 Parents take daughter with rare disorder to U.S.; province denies funding Brooke VanAssen can’t do many of the things other kids her age take for granted: scrub her teeth, roughhouse, gnaw at the inside of her cheek or absent-mindedly pick her nose, as all children do but never admit.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
“Brooke’s worth that kind of money,” said Rob VanAssen, Brooke’s father. “We had to do it and we can’t afford it ourselves, but we trust and know the Lord is in charge of all things.”
Idiots... they say they can be treated in Canada, and they reject this and still head to the US.
The title is misleading, yet again.
Why the hell should they fund a treatment outside of the country that's covered in Canada?
Well then, I guess you don't need treatment.... just do what all these other fools did and just pray.
They're Early Treatments ffs... you're not supposed to expect miricles right off the bat num'nuts!
Her own parents are going to be the death of her and if they're not, then they're going to be living in poverty for something the Canadian UHC already was working on.
Another fool duped by an American doctor who promises the world for a price.
He said Brooke’s treatment is going well so far.
Well good luck to you on that... But I don't see why my tax dollars should go to pay for some procedure done in the US that only has an 80% chance of success and carries the same level of risks as the treatment already provided by Canada.
Tuckwell said the committee tries to determine if the treatment is available elsewhere in Canada rather than another country.
In its letter to the VanAssens, the committee said it denied funding because embolization treatment with glue is available in Alberta and Toronto, even though “it may not be the technique and/or particular treatment the parent prefers.”
^ There you have it... yet the parents in the report claim it's all about costs.
To me it is... to them it isn't and they found there is already a treatment available which is covered.
If you want the procedure covered, then you fight the government to cover it being done in Canada, not to fight for them to pay for some other country to do it at whatever price they put on their services.
But maybe that's just me an my heartless self.
Idiots... they say they can be treated in Canada, and they reject this and still head to the US.
The title is misleading, yet again.
Why the hell should they fund a treatment outside of the country that's covered in Canada?
Sigh. They can be treated in Canada. But the specific treatment isn't available. So therefore, the treatment is not covered in Canada.
The fact that treatment A is available should not discount treatment B,C, and D. This other treatment, the one she's getting now, is seemingly more effective than the one available in Canada, and isn't that the point?
The reason why they denied funding for the out of country trips is the same reason they won't offer said procedure in Canada. Money. If this alcohol treatment is 80% effective, over whatever effectiveness of the glue treatment (let's ignore that not all treatments work the same for individuals), or even if the alcohol treatment is more effective in more risky and dangerous cases, like hers, shouldn't we have said treatment available?
If you want the procedure covered, then you fight the government to cover it being done in Canada, not to fight for them to pay for some other country to do it at whatever price they put on their services.
But maybe that's just me an my heartless self.
Yeah, and then she'd have to wait years to get it approved in Canada, and then a few more years to get doctors trained in said procedure...that's IF those trained doctors stay in Canada, and not go to the US where the money is better in the first place.
In the end, your "idea" would cost more due to the various legal bills to sue the Alberta health care system, and it'd take years more.
Sigh. They can be treated in Canada. But the specific treatment isn't available. So therefore, the treatment is not covered in Canada.
The fact that treatment A is available should not discount treatment B,C, and D. This other treatment, the one she's getting now, is seemingly more effective than the one available in Canada, and isn't that the point?
If it's not covered by our plan because it hasn't been approved as a viable source of treatment within our country, why then should our plan cover the same non-approved treatment in another country?
If that was allowed, then all of a sudden we'd have all sorts of people jumping borders to other countries to get whatever treatments they want that arn't approved by our system as the tax payer's expense.
If someone wants it covered, then fight the system within to change it so that it is covered.
I just think they're going about this the totally wrong way.
We should, which is why it should be fought with our system to have it available, rather then fight for the system to pay for it to be treated elsewhere.
Fighting for the treatment to be paid for in another country doesn't solve the problem here in Canada and if this kid ends up having a relapse or it showing up elsewhere in the body, they're going to have to leave the country and do it all over again.
If doctors want to be in the profession simply because of money, then they can leave for all I care. I'd much rather have doctors who's priorities lie in their patient's medical care, not how big their house is.
The problem is that they stopped suddenly after the early treatments, not even given the full process a chance and because of this, I don't think they should have any money going towards their treatment in the US.
Regardless, it's the right thing to do in the long run and would speed up the process so that this treatment would be available for everybody who's in the same boat as their daughter. What is being proposed is a patch job for this one case. If and when more cases arise in the future, it'll all just go back to square one.
They're already trying to sue the health care system to pay for the treatment in the US.... why don't they sue to have it available in Canada and kill two birds with one stone?
then I think AHC should at least partially fund it.