What Entertainment- U.S.A. Democrats vs Republicans- Health care

Then how can you judge them as exploited? Can't they take care of themselves?

Start another thread as this is gonna go very far off topic .

So, what else is new?

Young hookers working the street for next to nothing , Drunken father drinking from their work , need I say more . Drugs that she is hooked too and a pimp who feeds . Young boys in the same position . Old seniors who are robbed by their own family , so they can satisfy a habit .

But, is that a case of them being exploited by society, or by individuals?

Regardless....it is my belief that we are all equally deserving of health care. Now before I get jumped on I have had to pay, in other countries, sometimes not because where I was visiting and working was the kind of place whereby one paid what they believed was a good fee.....what I resent here, in Canada, as a person with a sometimes debilitating illness, are those who use emergency as a clinic.....as well I resent those who by virtue of being entitled to free everything milk that for all it is worth because of their shitty life choices like booze, drugs and a horrible diet.

Those of us who have a particular ailment, and who are not subsidized, tend to be perhaps more vigilant and respectful of the very system that does treat us rather well. I for one am grateful of the system that we have, flaws notwithstanding. Beats the crap out of going bankrupt.

What is the matter with booze, drugs, horrible diet? (you left out hand rolled Honduran cigars, so I wouldn't feel picked on, thanks)
I don't think those are part of a shitty lifestyle, but really a North End mentality! lol

Actually Rosen I see many "unhealthy" types all over the city but those who are poorer do tend to have shittier diets because they cannot afford good food nor do many of them have the necessary skills to do proper meal planning and preparation. This government, in all of its ridiculousness, quashes community-run initiatives whereby healthier lifestyles like cooking from scratch would be taught because our stupid government wants the "chefs" to have Red Seal certification. As well the government wants folks to be taught in a commercial type kitchen.

How many poor people ( and most for that matter) have a commercial setup in their homes?

I digress somewhat here but to me our healthcare system is burdened and abused and in many ways this situation could be changed with a bit of work and common sense.

Yes...there are people who are "lesser"...in certain aspects.

There are people who are "better"...in certain aspects.

That's the natural order of things.

As far as exploitation goes...I never said exploitation. I don't think I even implied it.

What I said was there will always be low-wage labour, and those who are "have-nots" who will work for peanuts and shelter. (maybe not peanuts anymore since everyone is allergic now).

But those who DO work, and contribute to the whole of society should absolutely have some kind of health care benefits provided...even if it's just emergency care.

But there are those who will NEVER contribute to society, and don't deserve to be "helped" by anyone. They are those who are able-bodied, reasonable minded individuals, who just CHOOSE to bleed society and everyone around them expecting some kind of support.

And for those of you who want to jump on me about thinking people are "lesser"...look in the mirror...because YOU believe the same thing...you just choose a different way of showing it.
ME - I believe people should HAVE to work for their food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare, and some people just don't have what it takes to do so...so they may work crappier jobs and get less pay.
YOU - believe everyone should HAVE food, shelter, clothing and healthcare, and some people just don't have what it takes to do so...so you think everyone else who does work should have to pay for them...and "carry" the "lesser" people.

I agree with YOU Ages...

I agree with ME.

Miz point wrote:I digress somewhat here but to me our healthcare system is burdened and abused and in many ways this situation could be changed with a bit of work and common sense.

First,...THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS COMMON SENSE.

That said, I recently spent 7 HOURS in the Emergency Room with my daughter who had a 103F fever, was throwing up and completely lethargic.

She had been on/off sick for a few days...and finally the fever got the best of her so we took her to the emergency room.

My daughter would throw up anything she ate...so she hadn't eaten
anything since 2pm, we got to the hospital at 6:30pm, left a 2:00am. At
some point a nurse gave her a popsicle, which she ate happily...and
threw up 15 minutes later....you'd think that would've triggered a quick
response.

Every hour, a nurse would call her name for "reassessment", where they would take her temperature again, and send us back to sit in the waiting room.

We watched as other kids went ahead of her, who came in after us, and who seemingly had less severe issues, since those kids were running around playing in the play center and creating a havoc.

After 7 HOURS, we finally just went home...after telling the nurse that if we have to come back, we expect to see a doctor in 30 seconds...

7 HOURS!!!

NOBODY!!! should have to wait to see a doctor for more than an hour. NOBODY!!!

Even if they just had a doctor, or 4th-year med student running around for the "less severe" cases, flues and colds, handing out tylenol and making recommendations to help ease parents' minds.

I'm happy to say that now she's doing fine. We're still not sure what it was, though it seemed all she needed was about 14 hours straight of sleep.

I don't ever remember going to a hospital in the US where I had to wait more than 2 hours to see a doctor. In fact, most hospitals have a mandatory policy that says someone will see a doctor within a certain amount of time. Something simple like that here could solve 99% of the problems with the Canadian system.

Well said AGEsAces! Don't even get me started on our pathetic system. My daughter is still waiting to see the specialist, I have been in contact with WRHA and they have basically told me to suck it up and that my daughters case (according to the specialist who has not seen my daughter) is not urgent. My mother died as a direct result of our shitty system.

I will maintain that this system is better than the alternative of becoming bankrupt because of a medical emergency. That being said it is not perfect, there is abuse of it and if there are those individuals who are willing to pay for it then why not pay and jump the queue? Any opinions regarding a two-tiered system? Does that notion go against the original idea of Tommy Douglas's?

No MizP...the Canadian system is better than no system...but I'd personally rather to bankrupt than not get treated at all.

And the system here is hypocritical.

They go on and on about how it's "public" healthcare...yet, when I ruptured my achilles a few years ago, I showed up at the PanAm clinic, paid $2500 and had surgery within a couple of days. Had I been going through "they system", others have told me their surgery dates were put off as much as 2 weeks.

A prime example of the hypocrites would be for those wanting gastric bypass. You can get your doctor to sign off on it, and get put on the waiting list, and sit on that list for 5-7 YEARS before you'll get your surgery.

Or...you can pay $10k and go downtown to a clinic and have it done in a week. (used to be you had to go to Kingston, but now they've opened a clinic here in Winnipeg).

Personally, I think a two-tiered system MAY work, provided the medical personnel in the "pay" tier, are required to do a certain amount of "social" service as well. It keeps the system from becoming too separated from each other, and ensures those who require health care will get adequate health care no matter what level they are at.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Pro Bono suggestion.....it is important to give back to the community if one can afford to.

"That said, I recently spent 7 HOURS in the Emergency Room with my
daughter who had a 103F fever, was throwing up and completely lethargic."

well there's the problem, we use Celsius here you confused the nursing staff by talking Fahrenheit

"Even if they just had a doctor, or 4th-year med student running around
for the "less severe" cases, flues and colds, handing out tylenol and
making recommendations to help ease parents' minds."

They are actually doing this at the Seven Oaks ER.

Deank wrote:"That said, I recently spent 7 HOURS in the Emergency Room with my
daughter who had a 103F fever, was throwing up and completely lethargic."

well there's the problem, we use Celsius here you confused the nursing staff by talking Fahrenheit

Actually...THEY wrote it down as both, F & C.

Probably cause they buy most their equipment from the US .

I am willing to bet that proper procedure with a temperature is simply to take the temperature every 2 hours. If that was the case you should have been told that, and your child would have been more comfortable at home.
Perhaps 103 is not a big deal, I don't know? I would ask your kids Doctor at what temp should a child be taken to the emergency ward to be looked after.Sponge bath at home, to cool him/her down. It is the not knowing what to do!
Google kids temperature and let us know. Dr. Google knows everything!

We didn't take her because of the fever.
103F for a kid is not extreme.

We took her because of the throwing up, and diarrhea accompanying it.

SOMETHING was triggering those things, the fever was a byproduct of whatever else was bugging her.

103 is a big deal and I would've taken my baby to the ER as well.

AGEsAces wrote:We didn't take her because of the fever.
103F for a kid is not extreme.

We took her because of the throwing up, and diarrhea accompanying it.

SOMETHING was triggering those things, the fever was a byproduct of whatever else was bugging her.

According to the nurses at healthlinks 103 is a big deal. I called them when my daughter was lethargic, fevered and throwing up and we were advised to take her to the closest ER if her fever rose above 101.

And yet our doctor told us 103F is not that big a deal (yet 104F is).

At 101F, we were told we should give her some children's tylenol, and give her lots of fluid.

I think she got a bug in her stomach from something she ate, gave her the diarrhea, and the vomiting, and the fever came as her body fought it off.

The sad thing is, the nurse wasn't allowed to treat it, and a doctor could've determined what it was in about 5 minutes and issued a prescription or something to help make her feel better.

the nurses at healthlinks are so hit and miss it almost ends up being a useless call. It would make at least sense if they said, thanks for the information. Based on your responses we fill you should got to ER and the information is passed on to the hospital you said you would be attending ( done) or based on your responses we feel you should attend Urgent care at the Miz. The wait time for your case will be approximately 4 hours based on current patient load and the severity of your problem. Since your name has been added you are already in the wait queue please be there before XXXXX time. If you take longer to get there your name will be removed from the queue and you will have to wait however long is deemed appropriate at that time.

AGEsAces wrote:And yet our doctor told us 103F is not that big a deal (yet 104F is).

At 101F, we were told we should give her some children's tylenol, and give her lots of fluid.

I think she got a bug in her stomach from something she ate, gave her the diarrhea, and the vomiting, and the fever came as her body fought it off.

The sad thing is, the nurse wasn't allowed to treat it, and a doctor could've determined what it was in about 5 minutes and issued a prescription or something to help make her feel better.

When my daughter was sick it was during the H1N1 scare so I think they were telling everyone to take little ones to the ER if fever rose. Right now my daughter has a nasty cough, no other symptoms just a cough. I kept her home from preschool today cause she sounded so awful this morning.