US 17.5
Is the increased level of care worth 7%
In Canada it's 11.5 so 6%,extra.
In Canada the waiting lists for mri and other advanced testing can be long where the same tests/operations can be done as a walkin option that day in the US.
If you have bad insurance, your options are usually to do the walkin option and pay whatever your insurance won't. That's probably more than you can afford unless you're sick enough to get a doctor to order it (which often means you've missed a critical window in treatment options). Or you can try one of the clinics, and wait for forever trying to get it looked at. Or you can do what many Americans do and ignore it, hoping that it goes away on its own.
We do have better options than other countries, but whether those doors are open often depends on your income level. Socialized healthcare does equalize that, even if it means dragging down the standard of care for the wealthy in exchange for bringing up the average.
Frankly, as an American, I think we have shit quality of health service, based on the insurance cos' red tape and restrictions and paperwork alone. Getting healthcare in this country is a bureaucratic nightmare. Maybe the docs and meds and tests are good, but the overall service is bad.
(Disclaimer that I insist on Kaiser, an HMO – I would not live in a US area without it – which is pretty good, but helping family through health issues who had "gold standard" normal PPO was... different).
If that's not indicative of something broken, then I don't know what to tell you.
Genuinely asking, since I don't know any details about her situation or much about lung ailments.
People from the US go abroad for care all the time.
https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/private-two-tier-healthcare...
>“In Canada, the absence of a private system is not due to the illegality of private health care per se,” reads a 2001 analysis in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. “Rather, the lack of a flourishing private sector in Canada is most likely attributable to prohibitions on subsidization of private practice from the public plan.”
Seems fair to me.
https://www.kelownanow.com/watercooler/news/news/Provincial/...
So someone in this position now would have fewer options besides waiting their turn in the queue.
This is about extra billing, not per se about MRI. So still seems fair to me.
In any case, that shows that getting private care may not be an option in Canada.
Yup, while the system is being subsidized with public money you can't just setup something competing while taking advantage of the public system too.
The question isn't whether it was a serious issue, but whether it had a reasonable probability of being one.
As part of his ongoing treatment the hospital scheduled an MRI every 3 months for a year, then every 6 months for 5 years, and now it's annual. The scans happen on time every time.
Waiting lists are prioritized based on urgency.
When I broke my nose, I went to ER and registered at around 12am. A doctor finally treated me at around 8:15am. That's at the Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, NY ~6 years ago.
Are there no private MRI machines in Canada? In many countries with free healthcare, you can still "just walk in" to any private hospital/clinic and get an MRI done.
In my country I can see a doctor for free after a 0-4hr queue in a hospital waiting room or pay USD$10 to immediately see any of the dozen private doctors within a 5 min drive of my home.
My taxes already pay for free healthcare, but I'm more than happy to pay more to avoid wait times.
But I live in the "third world", so I understand your experience might be different.
They did however bring some under the provincial healthcare fold, so general turnaround times have improved with more scanners... And they are running more often (they weren't running 24/7.
I work in imaging, visited 100s of hospitals in Canada and mainly USA.
Would be uncommon to see a unreported list in USA with exams 24 hours or older.
In Canada it was common to see months. These are scans performed but not interpreted by a radiologist .
So for urgent cases(like dieing in the hospital), there is hardly any wait and read right away.
But if it's somewhat none urgent (friend waiting 1 year for a MRI for nerve/back pain), you might have to wait awhile for the scan and then the report.
If you in a population dense area, you might be waiting awhile, but may get quicker service in smaller nearby towns(I had a 3 month wait for. Knee scan, went for a 2 hours drive for a scan a week later)
Our public healthcare has caps on how much a radiologist can read/get paid, so there is no incentive in Canada for radiologists go full force.
In USA they are paid per exams, and depending on case types could be reading 100s per day.
Would you mind explaining why they'd do such a thing?
Same thing for non-elective surgeries.
You can't goto a private clinic for a surgery offered under public healthcare
Basically removed being able to pay to skip the queue, some people felt it was unfair, and to uphold integrity of public healthcare...
2 good recent sources on the topic.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7326893/bc-supreme-court-ruling-p...
https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/private-two-tier-healthcare...
As well, I'm basing this off not a lot of evidence other than doctor shows (which I recognize are probably ridiculously inaccurate), but I get the impression that (for those who have the right insurance) in the U.S. that testing and imaging is overprescribed, and doctors will often order an MRI when an ultrasound or a CT scan would be perfectly fine. So even if MRIs have a relatively longer waiting period, it's overall rarer that you'll need to get one in the first place (and CTs can usually be ordered fairly quickly - I had one today that was booked within a week for relatively minor symptoms)
In fact, you can view it this way: the waiting lists are long because the important things are prioritized. People who really need treatment fast are being consistently moved to the front of the queue with no option to pay to get ahead of them for people at lower priority.
My reference point is Australia, and it was awe inspiring to see how fast things moved for a relative with breast cancer.
I've also learned from friends who have family members with substance abuse issues that there are 6 or more month long waiting lists for even out-patient rehab, and for doctors that specialize in treating substance abuse. Addiction is often deadly, so it's pretty urgent to treat.
Do you have a source for that? I don't see how sucrose from sugar cane is any healthier than HFCS, which is the same thing, just split by an enzyme.
There's chemical differences and some HFCS is a lot more fructose than sucrose. But, yeah, I also haven't been able to find any conclusive evidence that it's any worse with your garden-variety HFCS
That's mostly an inaccurate myth that has persisted for decades. Despite the "High Fructose" part of the name HFCS, the balance of fructose and sucrose in HFCS is roughly the same as regular table sugar, 50/50. HFCS 90 is actually worse for you than table sugar due to it's high fructose content (which is primarily only absorbed in the liver, unlike sucrose), but it is rarely used and the taste is very sweet compared to normal HFCS or sugar.
You can easily search for tons of sources (queries as simple as "HFCS vs sugar" will give you decent results), but including one to back up what I said above:
https://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/nutrition/ar...