One thing about healthcare in Canada. When what you have is a flu bug, or is possibly your body complaining vehemently about your devotion to dietary fibre (American: fiber), the healthcare system can't do anything for you.
Unless you count the fact that I could go to a walk-in clinic (or ER, if I were particularly worried) and find that out for free, without feeling stupid.
Well, then. I guess that's not nothing, after all.
Showing posts sorted by date for query healthcare. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query healthcare. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
News Flash: Guns, Health Insurance DIFFERENT
Perhaps this should be called "Essential Differences Deux." Here's what we were talking about before. But just when you think the U.S. has chosen to focus on the weather, somebody somewhere does something bizarre.
A state representative introduced legislation in South Dakota that would require each adult over the age of 21 to own a gun.
He acknowledges it's a stunt, designed to show that federal legislation requiring everyone to own health insurance is unconstitutional.
Apparently the logic is this: if the federal government can require everyone to buy health insurance for protection, why can't the state require everyone to buy a gun for protection?
Because, they say, protection is protection is protection, right?
Is it? Because last time I checked, guns are really NOT the same as health insurance. My ability to shoot someone is NOT the same as my ability to receive and pay for an operation or other health care that preserves or restores my health.
And the appliance that moves the computer's cursor is not the same thing as the little brown rodent in the fields or the white rodent that lives in laboratories, even though the word "mouse" describes each one.
Also, stunts like this don't contribute to the conversations about healthcare and gun control that could fruitfully happen in the U.S. They're disrespectful and a big waste of time.
It's this kind of stuff that mystifies me about the U.S.
But don't get smug, Canada: I'm not hearing any letup in the "omigod, we don't want an election!" rhetoric, either.
A state representative introduced legislation in South Dakota that would require each adult over the age of 21 to own a gun.
He acknowledges it's a stunt, designed to show that federal legislation requiring everyone to own health insurance is unconstitutional.
Apparently the logic is this: if the federal government can require everyone to buy health insurance for protection, why can't the state require everyone to buy a gun for protection?
Because, they say, protection is protection is protection, right?
Is it? Because last time I checked, guns are really NOT the same as health insurance. My ability to shoot someone is NOT the same as my ability to receive and pay for an operation or other health care that preserves or restores my health.
And the appliance that moves the computer's cursor is not the same thing as the little brown rodent in the fields or the white rodent that lives in laboratories, even though the word "mouse" describes each one.
Also, stunts like this don't contribute to the conversations about healthcare and gun control that could fruitfully happen in the U.S. They're disrespectful and a big waste of time.
It's this kind of stuff that mystifies me about the U.S.
But don't get smug, Canada: I'm not hearing any letup in the "omigod, we don't want an election!" rhetoric, either.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
What's it All About?
As other attacks (Moscow) and shootings (Florida) take over the news internationally and in the U.S., Tucson is getting a bit of a reprieve from the spotlight.
It's been interesting to hear what Canadians tend to discuss in relation to the shooting, as opposed to what the discussion seems to be about in the U.S.
Canadians tend to want to talk about gun control. To a lesser extent, Canadians relate the Tucson shootings to mental health care, which (as with the rest of the U.S. healthcare system) is bewilderingly different and obviously inferior to Canada's.
The most public exception to this perspective is an opinion "writer" for Maclean's who I prefer not to name out of respect to those who actually write well-thought-out opinion pieces for that publication (even though I frequently disagree with them). This "writer" actually believes that if someone else in the Safeway parking lot had had a gun, fewer people would have been shot. (Aside from the other obviously ridiculous aspects of that statement, here's a question: How does she know no one else in that parking lot was carrying a gun?)
This is a storyline I've heard around the wires in the U.S. as well, which is as close as Americans can come to addressing issues of gun control. Because in the U.S., this event is not about gun control. It can't be. No discussion can be had about gun control, because a discussion that is a hollering match across a divide as wide as the Grand Canyon is not a real discussion.
Instead, the event in the U.S. has apparently become part of the storyline of the new, Republican-"led" Congress, what President Obama will say tonight in the State of the Union address, and whether he will win re-election in 21 months. It's all about the winning and the losing, folks.
Even the attempt to foster better communication (or appear to) by encouraging Democrats and Republicans to sit together, instead of in partisan groups, for tonight's speech has become all about "who's sitting by whom." Politics as high school.
Meanwhile, in Tucson, people are quietly trying to go about their lives. They are paying attention to their own mental health. Regular folks, along with political and religious leaders, are reclaiming the space in which the shootings occurred. The "I know someone who was there" and "I was across the street" and "an injured person is my neighbor" stories are working themselves out in their telling and re-telling.
As days become weeks and months, each person will make choices. They'll change, or not, based on what happened that day. Some may choose to continue to discuss guns, ethnicity, citizenship, mental health, public service, engagement, community.
But one thing Tucsonans know: the shooting is not even remotely about winning and losing. In Tucson, that small city, everyone is connected in some way to that event. They know all too well that real people lost their lives that day; their community lost a measure of innocence. A respected, vibrant Congresswoman struggles to recover. And no one--no one--won.
It's been interesting to hear what Canadians tend to discuss in relation to the shooting, as opposed to what the discussion seems to be about in the U.S.
Canadians tend to want to talk about gun control. To a lesser extent, Canadians relate the Tucson shootings to mental health care, which (as with the rest of the U.S. healthcare system) is bewilderingly different and obviously inferior to Canada's.
The most public exception to this perspective is an opinion "writer" for Maclean's who I prefer not to name out of respect to those who actually write well-thought-out opinion pieces for that publication (even though I frequently disagree with them). This "writer" actually believes that if someone else in the Safeway parking lot had had a gun, fewer people would have been shot. (Aside from the other obviously ridiculous aspects of that statement, here's a question: How does she know no one else in that parking lot was carrying a gun?)
This is a storyline I've heard around the wires in the U.S. as well, which is as close as Americans can come to addressing issues of gun control. Because in the U.S., this event is not about gun control. It can't be. No discussion can be had about gun control, because a discussion that is a hollering match across a divide as wide as the Grand Canyon is not a real discussion.
Instead, the event in the U.S. has apparently become part of the storyline of the new, Republican-"led" Congress, what President Obama will say tonight in the State of the Union address, and whether he will win re-election in 21 months. It's all about the winning and the losing, folks.
Even the attempt to foster better communication (or appear to) by encouraging Democrats and Republicans to sit together, instead of in partisan groups, for tonight's speech has become all about "who's sitting by whom." Politics as high school.
Meanwhile, in Tucson, people are quietly trying to go about their lives. They are paying attention to their own mental health. Regular folks, along with political and religious leaders, are reclaiming the space in which the shootings occurred. The "I know someone who was there" and "I was across the street" and "an injured person is my neighbor" stories are working themselves out in their telling and re-telling.
As days become weeks and months, each person will make choices. They'll change, or not, based on what happened that day. Some may choose to continue to discuss guns, ethnicity, citizenship, mental health, public service, engagement, community.
But one thing Tucsonans know: the shooting is not even remotely about winning and losing. In Tucson, that small city, everyone is connected in some way to that event. They know all too well that real people lost their lives that day; their community lost a measure of innocence. A respected, vibrant Congresswoman struggles to recover. And no one--no one--won.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Adventures in Healthcare and Aging, Part Bazillion
"Well, I painted on the strips today."
Thus began a conversation the rest of which I will spare you, because it is about collecting samples for the Fecal Occult Blood Test. Trust me, you haven't lived until you've heard a Canada Geek describe the bridge he made with toilet paper to, uh, facilitate smear collection.
This conversation was a good thing. It happened because a new nurse practitioner clinic opened recently in Thunder Bay. Finally, my retirement-age husband, whose asthma and allergies make him a surprisingly delicate flower most of the year, has healthcare again. See? A good thing.
He had the same family practice doc for decades. This doc finally retired two or three years ago, after threatening to for several years. Apparently physicians in their 70s prefer retirement, what a crazy idea. In any case, the doc referred lots of his patients but "orphaned" more--thousands of patients. Including my husband.
About 18 months ago I got into a regular practice by virtue of knowing people. My husband was accepted by this new nurse practitioner clinic by virtue of my nagging ability and his own good sense. I'm relieved for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that we are now both monitoring our health, collecting information about our bodies when we are healthy, so that when they are not, we have a better chance of noticing.
And as I have said before, ad nauseam (which, LOOK! It's spelled correctly!!), healthcare systems are systems, and are thus inherently flawed. On both sides of the border, proactive care of one's health is important. Which, when one gets to a certain age, means doing the fecal occult blood test.
But only one is at that age. The other of us had our mammogram last year, and is not anxious to volunteer to do any painting, thanks just the same.
Thus began a conversation the rest of which I will spare you, because it is about collecting samples for the Fecal Occult Blood Test. Trust me, you haven't lived until you've heard a Canada Geek describe the bridge he made with toilet paper to, uh, facilitate smear collection.
This conversation was a good thing. It happened because a new nurse practitioner clinic opened recently in Thunder Bay. Finally, my retirement-age husband, whose asthma and allergies make him a surprisingly delicate flower most of the year, has healthcare again. See? A good thing.
He had the same family practice doc for decades. This doc finally retired two or three years ago, after threatening to for several years. Apparently physicians in their 70s prefer retirement, what a crazy idea. In any case, the doc referred lots of his patients but "orphaned" more--thousands of patients. Including my husband.
About 18 months ago I got into a regular practice by virtue of knowing people. My husband was accepted by this new nurse practitioner clinic by virtue of my nagging ability and his own good sense. I'm relieved for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that we are now both monitoring our health, collecting information about our bodies when we are healthy, so that when they are not, we have a better chance of noticing.
And as I have said before, ad nauseam (which, LOOK! It's spelled correctly!!), healthcare systems are systems, and are thus inherently flawed. On both sides of the border, proactive care of one's health is important. Which, when one gets to a certain age, means doing the fecal occult blood test.
But only one is at that age. The other of us had our mammogram last year, and is not anxious to volunteer to do any painting, thanks just the same.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Food for Patriotic Thought
Temporarily suspending my Monday tradition (since March, anyway) of posting Today's pictures here. Instead, here's a thought or two for my friends on both sides of this border.
Canadians: Peace, order, and good government? Yep. I love the fact that I have access to healthcare here. I love that I can choose the most appropriate medical care for my unique situation, without limits. Why does this country not extend this right to the women in countries to whom it gives aid? The maternal health bill presented at the G20 summit does not allow women in countries WHERE ABORTION IS LEGAL to receive abortions if the organization providing it receives Canadian aid dollars. Maternal health initiatives should cover a full range of maternal health options. Good policy? No. Good government? No.
Americans: Liberty and justice for all? Well, almost all. For all who aren't gay or lesbian and want to commit to a relationship, that is. If you're gay or lesbian, you can't enjoy the same legal and human rights and responsibilities as the non-gay non-lesbian population. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be told that you are not fully human, that the self-evident truths people wave flags about and get misty-eyed over and shoot fireworks about AND GET KILLED FOR don't apply to YOU. I cannot imagine what people demonstrating against marriage rights will tell their grandchildren--what they tell their children and grandchildren now, some percentage of whom are gay or lesbian. I mean, I know what they say; you can read it far too many places. I just can't belive that they say it.
And so, to paraphrase Shakespeare: if we are poisoned, do we not die? And if you poison these people, do they not die? And if they die, do we not die a little, also?
Come on. Every woman, not just the women in Canada, is entitled to all the healthcare that's legal in her country, and Canada should be helping her fight to be sure she gets it, not holding her back. And about that right to marry--can we please just let every adult (yes, even the stupid prejudiced ones) get married?
Why are we even having these fights? In both countries, we need to move on. We are playing Russian Roulette with oil and drilling and the environment (and in this Canada with these gun laws, that's some feat, let me tell you), but until we (in both countries) love our neighbo(u)rs, both those next door and those on other continents, we will be spiteful and distracted and unable to focus on solutions. So put away the flags and facepaint. Start improving the world instead of bragging about it.
Okay, putting soapbox away now. Pictures will resume soonish.
Canadians: Peace, order, and good government? Yep. I love the fact that I have access to healthcare here. I love that I can choose the most appropriate medical care for my unique situation, without limits. Why does this country not extend this right to the women in countries to whom it gives aid? The maternal health bill presented at the G20 summit does not allow women in countries WHERE ABORTION IS LEGAL to receive abortions if the organization providing it receives Canadian aid dollars. Maternal health initiatives should cover a full range of maternal health options. Good policy? No. Good government? No.
Americans: Liberty and justice for all? Well, almost all. For all who aren't gay or lesbian and want to commit to a relationship, that is. If you're gay or lesbian, you can't enjoy the same legal and human rights and responsibilities as the non-gay non-lesbian population. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be told that you are not fully human, that the self-evident truths people wave flags about and get misty-eyed over and shoot fireworks about AND GET KILLED FOR don't apply to YOU. I cannot imagine what people demonstrating against marriage rights will tell their grandchildren--what they tell their children and grandchildren now, some percentage of whom are gay or lesbian. I mean, I know what they say; you can read it far too many places. I just can't belive that they say it.
And so, to paraphrase Shakespeare: if we are poisoned, do we not die? And if you poison these people, do they not die? And if they die, do we not die a little, also?
Come on. Every woman, not just the women in Canada, is entitled to all the healthcare that's legal in her country, and Canada should be helping her fight to be sure she gets it, not holding her back. And about that right to marry--can we please just let every adult (yes, even the stupid prejudiced ones) get married?
Why are we even having these fights? In both countries, we need to move on. We are playing Russian Roulette with oil and drilling and the environment (and in this Canada with these gun laws, that's some feat, let me tell you), but until we (in both countries) love our neighbo(u)rs, both those next door and those on other continents, we will be spiteful and distracted and unable to focus on solutions. So put away the flags and facepaint. Start improving the world instead of bragging about it.
Okay, putting soapbox away now. Pictures will resume soonish.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Two Rs, Two Ss, Two Countries: Embarrassment
Honestly, people.
In Canada
- Stephen Harper "releases documents" about Afghan detainees--a disorganized crapload of redaction. Two boxes of deliberately NOT what the Opposition requested. A cheap political stunt.
- A University of Ottawa right-wing politician (there is one in Canada, yes) (a) invites Ann Coulter to speak as a political analyst, and (2) sets up a scene so that she imagines some grounds for filing a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.
- Canadian media cover the event as if she were a legitimate political analyst while labeling her a political entertainer. She claims she's using satire and being funny. Her presence in the world is to entertainment as championship wrestling is to Olympic wrestling. As in, NOT EVEN CLOSE.
In the U.S.
- As healthcare is debated and addressed in Congress, demonstrators hurl epithets at everyone from legislators to the president. I don't understand why anyone imagines name-calling is at all helpful. You think anyone you call "babykiller" is going to be interested in anything else you say?
- Democratic lawmakers get death threats and their offices are vandalized. It's not a political "statement": it's a crime. Do they not understand that?
- Republican lawmakers wait a day or two to speak out against the violence. Why is that? Do they support it? And by the way, as long as I've already mentioned Ann Coulter in this post, how do Republicans feel about how she represents the current administration, Muslims, and camels? Anyone willing to say publicly that she does not speak for you? I thought not.
- John McCain defends Sarah Palin. If he could only admit he was wrong and that she is now wrong, he'd regain the respect of 2/3 of the country and could contribute something of value to the country he claims to love so much. But he's always been the North Wind, not the Sun.
It's no wonder I'm crabby. I'm embarrassed by events and people on both sides of this border. I've had to name both Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin in this, my own space, where I try to keep the poison to a minimum. Grr.
For some people, apparently, spring is just a time of change--not hope. I'm trying not to be one of those people. I'm trying to look for a reason to smile in the insanity. Failing that, I guess I'll just have to smile anyway. Just don't tell me I have to.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Political Blahs
It's a big day in politics on both sides of our fair border.
Obama is due to say something else about healthcare. Talk about discipline, stamina, backbone. I admire his determination to get something done. I hope that "something" actually helps people.
Meanwhile, up here, the next couple of days will feature a Throne Speech--the Governor General reading a speech written by the Prime Minister; it officially opens this session of Parliament--and a new budget. Cuts and belt-tightening ahead. (And I have to wonder who is going to grimace more: the GG because of what she's reading, or the PM because she's mangling his speech? My guess is the GG, because Harper's own delivery is no great shakes.)
These are important times. And yet, all the political interest I can muster is to become a fan of "I bet Jon Stewart can reach a million fans before Bill O'Reilly!"
Surely this malaise is temporary. It has to be. It had better be! Because when the public is apathetic, bad things happen. So, it's time to show some of Obama's discipline. Stamina. Backbone.
Starting tomorrow. I swear.
Obama is due to say something else about healthcare. Talk about discipline, stamina, backbone. I admire his determination to get something done. I hope that "something" actually helps people.
Meanwhile, up here, the next couple of days will feature a Throne Speech--the Governor General reading a speech written by the Prime Minister; it officially opens this session of Parliament--and a new budget. Cuts and belt-tightening ahead. (And I have to wonder who is going to grimace more: the GG because of what she's reading, or the PM because she's mangling his speech? My guess is the GG, because Harper's own delivery is no great shakes.)
These are important times. And yet, all the political interest I can muster is to become a fan of "I bet Jon Stewart can reach a million fans before Bill O'Reilly!"
Surely this malaise is temporary. It has to be. It had better be! Because when the public is apathetic, bad things happen. So, it's time to show some of Obama's discipline. Stamina. Backbone.
Starting tomorrow. I swear.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Notes from a Broad Abroad
OK, I couldn't resist the title. Too late to claim "innocent." Gotta work with what I got.
We're on the road, soon to be home. Here are a few observations from the asphalt ribbon. (I'm sparing you the obnoxious healthcare conversation I got lured into on the flight between Denver and Tucson; it was a week ago and I'm still annoyed.)
The restrooms in the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum have sunscreen dispensers (SPF 30). For free. With a little lesson in how to apply sunscreen so as to prevent skin cancer. (Hint: use more than you think you need to.) What great customer service!! On a normal hot Arizona day, wearing sunscreen doesn't do anything but keep you from "experiencing slight discomfort" (sunburn or skin cancer) AFTER you leave the museum--but the Desert Museum cares about its customers' long-term health. I think that's socially responsible in the best possible way.
It's been a day for watching birds, if only we knew everything we were looking at. In terms of birds that hang out low to the ground, we saw several roadrunners this morning in New Mexico and pheasants in the Texas panhandle this afternoon. Also eagles, hawks, merlins (maybe), and other birds of prey. Plus a turquoise-blue small fat thing--like a robin, only blue all over--that we fortunately didn't hit with the car. I hate to think what would happen to those who squish the bluebird of happiness.
The Holiday Inn Express in Liberal, Kansas, features a Wizard of Oz "kids' room." I don't know what's in there because we don't qualify as kids. Dang. However, there's Oz memorabilia all over the walls. In any case, I already know Dorothy's lesson: there really IS no place like home.
Where I will be soon. I hope. Yes, this is a whole 'nother country.
We're on the road, soon to be home. Here are a few observations from the asphalt ribbon. (I'm sparing you the obnoxious healthcare conversation I got lured into on the flight between Denver and Tucson; it was a week ago and I'm still annoyed.)
The restrooms in the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum have sunscreen dispensers (SPF 30). For free. With a little lesson in how to apply sunscreen so as to prevent skin cancer. (Hint: use more than you think you need to.) What great customer service!! On a normal hot Arizona day, wearing sunscreen doesn't do anything but keep you from "experiencing slight discomfort" (sunburn or skin cancer) AFTER you leave the museum--but the Desert Museum cares about its customers' long-term health. I think that's socially responsible in the best possible way.
It's been a day for watching birds, if only we knew everything we were looking at. In terms of birds that hang out low to the ground, we saw several roadrunners this morning in New Mexico and pheasants in the Texas panhandle this afternoon. Also eagles, hawks, merlins (maybe), and other birds of prey. Plus a turquoise-blue small fat thing--like a robin, only blue all over--that we fortunately didn't hit with the car. I hate to think what would happen to those who squish the bluebird of happiness.
The Holiday Inn Express in Liberal, Kansas, features a Wizard of Oz "kids' room." I don't know what's in there because we don't qualify as kids. Dang. However, there's Oz memorabilia all over the walls. In any case, I already know Dorothy's lesson: there really IS no place like home.
Where I will be soon. I hope. Yes, this is a whole 'nother country.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sometimes...
Sometimes I wish my father were still alive.
(Don't worry, this isn't a sentimental post.)
Sometimes I wish my father were alive so he could see how RIGHT I was about Joe Lieberman ("I", Conn.), whose fan I have NOT been since back in the Days of Gore (Al) and Impeachment. Grrr.
My father was a forgiving man, mostly. Eventually. He was plenty angry and betrayed during the Nixon years but I think part of that hurt was bewilderment. He wondered how someone entrusted with so much could deceive himself (and others) so consistently and stoop so low in order to gain so little. At least I think that's what my father would say.
In any case, my father's forgiving attitude is what I'm aspiring to. Forgiving a U.S. senator for his need to grandstand and make an issue like healthcare all about HIM, Joe Lieberman. Yes, I realize it's not particularly shocking behaviour for a politician.
I only wish it were.
(Don't worry, this isn't a sentimental post.)
Sometimes I wish my father were alive so he could see how RIGHT I was about Joe Lieberman ("I", Conn.), whose fan I have NOT been since back in the Days of Gore (Al) and Impeachment. Grrr.
My father was a forgiving man, mostly. Eventually. He was plenty angry and betrayed during the Nixon years but I think part of that hurt was bewilderment. He wondered how someone entrusted with so much could deceive himself (and others) so consistently and stoop so low in order to gain so little. At least I think that's what my father would say.
In any case, my father's forgiving attitude is what I'm aspiring to. Forgiving a U.S. senator for his need to grandstand and make an issue like healthcare all about HIM, Joe Lieberman. Yes, I realize it's not particularly shocking behaviour for a politician.
I only wish it were.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
True Change in a Minority Government
Welcome to Canada, where nobody wants an election, not now, not ever, but the threat of an election never quite goes away.
And when politicians can't manufacture election talk, they talk about the impossibility of accomplishing anything in a minority government. Too much compromise. The PM can't get anything of substance passed.
Americans: This is like saying that a president who's a Republican can't get anything done if the House is controlled by Democrats. You saw how that kept Bush from misdeeds in his last two years. And you can see how well Obama is succeeding with the Democrats also in charge of both the House and the Senate. As in, NOT in both cases.
The difficulty of governing with a minority government didn't stop Lester Pearson in 1960s Canada. Here are four important changes he made in five years, all without a majority behind him.
1. The Auto Pact, an early experiment in "free trade," in which trucks, cars, and auto parts moving between Canada and the U.S. were exempt from duty. It may look less like a great idea given the events of the past two years, but it worked for the previous 40.
2. The Canada Pension Plan, which deducts money from wages to support the elderly. Americans may recognize this: it's the equivalent of Social Security.
3. The Medical Care Act, which extends public healthcare coverage to include physician services. This is a step toward today's public healthcare system. Yes, Canadians have had public healthcare since 1971--and no one has yet started growing horns, tails, or cloven hoofs; pitchfork sales remain low.
4. A suspension of capital punishment. Pearson put capital punishment "temporarily" on hold; under Trudeau in 1976, capital punishment was officially abolished.
Even if you don't agree with the policies these actions put into place, you have to admit it's an impressive list.
So, we agree, it's impossible to effect change in a minority government.
Unless you're a statesman.
Are you listening, Mr. Harper? Hello? Anyone?
P.S. Because I am a serious student of Canadian history, I rely on impeccable sources. In this case, I am indebted to the 2nd edition of Will Ferguson's Canadian History for Dummies (John Wiley and Sons Canada, 2005), where Mr. Harper, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Layton, and Mr. Dion can also read about Pearson's minority government achievements. Because they seem to have forgotten their own history.
And when politicians can't manufacture election talk, they talk about the impossibility of accomplishing anything in a minority government. Too much compromise. The PM can't get anything of substance passed.
Americans: This is like saying that a president who's a Republican can't get anything done if the House is controlled by Democrats. You saw how that kept Bush from misdeeds in his last two years. And you can see how well Obama is succeeding with the Democrats also in charge of both the House and the Senate. As in, NOT in both cases.
The difficulty of governing with a minority government didn't stop Lester Pearson in 1960s Canada. Here are four important changes he made in five years, all without a majority behind him.
1. The Auto Pact, an early experiment in "free trade," in which trucks, cars, and auto parts moving between Canada and the U.S. were exempt from duty. It may look less like a great idea given the events of the past two years, but it worked for the previous 40.
2. The Canada Pension Plan, which deducts money from wages to support the elderly. Americans may recognize this: it's the equivalent of Social Security.
3. The Medical Care Act, which extends public healthcare coverage to include physician services. This is a step toward today's public healthcare system. Yes, Canadians have had public healthcare since 1971--and no one has yet started growing horns, tails, or cloven hoofs; pitchfork sales remain low.
4. A suspension of capital punishment. Pearson put capital punishment "temporarily" on hold; under Trudeau in 1976, capital punishment was officially abolished.
Even if you don't agree with the policies these actions put into place, you have to admit it's an impressive list.
So, we agree, it's impossible to effect change in a minority government.
Unless you're a statesman.
Are you listening, Mr. Harper? Hello? Anyone?
P.S. Because I am a serious student of Canadian history, I rely on impeccable sources. In this case, I am indebted to the 2nd edition of Will Ferguson's Canadian History for Dummies (John Wiley and Sons Canada, 2005), where Mr. Harper, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Layton, and Mr. Dion can also read about Pearson's minority government achievements. Because they seem to have forgotten their own history.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Freedom: Thanks to Health Care
In a recent interview (available for download here), science fiction writer Robert Sawyer was asked about creativity and living in Canada.
He says, and I'm paraphrasing, that the federal and provincial arts programs that award money to artists (writers, musicians, visual artists, multimedia, film, etc.) are fine, great, whatever.
But the single best thing that Canada did for his writing career was provide universal health care.
Surprised? I was, till I thought about it.
You may or may not like Robert Sawyer's writing, but imagine what that form of health care could mean for YOU.
Imagine being able to quit your current job and start your own business. You don't need a spouse to give you healthcare coverage. You can put your savings into the business, not into expensive COBRA coverage.
Imagine owning a small but growing business and being all too aware that if you grow such that you employ more than a certain number of people, you have to provide health insurance. Makes your long-term strategic planning look a little different, doesn't it?
Imagine owning a business and NEVER having to provide basic health insurance, at all--and not having to explain that it's a hardship or otherwise justify NOT doing it.
All that concern, that expense just...goes away.
And that's for the business world. Imagine the freedom and flexibility for artists, for students, for educators, for those who work out of the home part-time (or who work only at home) and raise children, for those finally finishing school, for career-changers.
Here's something close to home for people between 30 and 70. Your elderly mother suddenly needs more care. Guess what? You can move to be near her. No need to line up a job in advance long-distance or worry about your own health coverage.
Of course, each province has its own healthcare plan, so moving to a new province requires jumping through a hoop or two. But it's do-able, especially compared to what you'd go through in the U.S.
I remain dismayed at willful ignorance in the "debate" south of the border. Worse is the sheer lack of principle of those who create lies--and those who believe them--to justify their investment in the status quo. Death panels? You can say that with a straight face? You really believe that? Seriously?
I've stayed out of the discussion, mostly, and now I'm going on to something else. But I wanted to share this little what-if exercise, because I think it shows how universal healthcare coverage could give Americans what they claim they want most: freedom.
He says, and I'm paraphrasing, that the federal and provincial arts programs that award money to artists (writers, musicians, visual artists, multimedia, film, etc.) are fine, great, whatever.
But the single best thing that Canada did for his writing career was provide universal health care.
Surprised? I was, till I thought about it.
You may or may not like Robert Sawyer's writing, but imagine what that form of health care could mean for YOU.
Imagine being able to quit your current job and start your own business. You don't need a spouse to give you healthcare coverage. You can put your savings into the business, not into expensive COBRA coverage.
Imagine owning a small but growing business and being all too aware that if you grow such that you employ more than a certain number of people, you have to provide health insurance. Makes your long-term strategic planning look a little different, doesn't it?
Imagine owning a business and NEVER having to provide basic health insurance, at all--and not having to explain that it's a hardship or otherwise justify NOT doing it.
All that concern, that expense just...goes away.
And that's for the business world. Imagine the freedom and flexibility for artists, for students, for educators, for those who work out of the home part-time (or who work only at home) and raise children, for those finally finishing school, for career-changers.
Here's something close to home for people between 30 and 70. Your elderly mother suddenly needs more care. Guess what? You can move to be near her. No need to line up a job in advance long-distance or worry about your own health coverage.
Of course, each province has its own healthcare plan, so moving to a new province requires jumping through a hoop or two. But it's do-able, especially compared to what you'd go through in the U.S.
I remain dismayed at willful ignorance in the "debate" south of the border. Worse is the sheer lack of principle of those who create lies--and those who believe them--to justify their investment in the status quo. Death panels? You can say that with a straight face? You really believe that? Seriously?
I've stayed out of the discussion, mostly, and now I'm going on to something else. But I wanted to share this little what-if exercise, because I think it shows how universal healthcare coverage could give Americans what they claim they want most: freedom.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Canadians: Tell Your Stories
So, for my Canadian reader: you know how irritating it is that Americans don't really know what's going on up here?
You know how annoying it is to meet Americans because they invariably say "Hey, do you know my friend Gayle's cousin Levi in Calgary?" Or "Banff is beautiful!" Because there aren't many folks up here, right, and it's not THAT big a place, so you probably live close to Banff, right?
Now Americans are finally looking to Canada, talking about the healthcare system. The thing is, most of them are using a sample of their friend Gayle's cousin Levi in Calgary who they think maybe said he had to wait for a knee replacement, or was it that his sister had to go to a big hospital in Calgary instead of a regional hospital for her heart catheterization...anyway, ol' Levi had some complaint about it, so it sucks and anyway, Americans don't want to be socialists.
Here's your chance to tell your own story. The Huffington Post yesterday ran a story about their own unscientific survey of Canadians and their attitudes toward their healthcare system--and at the bottom, they invite more people to chime in. Here are your instructions:
Consider these your marching orders. Go tell your story!
Many thanks to my first-born brother for calling my attention to this opportunity.
You know how annoying it is to meet Americans because they invariably say "Hey, do you know my friend Gayle's cousin Levi in Calgary?" Or "Banff is beautiful!" Because there aren't many folks up here, right, and it's not THAT big a place, so you probably live close to Banff, right?
Now Americans are finally looking to Canada, talking about the healthcare system. The thing is, most of them are using a sample of their friend Gayle's cousin Levi in Calgary who they think maybe said he had to wait for a knee replacement, or was it that his sister had to go to a big hospital in Calgary instead of a regional hospital for her heart catheterization...anyway, ol' Levi had some complaint about it, so it sucks and anyway, Americans don't want to be socialists.
Here's your chance to tell your own story. The Huffington Post yesterday ran a story about their own unscientific survey of Canadians and their attitudes toward their healthcare system--and at the bottom, they invite more people to chime in. Here are your instructions:
We would like to hear from other Canadians about which they would prefer: The universal Canadian health care or what is currently offered in the U.S.?
Tell us about the strengths and the weaknesses of the Canadian system as opposed to its southern neighbor. And if you'd like, share a personal story that illustrates how the system works, or doesn't.
So, if you have participated in the Canadian health care system and would like to weigh in, please send your responses to: HealthCareEh@gmail.com.
Consider these your marching orders. Go tell your story!
Many thanks to my first-born brother for calling my attention to this opportunity.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Why It's Broken
Here's a tale about the healthcare system in the U.S. Before I give you the link, here are the usual caveats.
No, it's not the only story about the U.S. healthcare system. About two years ago, I wrote that I was glad that my father was in the U.S. during his last illness. At least that was a system I understood, somewhat.
Here's another individual's saga: How I Lost My Health Insurance at the Hairstylist's. Please read it. Then you'll understand how unfair a system can be.
No, it's not the only story about the U.S. healthcare system. About two years ago, I wrote that I was glad that my father was in the U.S. during his last illness. At least that was a system I understood, somewhat.
Here's another individual's saga: How I Lost My Health Insurance at the Hairstylist's. Please read it. Then you'll understand how unfair a system can be.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The Important Word: "System"
Because I'm sure everyone wants to know what I think about healthcare (is that laughter?)...here it is, short (for me) and sweet.
The current healthcare system in the U.S. tends not to cover the very sick. Insurance companies don't like to cover the very people who NEED coverage because then insurance companies lose money. That's why so many people in the U.S. have to sell their homes or hold fund-raisers to cover the costs of being catastrophically sick.
As I have said before, the Canadian healthcare system has its pros and cons. One of its biggest downsides is that it tends not to cover those who are well. Seriously: The sicker you are, the higher up the list you get. On the up side, when you are sick, you're cared for. Still, lack of early access to the system makes it more difficult to catch problems early.
But the real problem, in both countries, is that healthcare is a system. Systems are, among other things, abstract ways to group individual concrete elements.
Which is fine, until you're the individual concrete element, and it's your knee that prevents you from walking, and the waiting list for knee replacements is a year. Or when you have an aggressive cancer, for which a new treatment shows promise--but that treatment isn't covered by your insurance company.
Models and systems always have cracks, through which individuals always fall. Yes, it stinks. However, you can get better systems and models when you accurately define the goal in the first place--and when people know what that goal is.
So what's the goal? Decent healthcare for as many people as possible? Designer healthcare for those who can afford it? Both? Neither? Something in between?
Whatever your answer, remember that someday you--YOUR child, YOUR parent, YOUR spouse--WILL be the one falling through the cracks. It WILL happen. Does that change anything?
Uh-huh. Thought so.
The current healthcare system in the U.S. tends not to cover the very sick. Insurance companies don't like to cover the very people who NEED coverage because then insurance companies lose money. That's why so many people in the U.S. have to sell their homes or hold fund-raisers to cover the costs of being catastrophically sick.
As I have said before, the Canadian healthcare system has its pros and cons. One of its biggest downsides is that it tends not to cover those who are well. Seriously: The sicker you are, the higher up the list you get. On the up side, when you are sick, you're cared for. Still, lack of early access to the system makes it more difficult to catch problems early.
But the real problem, in both countries, is that healthcare is a system. Systems are, among other things, abstract ways to group individual concrete elements.
Which is fine, until you're the individual concrete element, and it's your knee that prevents you from walking, and the waiting list for knee replacements is a year. Or when you have an aggressive cancer, for which a new treatment shows promise--but that treatment isn't covered by your insurance company.
Models and systems always have cracks, through which individuals always fall. Yes, it stinks. However, you can get better systems and models when you accurately define the goal in the first place--and when people know what that goal is.
So what's the goal? Decent healthcare for as many people as possible? Designer healthcare for those who can afford it? Both? Neither? Something in between?
Whatever your answer, remember that someday you--YOUR child, YOUR parent, YOUR spouse--WILL be the one falling through the cracks. It WILL happen. Does that change anything?
Uh-huh. Thought so.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Un-Patriotism
Hi, my name is Marion, and I'm un-patriotic. In both countries. And I'm taking advantage of this sweet spot between Canada Day and Independence Day to clear the air.
Here are a few of my un-favo(u)rite Canadian things.
However, for the most part, I am unapologetic about the content of my un-favorite American things. The top of that list, today, is Michael Jackson. I know: icon, maverick, influential, yeah yeah. Don't like him. Didn't like Elvis, either. I can appreciate the importance of their contributions without liking them. And therefore, I do.
But about having un-favo(u)rite Canadian things: it seems churlish, having chosen to live in this country, not to be out front leading the parade with my face painted like the flag, red bars on the sides and maple leaf down my nose. I should be singing "Ontari-ari-ari-oooooo" and "Can-a-dah!" I should see nothing but fabulousness. I shouldn't complain about the weather, the healthcare system, the roads, the gas prices, the difficulty an immigrant has in establishing credit, the political leadership...well, you get the idea.
I do enjoy many Canadian things and people. I'm a big fan of Leonard Cohen, Holly Cole, and Molly Johnson. I like butter tarts and Nanaimo bars. I like meeting people with all kinds of interesting backgrounds who speak many languages.
But mostly I enjoy living in a country where patriotism takes the form of a mild smugness. Canadians think their country is pretty great, but they would never be so crass as to say so aloud. And that's darn refreshing.
So--Canada, I'm sorry about that "don't like" list but I know we can still be friends. And U.S.--well, I'm wishing you the best from elsewhere and hoping you have a fine holiday. (Pssst. Canada Day was better.)
Here are a few of my un-favo(u)rite Canadian things.
- Diana Krall. I know I should like her music but I don't. I just don't. I really want to, but I don't. I have tried. I don't like her public performing persona. I'm sure she's a wonderful person. I just don't like her. I also don't like performances by Celine Dion, Shania Twain, or Rita MacNeil (though Rita writes reasonable songs). I'm not nuts about Anne Murray. Yeah yeah--icons, wildly successful, I get that. But no, I don't like them. Sorry. Oh, and Mike Myers and Keanu Reeves. Nope.
- The Listener. It's a Canadian program that's also popular in the U.S. and I'm supposed to be supportive and happy, but this program is ridiculous. It's certainly no Flashpoint, which is the best of that lot. And CBC doesn't necessarily do a better job of original programming. The Border is waaaay melodramatic but I have managed to sit through entire episodes because the content is interesting to someone interested in the Canada/U.S. border. Reaching back in time, Intelligence and DaVinci Goes Viral are both too dark. Not dark in content--literally dark. I can't see a thing and the content doesn't inspire me to try harder. And you remember last summer's vote-Maria-off-the-island reality show. Brrr.
- Lloyd Robertson, anchor of CTV news. I should admire his ability to mince while sitting behind a desk, but that seems a dubious distinction. His delivery is just plain distracting, even when he's not stumbling over the words. Peter Mansbridge, CBC anchor, bellows a bit but he, at least, reads reasonably well. Though he needs to stop it with that "Next on most CBC stations: Geoooooooooorge Stroumboulopoulous! and The Hour."
- Persians, a dislike that makes me doubly traitorous because they're unique to Thunder Bay. But blech. Also poutine: don't get the point. And I'm not a fan of either Tim Horton's or Robin's Donuts. I'm supposed to support Tim's again because it recently moved its headquarters from Delaware back to somewhere in Ontario. But sorry.
However, for the most part, I am unapologetic about the content of my un-favorite American things. The top of that list, today, is Michael Jackson. I know: icon, maverick, influential, yeah yeah. Don't like him. Didn't like Elvis, either. I can appreciate the importance of their contributions without liking them. And therefore, I do.
But about having un-favo(u)rite Canadian things: it seems churlish, having chosen to live in this country, not to be out front leading the parade with my face painted like the flag, red bars on the sides and maple leaf down my nose. I should be singing "Ontari-ari-ari-oooooo" and "Can-a-dah!" I should see nothing but fabulousness. I shouldn't complain about the weather, the healthcare system, the roads, the gas prices, the difficulty an immigrant has in establishing credit, the political leadership...well, you get the idea.
I do enjoy many Canadian things and people. I'm a big fan of Leonard Cohen, Holly Cole, and Molly Johnson. I like butter tarts and Nanaimo bars. I like meeting people with all kinds of interesting backgrounds who speak many languages.
But mostly I enjoy living in a country where patriotism takes the form of a mild smugness. Canadians think their country is pretty great, but they would never be so crass as to say so aloud. And that's darn refreshing.
So--Canada, I'm sorry about that "don't like" list but I know we can still be friends. And U.S.--well, I'm wishing you the best from elsewhere and hoping you have a fine holiday. (Pssst. Canada Day was better.)
Thursday, June 11, 2009
One Giant Leap Backward
I feel compelled to say something about the isotope shortage, the shutdown of the Chalk River facility, and the brouhaha about the evil quotient of the Natural Resources minister. I've tried to pretend these things are not happening, but they are not going away.
Here's what I have to say.
1. The Chalk River nuclear facility gets one year older every 365 days (366 days in a leap year). Time has operated in this way, according to our perception though possibly not Einstein's, for millennia. This is not news. Therefore, its age and the resulting issues with safety and production are also not news. So where have the governments been? Oh wait--that's right, the Harper government fired the woman in charge when she dared to mention safety issues.
2. Canada is getting out of the isotope business by 2016 (presumably after getting back into it somehow, through a too-little, too-late investment in Chalk River) (but I digress). This weakens Canada's much-adored healthcare system. Yes, isotopes presumably will be available for purchase from other countries. But if you're directly responsible for the health of your citizens (and permanent residents), and you have a capacity for providing a crucial diagnostic and treatment tool, you have both a vested interest in continuing to provide it AND the advantage of experience. Oh, wait: that assumes you learn from experience. Never mind.
3. Further, shutting down isotope production is a giant leap backward, technologically speaking, for the whole country. However, it is business as usual for this country, which tends to export its brains and great ideas to the U.S. for commercialization. The BlackBerry is a notable exception. Wouldn't it be nice if Canada embraced the areas in which it has experience--you might even say leadership--and invested there? I like to think of it as "logic."
4. The Natural Resources minister is guilty mostly of being a politician (possibly a not-too-effective one, but that's another matter). She is, however, also guilty of cowardice for allowing the Prime Minister's office to orchestrate her response to her comments. She would be a happier person and a much better public servant--though perhaps not a more effective politician--if she had the guts to respond like a human being to this situation. The problem is, it's the politicians who are in charge. Not public servants. And everyone in the House should really seriously re-think what it is they were elected to do.
If you're American and thus haven't heard about any of this, here's the CBC story about getting out of isotope production. Related articles are on the right. Here's an opinion about Lisa Raitt.
As you may have guessed, this kind of news and this particular story just make me tired. Maybe it's incipient allergies and lack of sleep when "night" includes about 3 hours of darkness and lots of twilight and dawn. Maybe I'm finally succumbing to apathy now that the workings of the Canadian government aren't alien and therefore fascinating.
But you know what? Maybe it's not me. Maybe, just maybe, I'm tired because of the bad behavio(u)r.
Grrr.
Here's what I have to say.
1. The Chalk River nuclear facility gets one year older every 365 days (366 days in a leap year). Time has operated in this way, according to our perception though possibly not Einstein's, for millennia. This is not news. Therefore, its age and the resulting issues with safety and production are also not news. So where have the governments been? Oh wait--that's right, the Harper government fired the woman in charge when she dared to mention safety issues.
2. Canada is getting out of the isotope business by 2016 (presumably after getting back into it somehow, through a too-little, too-late investment in Chalk River) (but I digress). This weakens Canada's much-adored healthcare system. Yes, isotopes presumably will be available for purchase from other countries. But if you're directly responsible for the health of your citizens (and permanent residents), and you have a capacity for providing a crucial diagnostic and treatment tool, you have both a vested interest in continuing to provide it AND the advantage of experience. Oh, wait: that assumes you learn from experience. Never mind.
3. Further, shutting down isotope production is a giant leap backward, technologically speaking, for the whole country. However, it is business as usual for this country, which tends to export its brains and great ideas to the U.S. for commercialization. The BlackBerry is a notable exception. Wouldn't it be nice if Canada embraced the areas in which it has experience--you might even say leadership--and invested there? I like to think of it as "logic."
4. The Natural Resources minister is guilty mostly of being a politician (possibly a not-too-effective one, but that's another matter). She is, however, also guilty of cowardice for allowing the Prime Minister's office to orchestrate her response to her comments. She would be a happier person and a much better public servant--though perhaps not a more effective politician--if she had the guts to respond like a human being to this situation. The problem is, it's the politicians who are in charge. Not public servants. And everyone in the House should really seriously re-think what it is they were elected to do.
If you're American and thus haven't heard about any of this, here's the CBC story about getting out of isotope production. Related articles are on the right. Here's an opinion about Lisa Raitt.
As you may have guessed, this kind of news and this particular story just make me tired. Maybe it's incipient allergies and lack of sleep when "night" includes about 3 hours of darkness and lots of twilight and dawn. Maybe I'm finally succumbing to apathy now that the workings of the Canadian government aren't alien and therefore fascinating.
But you know what? Maybe it's not me. Maybe, just maybe, I'm tired because of the bad behavio(u)r.
Grrr.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Health Care Takes a Holiday: A Comparison
Yesterday I saw a new side of the much-hailed Canadian health care system. People in Canada (at least those in my population sample, which consists mostly of women at the gym and at church) are quite proud of their healthcare system, even as they complain about being on waiting lists.
Many of my American friends say they envy me because I am living in this country with this "fabulous healthcare system." Others are horrified because I have to live in a country with this socialized medicine, which "everybody knows" results in inferior care.
I've written a few times about the healthcare system. Fortunately, I haven't had much reason to. I am healthy (knock wood) and have little need of the system. Which is good because I don't have a family physician. I go to the walk-in clinic when I get sinus infections. I've been maybe three or four times in my going-on-four years here.
Yesterday, I was just along for the ride. My husband had a minor skin irritation that became infected and suddenly swelled, and he obviously needed an antibiotic. His family physician recently retired, leaving him an "orphan," and in any case, it was something best treated at a walk-in clinic. And thus began a bit of an odyssey.
We had at least thought to check which walk-in clinics are open on Friday afternoons. However, as we drove around town from clinic to clinic while the afternoon waned, we discovered that all the walk-in clinics were closed. Why? March break.
I understand that physicians are people too. They have kids. They want to take holidays. But closing ALL the "open on Friday" walk-in clinics really does NOT seem like a good public health policy.
Our last option was the Emergency department at the hospital. It was a perfectly fine experience. I would have felt a little foolish for bringing such an obvious non-emergency to the hospital, but apparently none of the staff showed impatience.
When my husband was called to the inner sanctum to see the doctor, he explained the nature of his "illness," finishing with, "...and all the walk-in clinics are closed."
"Don't I know it," the doctor replied.
Apparently we were not the only ones surprised.
Still, it was only a three-hour adventure, including waiting around for the prescription and all the driving hither and yon.
I've been trying to imagine how this would have played out if I'd been the sick one at 4 on a Friday back when I lived in the U.S.
One option would have been phoning my family practice physician's office to see if (a) he could see me quickly to prescribe the antibiotic or (b) if he'd believe me over the phone and prescribe for me. Option A is more likely, but truthfully not likely at all. If I'd seen him, I'd have had a copayment of $15 to $25.
The next option would have been a walk-in-clinic equivalent--an Urgent Care Center, known as a "doc-in-the-box." The cost for this visit would be more than the co-pay for the family doc. Although the clinic might bill my insurance company first and bill me for the remainder, it's equally possible that I'd have had to pay and request reimbursement. Plus, my insurance would pay something like 80%, but only if I'd met a deductible (which was I think $500). So this option would be more expensive than the first.
The last option would have been the Emergency department at the hospital, which would have been the last resort. The costs there, too, would probably be covered (after meeting the deductible) at 80%. But an ER visit would have run into some money--probably hundreds out of my pocket.
And of course I'd have been paying monthly premiums for an insurance policy. If I had an employer other than myself, my employer would be contributing, too. So for a relatively healthy person, I'd have been paying what now seems like a lot.
Because up here, a swipe of the health card and you're done. The antibiotics cost only $13 because we do have a drug insurance plan with monthly premiums.
As healthcare goes, the whole experience was fine. As I've said before, healthcare systems are systems, which means that they are designed by one group of fallible people and run by another group of equally fallible people, and therefore they don't function perfectly. Each system has pros and cons.
I choose to live here and I can handle the system here. In fact, in thinking back over my options in the U.S. vs. what happened yesterday, I'm pretty glad to be here.
Many of my American friends say they envy me because I am living in this country with this "fabulous healthcare system." Others are horrified because I have to live in a country with this socialized medicine, which "everybody knows" results in inferior care.
I've written a few times about the healthcare system. Fortunately, I haven't had much reason to. I am healthy (knock wood) and have little need of the system. Which is good because I don't have a family physician. I go to the walk-in clinic when I get sinus infections. I've been maybe three or four times in my going-on-four years here.
Yesterday, I was just along for the ride. My husband had a minor skin irritation that became infected and suddenly swelled, and he obviously needed an antibiotic. His family physician recently retired, leaving him an "orphan," and in any case, it was something best treated at a walk-in clinic. And thus began a bit of an odyssey.
We had at least thought to check which walk-in clinics are open on Friday afternoons. However, as we drove around town from clinic to clinic while the afternoon waned, we discovered that all the walk-in clinics were closed. Why? March break.
I understand that physicians are people too. They have kids. They want to take holidays. But closing ALL the "open on Friday" walk-in clinics really does NOT seem like a good public health policy.
Our last option was the Emergency department at the hospital. It was a perfectly fine experience. I would have felt a little foolish for bringing such an obvious non-emergency to the hospital, but apparently none of the staff showed impatience.
When my husband was called to the inner sanctum to see the doctor, he explained the nature of his "illness," finishing with, "...and all the walk-in clinics are closed."
"Don't I know it," the doctor replied.
Apparently we were not the only ones surprised.
Still, it was only a three-hour adventure, including waiting around for the prescription and all the driving hither and yon.
I've been trying to imagine how this would have played out if I'd been the sick one at 4 on a Friday back when I lived in the U.S.
One option would have been phoning my family practice physician's office to see if (a) he could see me quickly to prescribe the antibiotic or (b) if he'd believe me over the phone and prescribe for me. Option A is more likely, but truthfully not likely at all. If I'd seen him, I'd have had a copayment of $15 to $25.
The next option would have been a walk-in-clinic equivalent--an Urgent Care Center, known as a "doc-in-the-box." The cost for this visit would be more than the co-pay for the family doc. Although the clinic might bill my insurance company first and bill me for the remainder, it's equally possible that I'd have had to pay and request reimbursement. Plus, my insurance would pay something like 80%, but only if I'd met a deductible (which was I think $500). So this option would be more expensive than the first.
The last option would have been the Emergency department at the hospital, which would have been the last resort. The costs there, too, would probably be covered (after meeting the deductible) at 80%. But an ER visit would have run into some money--probably hundreds out of my pocket.
And of course I'd have been paying monthly premiums for an insurance policy. If I had an employer other than myself, my employer would be contributing, too. So for a relatively healthy person, I'd have been paying what now seems like a lot.
Because up here, a swipe of the health card and you're done. The antibiotics cost only $13 because we do have a drug insurance plan with monthly premiums.
As healthcare goes, the whole experience was fine. As I've said before, healthcare systems are systems, which means that they are designed by one group of fallible people and run by another group of equally fallible people, and therefore they don't function perfectly. Each system has pros and cons.
I choose to live here and I can handle the system here. In fact, in thinking back over my options in the U.S. vs. what happened yesterday, I'm pretty glad to be here.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The Scorecard
Alas, or perhaps not so much, the era in Canadian politics of "two white guys named Steve" is over. Stephane Dion is out, and the new presumptive leader of the Liberal party is Michael Ignatieff.
If the name "Michael Ignatieff" sounds familiar to Americans, it's because he was at Harvard for some time. He came back to Canada a couple of years ago, sucked back home by a power vacuum in the Liberal party. He's served his penance for his American credentials--as Deputy Liberal Leader to Dion (a smart man without an ounce of political charm who bears an odd resemblance to my father, but that's another story).
Now that we know who the players are, we can go back to the message.
So attention, coalition or splintered members thereof: here is your message.
And here's what you don't say, even though it's true: Stephen Harper's divisive rhetoric and "us vs. them" mentality is so five minutes ago. (Rather like the phrase "five minutes ago.") Both main parties have made mistakes in the past, and even the Ontario NDP didn't perform too well when it woke up and found itself in charge. Sure, we would be in better fiscal shape if Harper hadn't spent the surplus, but the Liberals didn't invest a whole lot in infrastructure or energy research. Let's just say that fingers can be pointed all day.
Seriously, we don't have the time nor the energy to care about the past.
These past few weeks have been difficult for Canadian politicians in Ottawa and in the provinces. But compared to the rest of us, you've had it easy. We gave you guaranteed jobs. Now do them--get to work for us.
If the name "Michael Ignatieff" sounds familiar to Americans, it's because he was at Harvard for some time. He came back to Canada a couple of years ago, sucked back home by a power vacuum in the Liberal party. He's served his penance for his American credentials--as Deputy Liberal Leader to Dion (a smart man without an ounce of political charm who bears an odd resemblance to my father, but that's another story).
Now that we know who the players are, we can go back to the message.
So attention, coalition or splintered members thereof: here is your message.
In times like these, Canadians deserve politicians who work together to get things done. We propose these concrete measures that complement the actions of the U.S. "car czar" and these others that will ensure that Canadian pensions are protected. To protect what we consider to be fundamental human rights, we put into place these incentives and investments in healthcare and safe water. And while we're at it, we'll fund incentives so that individuals and companies that re-tool their lives with green technologies get a tax break.
And here's what you don't say, even though it's true: Stephen Harper's divisive rhetoric and "us vs. them" mentality is so five minutes ago. (Rather like the phrase "five minutes ago.") Both main parties have made mistakes in the past, and even the Ontario NDP didn't perform too well when it woke up and found itself in charge. Sure, we would be in better fiscal shape if Harper hadn't spent the surplus, but the Liberals didn't invest a whole lot in infrastructure or energy research. Let's just say that fingers can be pointed all day.
Seriously, we don't have the time nor the energy to care about the past.
These past few weeks have been difficult for Canadian politicians in Ottawa and in the provinces. But compared to the rest of us, you've had it easy. We gave you guaranteed jobs. Now do them--get to work for us.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Men Behaving Badly
The title of this post describes Canadian politics during the past couple of weeks. I exempt the Governor General from the title because she's a woman but also because she really had little choice but to award the "time out" the Prime Minister requested. Her job is to not insert herself (an unelected official) into the governing process--and granting the Prime Minister a "do-over" is perhaps the least intrusive thing she could have done. But I hope she yelled at him a little and told him this was his last chance.
In any case, I find myself in an unusual position: I now feel more proud of a U.S. politician than the politicians in Canada. I'm not sure I have ever felt this way before.
Before I moved here, I made no pretense of understanding or really following Canadian politics, other than trying to keep up with the name of the person in charge. I paid attention during the NAFTA negotiations, and during the leadup to the Iraq war, and other times when American allies were in the news in the U.S. However, parliamentary politics is all new to me in the past three to four years.
Nevertheless, I was like other liberals in the U.S. in holding a slight envy for some Canadian values that have translated into public policy. Like universal healthcare as a human right. Like limits on gun ownership. I figured Canadian politicians were probably more enlightened and competent, too.
And the venality of American politicians has increased. As you know or can imagine, actions of U.S. politicians--and I include the Senate and House, Democrats and Republicans--during the past eight years have been difficult for me to believe. I started to list examples and it turns the stomach.
But those thousands of days are already beginning to fade, though I won't forget their lessons. And now, I see a lot of pleasing news from the U.S. The President-Elect is surrounding himself with diverse opinions. He is clear about his role until the end of January--there's just one President at a time. However, he also understands how important it is for the electorate to see him doing something, anything, to show he will hit the ground running. And he's doing a lot of good things.
It's amazing for me to say this, but...politicians in Canada could learn from the example of their incoming neighbo(u)r to the south. There. I said it.
So folks who recently fled Ottawa, use this time wisely. Stop telling Canadians that you deserve to govern or that others are going to destroy the country--our sky is falling all around us. We don't have time to worry about your manufactured crises; there are plenty of real ones out there.
Instead, remember the arguments you should be making--that your ideas will help solve the impending economic difficulties while protecting the least able among us. We want, and need, to hear about those.
In any case, I find myself in an unusual position: I now feel more proud of a U.S. politician than the politicians in Canada. I'm not sure I have ever felt this way before.
Before I moved here, I made no pretense of understanding or really following Canadian politics, other than trying to keep up with the name of the person in charge. I paid attention during the NAFTA negotiations, and during the leadup to the Iraq war, and other times when American allies were in the news in the U.S. However, parliamentary politics is all new to me in the past three to four years.
Nevertheless, I was like other liberals in the U.S. in holding a slight envy for some Canadian values that have translated into public policy. Like universal healthcare as a human right. Like limits on gun ownership. I figured Canadian politicians were probably more enlightened and competent, too.
And the venality of American politicians has increased. As you know or can imagine, actions of U.S. politicians--and I include the Senate and House, Democrats and Republicans--during the past eight years have been difficult for me to believe. I started to list examples and it turns the stomach.
But those thousands of days are already beginning to fade, though I won't forget their lessons. And now, I see a lot of pleasing news from the U.S. The President-Elect is surrounding himself with diverse opinions. He is clear about his role until the end of January--there's just one President at a time. However, he also understands how important it is for the electorate to see him doing something, anything, to show he will hit the ground running. And he's doing a lot of good things.
It's amazing for me to say this, but...politicians in Canada could learn from the example of their incoming neighbo(u)r to the south. There. I said it.
So folks who recently fled Ottawa, use this time wisely. Stop telling Canadians that you deserve to govern or that others are going to destroy the country--our sky is falling all around us. We don't have time to worry about your manufactured crises; there are plenty of real ones out there.
Instead, remember the arguments you should be making--that your ideas will help solve the impending economic difficulties while protecting the least able among us. We want, and need, to hear about those.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Another Message While We Wait
For those in the U.S., here's a request. Please please please. If your candidate loses, please don't say, "I'm moving to Canada."
I know you're just joking, but seriously. It's not a good joke. Don't even say it, and for sure don't come here. Your responsibility is to stay home and stay involved in your community. Put your beliefs into practice. Help someone else, even if that person voted for the "winner." Maybe even especially if that person is a "winner."
Let me back up. I know that I may look like the world's biggest pot calling hypothetical kettles black. However, as anyone who actually knows me knows, I moved here for reasons of real estate and stayed for reasons of love. Politics didn't enter into it. Sure, Bush and Cheney and their ridiculous vision for the U.S. made it easier to stay here. But they didn't cause me to leave.
There are people in this world who are REAL political refugees. They tend not to come from countries that are democracies, where raspberries are available in grocery stores year-round, where public libraries and the Internet hold more information than we can comprehend in a lifetime, where roads are paved, and where food safety failures are cause for outrage and lawsuits.
You are not a political refugee. You're just hurting a bit right now. You really don't want to come up here--you just want to run away from the hurt. Believe me, I know how that feels.
But you're lucky to live where you do. You're lucky that voting for the "loser" doesn't mean that supporters of the "winner" will appear at your door with a machete. Count your blessings. Lick your wounds. Stay put.
If you still think you're really serious about moving here, you should know a few things. Actual pieces of information. The capital city of the country. The names of a few of the provinces (no, they're not states here). The name of the current prime minister and, oh, at least one other from the past 140+ years. (Hint: look at the money.) This knowledge isn't too hard to find. Try Google.
But mostly, if you want to move here, think about this: how can you contribute to this country? That's right--how can you GIVE? It's about GIVING, after all, not GETTING. You don't get the benefits of the healthcare system without contributing to society.
Is this too hard? Yeah, I thought so. It's OK. I knew you really wanted to stay in the U.S. all along. Give it a little time and then get back out there and do something nice for someone else. You'll feel better. And so will we.
I know you're just joking, but seriously. It's not a good joke. Don't even say it, and for sure don't come here. Your responsibility is to stay home and stay involved in your community. Put your beliefs into practice. Help someone else, even if that person voted for the "winner." Maybe even especially if that person is a "winner."
Let me back up. I know that I may look like the world's biggest pot calling hypothetical kettles black. However, as anyone who actually knows me knows, I moved here for reasons of real estate and stayed for reasons of love. Politics didn't enter into it. Sure, Bush and Cheney and their ridiculous vision for the U.S. made it easier to stay here. But they didn't cause me to leave.
There are people in this world who are REAL political refugees. They tend not to come from countries that are democracies, where raspberries are available in grocery stores year-round, where public libraries and the Internet hold more information than we can comprehend in a lifetime, where roads are paved, and where food safety failures are cause for outrage and lawsuits.
You are not a political refugee. You're just hurting a bit right now. You really don't want to come up here--you just want to run away from the hurt. Believe me, I know how that feels.
But you're lucky to live where you do. You're lucky that voting for the "loser" doesn't mean that supporters of the "winner" will appear at your door with a machete. Count your blessings. Lick your wounds. Stay put.
If you still think you're really serious about moving here, you should know a few things. Actual pieces of information. The capital city of the country. The names of a few of the provinces (no, they're not states here). The name of the current prime minister and, oh, at least one other from the past 140+ years. (Hint: look at the money.) This knowledge isn't too hard to find. Try Google.
But mostly, if you want to move here, think about this: how can you contribute to this country? That's right--how can you GIVE? It's about GIVING, after all, not GETTING. You don't get the benefits of the healthcare system without contributing to society.
Is this too hard? Yeah, I thought so. It's OK. I knew you really wanted to stay in the U.S. all along. Give it a little time and then get back out there and do something nice for someone else. You'll feel better. And so will we.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
