of life. And we keep coming up with more and more technology to keep people alive. Same with preemies - we keep being (sometimes) able to keep earlier and earlier babies alive. But, they have very poor health outcomes and it costs a fortune.

Another piece is the over drugging of people. That is something where definitely people need to get over themselves and not run to the doctor for every little thing, and for all the new drugs that Big Pharma is busy finding a disease for.

Lastly just technology is costing more and more, with sometimes questionable benefits. And of course Canada is getting fatter, eating more and more crap, and moving less and less. I think those are the big factors to look at for savings.

Also using nurse-practitioners for a lot of what GP's do now, so GPs can spend more time with patients that need it.

[Freakinoldguy]

Other than the ethical questions about when a life is beyond saving, it might just be better to let people go rather than prolong the inevitable.

But, with that being said I wonder how many younger people who abused their bodies to the point of organ failure would feel about being put into the same category as the elderly when it comes to terminating their health care?

Not many I'd guess. So unless society emulates Logans Run you're going to have a problem instituting these draconian measures, just to save some money.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Other than the ethical questions about when a life is beyond saving, it might just be better to let people go rather than prolong the inevitable.

But, with that being said I wonder how many younger people who abused their bodies to the point of organ failure would feel about being put into the same category as the elderly when it comes to terminating their health care?

Not many I'd guess. So unless society emulates Logans Run you're going to have a problem instituting these draconian measures, just to save some money.

If the organ can be replaced and they go on to some quality of life, that's one thing. I'm not just talking about discarding people who can reasonably be repaired. If it's some sort of massive organ failure and/or brain damage, the IMO age has nothing to do with it - look at say the Shivo case in the US.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Other than the ethical questions about when a life is beyond saving, it might just be better to let people go rather than prolong the inevitable.

But, with that being said I wonder how many younger people who abused their bodies to the point of organ failure would feel about being put into the same category as the elderly when it comes to terminating their health care?

Not many I'd guess. So unless society emulates Logans Run you're going to have a problem instituting these draconian measures, just to save some money.

If the organ can be replaced and they go on to some quality of life, that's one thing. I'm not just talking about discarding people who can reasonably be repaired. If it's some sort of massive organ failure and/or brain damage, the IMO age has nothing to do with it - look at say the Shivo case in the US.

Fair enough. The problem I have with it is that alot of people end up being recidivists when it comes to their own health. So how long should we go on repairing people who continue their destructive behaviour?

For example: you have a great scientist on the verge of discovering the cure for cancer but he's obscenely obese and has had two liver transplants and a heart surgery, should he be given priority over someone who has kept themselves healthy but by bad luck got a virus that damaged their heart?

I think that becomes the dilema and like I said before, it may save alot of money but, I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to make the decision of who lives and who dies, ethics aside.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Fair enough. The problem I have with it is that alot of people end up being recidivists when it comes to their own health. So how long should we go on repairing people who continue their destructive behaviour?

For example: you have a great scientist on the verge of discovering the cure for cancer but he's obscenely obese and has had two liver transplants and a heart surgery, should he be given priority over someone who has kept themselves healthy but by bad luck got a virus that damaged their heart?

I think that becomes the dilema and like I said before, it may save alot of money but, I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to make the decision of who lives and who dies, ethics aside.

Most of us are recidivists in one way or another. It's not just overeating or drugs, stress causes real problems, some people drive like idiots etc. We could never establish that somebody is not entitled to medical care.

Your obese scientist is still functioning. But if he has a massive stroke and his brain is mush, how many heroic measures do you employ. If he's in hospital with organ failure and there is no transplant that can be done, how much longer do you keep him hanging on? That's what I'm talking about here, people dying in a hospital, their death held off by machinery and heroic measures for a couple of months, when they should be dying at home, naturally, the way they used to. We've had cases here in Canada too, where people's religious beliefs cause them to fight for every last thing to be done, for a couple months of extended suffering of their loved one when the docs know it's hopeless. Ease their suffering, but let them go easily.