Why do Canadians wait 18 WEEKS ON AVERAGE just to see the doctor? It sounds unbelievable for Russians. How do they get through it? Why not they press demands for making doctor making times as small as in Russia?
In Russian Federation the maximal waiting time for the G.P appointment doesn't exceed 24 hours, while the maximal waiting time for the specialist appointment doesn't exceed 2 weeks.
government.ru
Doctor waiting times in Canada
William Foster
Other urls found in this thread:
freenation.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
google.ru
twitter.com
Carter Thompson
The UK and Canada go to far with socialised medicine and the US doesn't go far enough.
We go just enough with a two tier system.
Brandon Ortiz
Isn't it healthcare in Canada free of charge despite you have to wait for a long time to get a free operation?
Caleb James
Russian healthcare is free of charge too.
Luis Powell
>doctor making times
doctor waiting times, sorry
Blake Wood
Why would a Canadian doctor stay in Canada when they can make loads more dosh in the US?
John Hernandez
>The UK and Canada go to far with socialised medicine and the US doesn't go far enough.
I don't think we have problems waiting to see a doctor though. I mean, I phoned up at 10am on a Thursday to see a GP and my appointment was for 3:40pm that same day.
Chase Richardson
That's not 18 weeks to see a doctor. That's 18 weeks to see a specialist for a non life threatening issue.
Ryder Phillips
america needs a free market system. right now the government overregulates healthcare to a ridiculous degree
freenation.org
Today, we are constantly being told, the United States faces a health care crisis. Medical costs are too high, and health insurance is out of reach of the poor. The cause of this crisis is never made very clear, but the cure is obvious to nearly everybody: government must step in to solve the problem.
Eighty years ago, Americans were also told that their nation was facing a health care crisis. Then, however, the complaint was that medical costs were too low, and that health insurance was too accessible. But in that era, too, government stepped forward to solve the problem. And boy, did it solve it!
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the primary sources of health care and health insurance for the working poor in Britain, Australia, and the United States was the fraternal society. Fraternal societies (called "friendly societies" in Britain and Australia) were voluntary mutual-aid associations. Their descendants survive among us today in the form of the Shriners, Elks, Masons, and similar organizations, but these no longer play the central role in American life they formerly did. As recently as 1920, over one-quarter of all adult Americans were members of fraternal societies. (The figure was still higher in Britain and Australia.) Fraternal societies were particularly popular among blacks and immigrants. (Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt's famous attack on "hyphenated Americans" was motivated in part by hostility to the immigrants' fraternal societies; he and other Progressives sought to "Americanize" immigrants by making them dependent for support on the democratic state, rather than on their own independent ethnic communities.)
Ryder Barnes
The principle behind the fraternal societies was simple. A group of working-class people would form an association (or join a local branch, or "lodge," of an existing association) and pay monthly fees into the association's treasury; individual members would then be able to draw on the pooled resources in time of need. The fraternal societies thus operated as a form of self-help insurance company.
Turn-of-the-century America offered a dizzying array of fraternal societies to choose from. Some catered to a particular ethnic or religious group; others did not. Many offered entertainment and social life to their members, or engaged in community service. Some "fraternal" societies were run entirely by and for women. The kinds of services from which members could choose often varied as well, though the most commonly offered were life insurance, disability insurance, and "lodge practice."
"Lodge practice" refers to an arrangement, reminiscent of today's HMOs, whereby a particular society or lodge would contract with a doctor to provide medical care to its members. The doctor received a regular salary on a retainer basis, rather than charging per item; members would pay a yearly fee and then call on the doctor's services as needed. If medical services were found unsatisfactory, the doctor would be penalized, and the contract might not be renewed. Lodge members reportedly enjoyed the degree of customer control this system afforded them. And the tendency to overuse the physician's services was kept in check by the fraternal society's own "self-policing"; lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.
Christian Watson
These are the wait times for surgeries. 45% of Canadians that want to see their doctor can see him on the day they decide they want to, the rest can end up waiting a little longer (the average across the country is two days).
I'm sure Russia has high federal standards for healthcare wait times, but I'm also going to assume that they end up functioning more as 'guidelines' than strict timetables. I couldn't do any actual comparisons on data though because that data doesn't seem to exist for Russia, and the OECD's comparisons obviously only include OECD member-states.
Also, good to see Saskatchewan at the bottom of the list. As recently as 2011 we had the longest surgical wait times in Canada.
Henry Mitchell
Most remarkable was the low cost at which these medical services were provided. At the turn of the century, the average cost of "lodge practice" to an individual member was between one and two dollars a year. A day's wage would pay for a year's worth of medical care. By contrast, the average cost of medical service on the regular market was between one and two dollars per visit. Yet licensed physicians, particularly those who did not come from "big name" medical schools, competed vigorously for lodge contracts, perhaps because of the security they offered; and this competition continued to keep costs low.
The response of the medical establishment, both in America and in Britain, was one of outrage; the institution of lodge practice was denounced in harsh language and apocalyptic tones. Such low fees, many doctors charged, were bankrupting the medical profession. Moreover, many saw it as a blow to the dignity of the profession that trained physicians should be eagerly bidding for the chance to serve as the hirelings of lower-class tradesmen. It was particularly detestable that such uneducated and socially inferior people should be permitted to set fees for the physicians' services, or to sit in judgment on professionals to determine whether their services had been satisfactory. The government, they demanded, must do something.
And so it did. In Britain, the state put an end to the "evil" of lodge practice by bringing health care under political control. Physicians' fees would now be determined by panels of trained professionals (i.e., the physicians themselves) rather than by ignorant patients. State-financed medical care edged out lodge practice; those who were being forced to pay taxes for "free" health care whether they wanted it or not had little incentive to pay extra for health care through the fraternal societies, rather than using the government care they had already paid for.
Jeremiah Roberts
In America, it took longer for the nation's health care system to be socialized, so the medical establishment had to achieve its ends more indirectly; but the essential result was the same. Medical societies like the AMA imposed sanctions on doctors who dared to sign lodge practice contracts. This might have been less effective if such medical societies had not had access to government power; but in fact, thanks to governmental grants of privilege, they controlled the medical licensure procedure, thus ensuring that those in their disfavor would be denied the right to practice medicine.
Such licensure laws also offered the medical establishment a less overt way of combating lodge practice. It was during this period that the AMA made the requirements for medical licensure far more strict than they had previously been. Their reason, they claimed, was to raise the quality of medical care. But the result was that the number of physicians fell, competition dwindled, and medical fees rose; the vast pool of physicians bidding for lodge practice contracts had been abolished. As with any market good, artifical restrictions on supply created higher prices — a particular hardship for the working-class members of fraternal societies.
The final death blow to lodge practice was struck by the fraternal societies themselves. The National Fraternal Congress — attempting, like the AMA, to reap the benefits of cartelization — lobbied for laws decreeing a legal minimum on the rates fraternal societies could charge. Unfortunately for the lobbyists, the lobbying effort was successful; the unintended consequence was that the minimum rates laws made the services of fraternal societies no longer competitive. Thus the National Fraternal Congress' lobbying efforts, rather than creating a formidable mutual-aid cartel, simply destroyed the fraternal societies' market niche — and with it the opportunity for low-cost health care for the working poor.
Dylan Brooks
Because your healthcare is fucking shit and you cure one disease and get two more in your shitty hospitals.
Gavin Watson
Why are you copying the entire article? You already linked to it. Are you autistic?
Jordan Flores
Uh let's remember where we are, of course he is
Jayden Flores
more exposure that way
youre more likely to read a post on Sup Forums than click a link and read an article
Nolan Jackson
Actually I don't either.
I'm not going to read your long posts nor am I going to click any of your links.
Fuck you idiot
Aaron Morris
>youre more likely to read a post on Sup Forums than click a link and read an article
No, it's the opposite. Absolutely everyone skipped through the walls of text you just posted, but at least some people probably followed the link. If you feel an uncontrollable need to copy the article's contents onto your post, just pick out a specific section that is particularly relevant. Don't copy and paste the entire thing.
Lucas Young
>a leaf
Aaron Hall
>Why do Canadians wait 18 WEEKS ON AVERAGE just to see the doctor?
What? I can make an appointment today and see him tomorrow.
I think that misinformative graph has to do with meeting specialists and the waiting times for medical equipment like MRI's
James Cruz
>mfw the NHS will be BTFO in my lifetime
Zachary Gutierrez
Russia has doctors?
Ayden Foster
This.
Easton Ortiz
>seriously responding to this bait
Chase Campbell
>What? I can make an appointment today and see him tomorrow
The fuk? That's not the case for me, kek.
>Literally 2-3 week waiting time unless you go in during walk-in clinic
>doctor ALWAYS late by 1 hour+ for your appointment time
How do i find a good family doctor guys? I just use the one my parents went to since i was a teenager
Evan Parker
"free"
Sebastian Sullivan
feed the trolls when they're not desperate for (You)'s or shitposting gets extreme
Evan Gray
European UHC is good because European countries are high quality
Canadian UHC isn't as good because it's what happens when 'murricans try to emulate it
Jackson Walker
actually our healthcare is shit.
youtube.com
youtube.com
google.ru
Cooper Smith
It's essentially free, almost all procedures that are basic are automatically free.
Break your arm/leg? Free care, free x-ray, free diagnosis, free drugs, free casting and check up. But yeah I waited about 8 hours to see a doctor for my wrist when I broke it, still, I got good care and I healed fully with no charge.
If you need an emergency operation like say your appendix is currently exploding when you enter the ER you would obviously get immediate service and surgery.
Isaiah Richardson
HELLO PLEASE REPLY TO ME! I am in Ontario!
Asher Price
This btw, it can take a long as fuck time but at least it's mostly free, I guess it's alright but what I really wish we had is BOTH public healthcare for people who can't afford it AND private healthcare for those who can.
If I have enough money I should be able to pay out of pocket to get something done
Joseph Williams
What doesn't suck in Russia desu?
I'm so glad I left that shithole man, I wish i could rescue all my russian bros from that hellhole
Jackson Cook
>If I have enough money I should be able to pay out of pocket to get something done
You already can, by going to the U.S. The NDP trying to prevent a two-tier system in Canada is moot because we already have two tiers: the tier where you wait in Canada and the tier where you get your operation done out of pocket in the states. If we allow private clinics in Canada we're not sacrificing equity, we're just keeping Canadian dollars in Canada that otherwise would be going south of the border.
Adam White
>because we already have two tiers: the tier where you wait in Canada and the tier where you get your operation done out of pocket in the states
But that's retarded and not the same thing at all.
I don't live very close to the border, in order for me to get something done(non life-threatening) I would need to fly to and from the US as well as pay high costs - needless to say for most people including myself that's an unnecessary amount of money and effort which makes it better to just get it done here for "free".
I really don't understand it. If I'm not mistaking, Canada is one of like 3 countries in the world to make private clinics illegal. Makes no sense at all.
>we're just keeping Canadian dollars in Canada that otherwise would be going south of the border.
Is that a bad thing?
Austin Gomez
I remember having to wait entire afternoons or evenings when I was younger and I had to see a doctor, not even a specialist, just a family doctor.
Ryan Wilson
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. We should allow private clinics so that we keep Canadian dollars in Canada. Where did I seem to be saying the opposite?
Jonathan Barnes
Oh ok I guess we agree then
Brody Lopez
Also i'm canadian, just in France right now.
Jonathan Gray
Yeah it's pretty fucked.
My family doctor just makes you sit there for hours. Kind of sucks, especially when all I need is just a referral, literally ~2 minutes of work. Do I really need to sit for 2 hours or more for that?
Henry Cox
i read his posts and enjoyed them
Brody Peterson
You useless fucker,
I have a russian friend, he tells me it takes up to a fucking year, unless you bribe or pay a private clinic
Jaxon Phillips
>Why not they press demands for making doctor making times as small as in Russia?
>In Russian Federation the maximal waiting time for the G.P appointment doesn't exceed 24 hours, while the maximal waiting time for the specialist appointment doesn't exceed 2 weeks.