Canadian Heathcare system sucks!!

Another personal anecdote. My wife went out for a staff Christmas party, got totally drunk and passed out in a toilet. She was woken up by cleaners who couldn't persuade her to get up and leave, so they called an ambulance. The ambulance arrived shortly afterwards, asked her if she wanted to go to hospital or home - she said home. They phoned me and checked that they had the correct address and then brought her home.

Cost: zero.
 
lomiller said:
So if supply is insufficient to meet demand and you go out and pay enough money to get immediate treatment do you believe:
a) someone else had to be denied care
b) magic pixie fairies waved their wands and created extra supply just for you
Click to expand...

If I go out and pay to get treatment (why do you keep inserting "immediate" when I've never used the term?), I've increased demand, and I've increased the price (marginally). Now someone may at this point not pay for treatment under these (marginally) increased prices, but that's not a requirement of a market system. And if someone cannot or chooses not to pay, that may be unfortunate, but it is not denial of treatment (and once again, don't confuse treatment with coverage). And if everyone remains willing to pay increased prices, then yes, supply will increase, because those increased prices will attract people looking to make a profit.

Are you really so unfamiliar with the concept of how a market works?
 
Matthew Best said:
Another personal anecdote. My wife went out for a staff Christmas party, got totally drunk and passed out in a toilet. She was woken up by cleaners who couldn't persuade her to get up and leave, so they called an ambulance. The ambulance arrived shortly afterwards, asked her if she wanted to go to hospital or home - she said home. They phoned me and checked that they had the correct address and then brought her home.

Cost: zero.
Click to expand...
Cost to you and your wife: zero. Cost to taxpayers and/or anyone else who pays for that ambulance company's service: their share of the tab for a drunk's irresponsible behavior (or the cost for your wife's alcohol addiction if she isn't responsible).
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
why do you keep inserting "immediate" when I've never used the term
Click to expand...


You went out of your way to try and make some point or another about waiting lists. Since you now admit waiting lists due to limited resources are common to all health care systems in question can we officially remove that point from the table or are you going to attempt to move the goalposts and loop back there once again?

Ziggurat said:
Now someone may at this point not pay for treatment under these (marginally) increased prices, but that's not a requirement of a market system.
Click to expand...


It’s a requirement of a finite supply, something you’ve already says is the case. Allow me to quote you once again.

Ziggurat said:
I suppose we are, if you can't understand that there is no mechanism in the entire universe that can ensure that supply can always meet demand. Not under government control, and not under a free market.
Click to expand...

If supply does not meet demand and you recieve some of that supply someone else does not.

Ziggurat said:
if everyone remains willing to pay increased prices, then yes, supply will increase, because those increased prices will attract people looking to make a profit.
Click to expand...


People can’t just run out and start practicing medicine in any country, nor would any reasonable person want it to be that way. BTW I’ve already covered that ground. Ignoring the reasons why you are wrong will not make you any less wrong.
 
lomiller said:
You went out of your way to try and make some point or another about waiting lists. Since you now admit waiting lists due to limited resources are common to all health care systems in question can we officially remove that point from the table or are you going to attempt to move the goalposts and loop back there once again?
Click to expand...

They are common to all systems with limited supply. They are not a significant problem in all systems with limited supply. There are a limited number of cashiers at my grocery store. I have never had to wait an hour to buy groceries.

It’s a requirement of a finite supply, something you’ve already says is the case.
Click to expand...

It's not a requirement that it happen whenever I pay for treatment. It is a possibility.

People can’t just run out and start practicing medicine in any country
Click to expand...

I never suggested otherwise. There are other methods by which short-term supply can expand, including medical service providers working more hours. Now, why might price affect the hours a provider is willing to work? And what might this suggest about a system lacking a price mechanism?
 
Yet another goal post move Zuggerat?

Clearly we were not discussing systems with just limited supply but also demand that exceeded that. Whatever it takes to rationalize your belief system I guess…
 
skeptigirl said:
Cost to you and your wife: zero. Cost to taxpayers and/or anyone else who pays for that ambulance company's service: their share of the tab for a drunk's irresponsible behavior (or the cost for your wife's alcohol addiction if she isn't responsible).
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a specific cost for each ambulance trip - they get paid for the night's work regardless of how many trips they make. Presumably there was petrol involved, but the cost of that was negligible.

I would not have complained if the ambulance crew told my wife to make her own way home, but I think it was a very nice thing for them to do and I was very thankful.

ETA: She's not addicted to alcohol, just American and thus not used to drinking as much as we do in London!
 
lomiller said:
Clearly we were not discussing systems with just limited supply but also demand that exceeded that.
Click to expand...

Yes, we were. And we were also talking about mechanisms to reconcile the difference, ie, to ration that supply. In the US, the primary mechanism is price. Waiting plays little part in rationing care here. If you do not ration it by any other method (and many of the previous responses amounted to a denial that care was rationed by doctors or the government), then you will end up rationing it by waiting. Is that really so hard to understand?

And what's with misspelling "Ziggurat"?
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
ETA: She's not addicted to alcohol, just American and thus not used to drinking as much as we do in London!
Click to expand...

I believe you that she's not alcoholic, but it isn't a matter of how much she's used to, it's a matter of how much she can handle. And regardless of how that amount compares to the locals, there's no good reason to drink more than you can handle. It's downright stupid to gauge your drinking based upon those around you without considering your own limits. Her behavior was foolish, self-destructive, and potentially dangerous. I hope she learned not to do anything similar again.
 
Matthew Best said:
I don't think there is a specific cost for each ambulance trip - they get paid for the night's work regardless of how many trips they make. Presumably there was petrol involved, but the cost of that was negligible.
Click to expand...
Staffing and vehicle levels have to meet demand. If some of the demand is unbillable, extra costs are incurred. Every time a vehicle is on the street, risks of motor vehicle accidents increase. Staff may lose sleep they could have used if they have 24 hour shifts. There are all kinds of costs people who pay for medical care are covering for those who don't pay.


Matthew Best said:
ETA: She's not addicted to alcohol, just American and thus not used to drinking as much as we do in London!
Click to expand...
Then she was responsible for a poor decision.
 
skeptigirl said:
The I and the U are next to each other on the keyboard.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the E and the U are not. I'm not trying to suggest malice (among other things, there's no meaning to what it was changed to), only express confusion.
 
Matthew Best said:
Blimey! You're a barrel of laughs and no mistake! :D
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose it's strange that I don't find getting so drunk you have to be driven home in an ambulance amusing. People who find that kind of behavior amusing have a tendency to repeat it. Tell me, did your wife find it funny?
 
Matthew Best said:
Your reading comprehension is lacking. She wasn't so drunk she "had to be driven home in an ambulance".
Click to expand...

But drunk enough that someone called an ambulance for her. So much better. And much funnier too, apparently, although I'm evidently too old to understand the humor. I'm just a prude for thinking that getting so drunk you pass out is not a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom