No Colonoscopies in Canada?
Aquila0121 @ Wed May 03, 2017 9:39 am
I was discussing an article with a couple friends of mine about a kid who died in the United States because he couldn't get the colonoscopies and care he needed and they told me that even in Canada this young man wouldn't have been able to receive the colonoscopies he needed. I was a bit taken aback. I've always liked the Canadian system far better than the American system, and I guess I assumed this kid would have received the care he needed. But from what I'm told, he still wouldn't have gotten the care he needed in Canada.
Is this true?
I ask this because there are a lot of myths about the Canadian healthcare system where I come from (United States).
Here's a link to the article we were discussing:
======================================
Source Link:
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/31/ ... looks-like
BartSimpson @ Wed May 03, 2017 9:43 am
Here's the article in case anyone doesn't want to give a click to the author:
$1:
This is the final photo of my son, taken six weeks before he died. I hate to even look at it, but there it is. He weighed about 104 -- and he would lose another 15 or so pounds before he finally starved to death.
I wasn't even going to save the photo because I prefer to remember my son as a healthy, funny, hyperactive clown. But this is what I live with now -- the memory of a gaunt, pain-wracked young man.
If Mike had been able to get the colonoscopies he needed, he would still be the person I want to remember.
Instead, we as a society refuse to extend care to all human beings, and 17,000 people die each year in states that have refused to expand Medicaid to cover people in poverty. In North Carolina alone, that number is 2,800. That's seven people a day. Seven human beings who were loved by their family and friends, just as my son was.
I helped organize a die-in this last week in Raleigh, and the eulogist, Rev. Dr. William Barber II, suggested we have open-casket funerals for the people who die from lack of care so people can see the result of our state's politicians' uncaring attitude toward the lives of the people they are supposed to be serving.
When Emmett Till was murdered in Mississippi in 1955, his mother decided on an open-casket funeral so people could see what had been done to her boy. Well, this is what was done to mine.
These legislators who refuse to expand Medicaid call themselves pro-life, but their policies prove otherwise. They care nothing for life once it has exited the birth canal. They care only about scoring political points, and as the body count mounts, they suffer no consequences for the lives they allow to be snuffed out.
A friend of mine said she wishes she believed in hell so she could picture them there. I just want the unnecessary deaths to stop.
So, I will make this photo public. This is what was done to my son. This is what happens to people who can't get access to the care they need.
In the end, we still pay for this care. My son's surgeries, chemo and radiation cost taxpayers nearly $1 million, when we could have saved his life for about $1,000 a year. When you allow someone to go without needed preventive care and chronic disease management, they become very sick -- and very expensive.
If you live in a state that has so far refused to expand Medicaid, your insurance rates could double -- or more -- this year. Don't blame Obama; blame the anti-lifers you elected to your state legislatures and governors' mansions. They have the care they need and always will, but they deny it to others.
You have the vote. You can send them home and replace them with people who do care.
Meanwhile, consider this photo and how unnecessary his suffering -- and that of those who loved and miss him -- was and is.
I wasn't even going to save the photo because I prefer to remember my son as a healthy, funny, hyperactive clown. But this is what I live with now -- the memory of a gaunt, pain-wracked young man.
If Mike had been able to get the colonoscopies he needed, he would still be the person I want to remember.
Instead, we as a society refuse to extend care to all human beings, and 17,000 people die each year in states that have refused to expand Medicaid to cover people in poverty. In North Carolina alone, that number is 2,800. That's seven people a day. Seven human beings who were loved by their family and friends, just as my son was.
I helped organize a die-in this last week in Raleigh, and the eulogist, Rev. Dr. William Barber II, suggested we have open-casket funerals for the people who die from lack of care so people can see the result of our state's politicians' uncaring attitude toward the lives of the people they are supposed to be serving.
When Emmett Till was murdered in Mississippi in 1955, his mother decided on an open-casket funeral so people could see what had been done to her boy. Well, this is what was done to mine.
These legislators who refuse to expand Medicaid call themselves pro-life, but their policies prove otherwise. They care nothing for life once it has exited the birth canal. They care only about scoring political points, and as the body count mounts, they suffer no consequences for the lives they allow to be snuffed out.
A friend of mine said she wishes she believed in hell so she could picture them there. I just want the unnecessary deaths to stop.
So, I will make this photo public. This is what was done to my son. This is what happens to people who can't get access to the care they need.
In the end, we still pay for this care. My son's surgeries, chemo and radiation cost taxpayers nearly $1 million, when we could have saved his life for about $1,000 a year. When you allow someone to go without needed preventive care and chronic disease management, they become very sick -- and very expensive.
If you live in a state that has so far refused to expand Medicaid, your insurance rates could double -- or more -- this year. Don't blame Obama; blame the anti-lifers you elected to your state legislatures and governors' mansions. They have the care they need and always will, but they deny it to others.
You have the vote. You can send them home and replace them with people who do care.
Meanwhile, consider this photo and how unnecessary his suffering -- and that of those who loved and miss him -- was and is.
Aquila0121 @ Wed May 03, 2017 9:46 am
Thanks BartSimpson, I didn't know if posting the entire article would be appropriate or not.
BartSimpson @ Wed May 03, 2017 9:48 am
Here's the thing for me:
1. Nothing in the US Constitution authorizes the Federal government to control health care in any way. The states can do that if they wish and then people have the choice to move to those states or leave them.
2. I don't have a right to healthcare, housing, a Cadillac, or a TV. Neither does anyone else.
3. Looking to the Canadian system as a role model fails to take into account that socialized medicine is no longer a monopoly in Canada.
BartSimpson @ Wed May 03, 2017 9:49 am
Aquila0121 Aquila0121:
Thanks BartSimpson, I didn't know if posting the entire article would be appropriate or not.
You're welcome. And welcome to CKA! I hope you stay around for more than just posting this one article.
DrCaleb @ Wed May 03, 2017 9:53 am
Aquila0121 Aquila0121:
Is this true?
I ask this because there are a lot of myths about the Canadian healthcare system where I come from (United States).
I ask this because there are a lot of myths about the Canadian healthcare system where I come from (United States).
I would say it's a myth. The article Bart quoted doesn't say why the kid didn't get a colonoscopy, but testing isn't something usually denied. On the contrary, a recent study found we get a lot of unnecessary diagnostic tests.
I'd chalk that one up to 'myth'.
BeaverFever @ Wed May 03, 2017 9:56 am
$1:
3. Looking to the Canadian system as a role model fails to take into account that socialized medicine is no longer a monopoly in Canada.
What does this mean Bart?
I don't understand the question about colonoscopy not being available in Canada, you'll have to provide more context. This would generally be covered by the public health insurance.
Aquila0121 @ Wed May 03, 2017 10:11 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Here's the thing for me:
1. Nothing in the US Constitution authorizes the Federal government to control health care in any way. The states can do that if they wish and then people have the choice to move to those states or leave them.
1. Nothing in the US Constitution authorizes the Federal government to control health care in any way. The states can do that if they wish and then people have the choice to move to those states or leave them.
That's why any national system in the United States would have to be optional for the states to participate in.
$1:
2. I don't have a right to healthcare, housing, a Cadillac, or a TV. Neither does anyone else.
Healthcare is a matter of preserving your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is also a national security issue. Imagine if a biological weapon or serious epidemic began to spread through a nation of 300 million with 50 million or more without the health insurance necessary to be treated. Housing, a Cadillac, or a TV are all part of your having liberty to pursue your happiness.
$1:
3. Looking to the Canadian system as a role model fails to take into account that socialized medicine is no longer a monopoly in Canada.
I don't think it's a monopoly in any major Westernized nation.
fifeboy @ Wed May 03, 2017 10:21 am
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
$1:
3. Looking to the Canadian system as a role model fails to take into account that socialized medicine is no longer a monopoly in Canada.
What does this mean Bart?
I don't understand the question about colonoscopy not being available in Canada, you'll have to provide more context. This would generally be covered by the public health insurance.
I can't speak for other Provinces, but in Saskatchewan you can get one. My surgeon asked me about ithe one I had a number of years ago, before my appendix came out. What they don't do now is use them to screen for colorectal cancer. Now if you are over a certain age you do a yearly occult blood test. Wise use of public funds. Ya need one, ya get one.
BartSimpson @ Wed May 03, 2017 10:32 am
Aquila0121 Aquila0121:
Healthcare is a matter of preserving your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is also a national security issue. Imagine if a biological weapon or serious epidemic began to spread through a nation of 300 million with 50 million or more without the health insurance necessary to be treated.
You misunderstand what a right is.
A right is inherent in the person and contained within the person.
It is not granted by government and while it can be infringed by government it cannot be taken away.
The problem with seeing healthcare as a right is that it infringes on someone else's rights if they do not wish to provide you with that healthcare.
If you have a right to healthcare then you have a right to force a doctor to provide it to you and you have a right to force me to pay for it.
If you can force other people to satisfy this perverse interpretation of a right then what's to stop someone from kicking you out of your house because their right to housing trumps your mere ownership of a home?
Can we force farmers to work to satisfy someone else's right to food? Because it worked so well in the Soviet Union and in Venezuela?
See, your rights end at the place where anyone else's rights begin.
Therefore you do have the right to do all sorts of things without interference from others but you have no right to force other people to provide you with healthcare, food, housing, or anything else.
Capish?
DrCaleb @ Wed May 03, 2017 10:53 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
The problem with seeing healthcare as a right is that it infringes on someone else's rights if they do not wish to provide you with that healthcare.
If you have a right to healthcare then you have a right to force a doctor to provide it to you and you have a right to force me to pay for it.
If you have a right to healthcare then you have a right to force a doctor to provide it to you and you have a right to force me to pay for it.
False assumption. No one forces Doctors or Nurses to pay to go through tortuous processes and classes to become medical professionals. They want to, from the human need to help and serve others.
If I have a 'right' to pay the least for the best service, then the State is the best vehicle to get the best service for the least cost. Every other G7 country besides the US already knows and demonstrates this, through lower per capita costs and generally better per capita health outcomes. The State serves the people, how the people demand to be served.
fifeboy @ Wed May 03, 2017 10:56 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Aquila0121 Aquila0121:
Healthcare is a matter of preserving your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is also a national security issue. Imagine if a biological weapon or serious epidemic began to spread through a nation of 300 million with 50 million or more without the health insurance necessary to be treated.
You misunderstand what a right is.
A right is inherent in the person and contained within the person.
It is not granted by government and while it can be infringed by government it cannot be taken away.
The problem with seeing healthcare as a right is that it infringes on someone else's rights if they do not wish to provide you with that healthcare.
If you have a right to healthcare then you have a right to force a doctor to provide it to you and you have a right to force me to pay for it.
If you can force other people to satisfy this perverse interpretation of a right then what's to stop someone from kicking you out of your house because their right to housing trumps your mere ownership of a home?
Can we force farmers to work to satisfy someone else's right to food? Because it worked so well in the Soviet Union and in Venezuela?
See, your rights end at the place where anyone else's rights begin.
Therefore you do have the right to do all sorts of things without interference from others but you have no right to force other people to provide you with healthcare, food, housing, or anything else.
Capish?
You really seem caught up in this extreme idea of society. Here(Canada) we elect a government that we expect to purchase for us, as a collective, health care. We than proceed to grant the government the power to pay for that health care from our taxes. It's done because that's what we, as a people, want done!
Thanos @ Wed May 03, 2017 10:58 am
How a service provided by any sane/rational/enlightened government ever ended up as some kind of rights discussion is beyond baffling.
BartSimpson @ Wed May 03, 2017 11:20 am
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
False assumption. No one forces Doctors or Nurses to pay to go through tortuous processes and classes to become medical professionals. They want to, from the human need to help and serve others.
If I have a 'right' to pay the least for the best service, then the State is the best vehicle to get the best service for the least cost. Every other G7 country besides the US already knows and demonstrates this, through lower per capita costs and generally better per capita health outcomes. The State serves the people, how the people demand to be served.
If I have a 'right' to pay the least for the best service, then the State is the best vehicle to get the best service for the least cost. Every other G7 country besides the US already knows and demonstrates this, through lower per capita costs and generally better per capita health outcomes. The State serves the people, how the people demand to be served.
If I am a great doctor and I wish to charge $1500 an hour for my services that's my right as a doctor.
You don't have to use my services.
But when you create a legal artifice to force me to work for less money than what I wish to charge then you are using the force of government to infringe my rights.
And the result in Canada is that your best and brightest medical students are departing for the USA where it's easier to get into school, easier to obtain a residency, and it's a whole fuckload more profitable all the way around as compared to Canada. Taxes are lower in the USA, regulatory costs are lower, and you can pick whatever specialty you prefer.
https://www.kelownanow.com/watercooler/ ... of_an_end/
If the shortage keeps up then sooner or later I fully anticipate that Canada will start creating laws to prevent doctors from leaving Canada and I expect you'll also impose laws prohibiting doctors from retiring early.
Because the proof that there's no "right" to healthcare will be amply illustrated when there's no one left to provide it.
Thanos @ Wed May 03, 2017 11:26 am
Your (belief in your) right to choose to not have your tax dollars help anyone doesn't wipe out the government's obligation to provide services to help those who need it. That "promote the general welfare" part of your nation's constitution effectively means that the government isn't allowed to stand idle and do nothing in the face of the suffering of any American citizen. You can argue endlessly on how that service is to be provided but you simply cannot say that the government isn't allowed to do it at all.