Provincial & Federal Failure All Round...
December 12th, 2005
So, today the Federal & Provincial Governments announced that they have created healthcare "benchmark" waiting times: the maximum amount of time someone can wait for a specific treatment for a specific disease, or ailment.
Every last one of these waiting times are failures, a failure by the entire country at the same time, with all three parties contributing. Pathetic. They take far too long for someone to get treatment for something that could be potentially life threatening. Each province must meet these benchmarks. If they don't? Oh, there's no penalty. Maybe just a harsh reprimand? That hasn't been discussed. How convenient! Failure #1!
People needing a coronary artery bypass surgery can wait up to twenty-six weeks. That's a waiting time of six months. Truly pitiful, this is a vital treatment for many, and being forced to wait for half a year is disgraceful, it puts Canada as a whole in a bad light. Health Ministers only expect an 80-90% success rate in meeting these benchmark times.
Interestingly, something that has been relatively dominant in Ontario are MRI's, and CT scans, both of which were noticeably absent from the plan introduced today.
Thankfully, someone is speaking out on the behalf of the people. The Canadian Independent Medical Clinics Association called the plan "backwards," going on to say "Wait lists have been eliminated in other European countries with universal health-care systems complemented by private-sector options." (http://www.940news.com/nouvelles.php?cat=23&id=121233)
Other "benchmarks" included:
- Sight Restoration: High-risk cataract patients to be treated within 16 weeks
- Diagnostic Services: Mammograms every two years for women ages 50 to 69, cervical screenings every three years for women 18 to 69.
- Hips and Knees: 26 weeks for hip and knee replacement.
By the way, I would like EVERYBODY to take a look at the "average" Canadians that are the focus of the Liberal ads: http://www.ndp.ca/page/2121 They aren't so average, are they?

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home