• streetfestival@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 hours ago

    It’s not right for politicians to undermine publicly-funded, evidence-based healthcare.

    We don’t test for no reason. No test is perfect. And so doctors will order a test when the imperfect test can meaningfully inform subsequent decision-making, based on other pieces in the clinical picture.

    I’m not sure how the system will manage medically unnecessary tests on many levels.

    Let’s say some rich asshole, considering themselves an expert and wanting to take advantage of this anti-democratic system, pays for an MRI of their head with no doctor’s referral simply because they have a headache.

    What priority is their scan given? Can they bump a medically necessary scan? Is it clearly communicated to the radiologist interpreting the scan that only a patient and not a healthcare provider deemed it necessary? Is the cranial MRI marked as medically unnecessary on any subsequent health records? (From a healthcare perspective, when one sees a cranial MRI done, they’re thinking something much more clinically relevant than a headache happened; and this stands to cause a lot of confusion and wasted time)

    Also, diverting the system towards privatization is a huge abandonment of trying to improve our public system. Shame on the UCP!

  • RadiallyAxiomatic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    This existed well before Friday. My doctor recommended I pay to get a quicker scan last year. I’m not sure of the exact details since I didn’t do it.

    I won’t say I’m not tight with cash, which factored into the decision, but I also really hate this fall into private health care and don’t want to support that. I was told it would be about $400 for a private MRI.

    • jon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yes, before you could pay to have a private imaging center do an MRI. But, you were required to have a referral from a doctor. The difference is that as of Friday the private clinics are no longer required to only give MRIs to people that have a referral from a doctor.

  • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Let’s replace the headline.

    “Rich Albertans can get whatever medical tests they want, at the expense of basic healthcare for others.”

  • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    18 hours ago

    “Alberta abandons Canada Healthcare principles, Federal government does nothing to stop them.”

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Healthcare is provincial.

      “American wanna be MAGA hicks once again get fucked by their voting decisions”

      Incredible how everything immediately gets blamed on Ottawa when Albertans score an own goal.

      • SubarcticPanic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Provincial, pulling from federal funding with rules that explicitly prohibit privatization, but sure. Let’s just ignore the facts.

  • castle88@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    19 hours ago

    The death knell for public health care in Canada. Having grown up in Alberta, the public system saved lives in my immediate family. Maybe even mine.

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        The last federal election was about the threat to Canadian sovereignty. 92% of Alberta seats went PC.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        That “diehard majority” was a few thousand votes in the most recent election. The one before that, they actually weren’t the majority - Alberta had an NDP government.

        Insisting that Alberta is eternally UCP will only help make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

        • Ariselas@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 hours ago

          they are busy gerrymandering the new district borders so that they won’t need the majority vote to stay in government.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Gerrymandering can push the needle but it can’t hold back the tide. It can actually backfire if the projections that the gerrymanderers were working with turn out to be inaccurate, since it’s specifically “betting” on a particular arrangement of votes.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Pretty specific cutoff date there. Look at the full history of elections in Alberta, there was a run of PC governments in that specific window that you’ve conveniently specified but before that the political landscape was completely different. And in recent history too, it’s unstable.

            But if you want to write the province off and permanently leave it to conservatives, that’s a choice I guess.

  • BC_viper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Im always torn by the privatization, because yah its going to create a 2 tiered system. But also, now I can actually look at something that needs to be looked at when the list is 3 years long any other way? Sign me the fuck up, here’s 2 grand. Show me the fucking problem now and we can fix it hopefully.

    • running_ragged@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Long term, it’s not going to create a two tier system. It’s going to drain limited resources from the public system until it fails, and then all we have left is profit driven healthcare that provides worse care than what we were getting for everyone except the richest.

    • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I understand this, but that means those who can’t throw two grand at the problem end up suffering or dead.

      Two-tier healthcare inherently means that rich people are more deserving of life.

    • neonmagician@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      spitballing, but perhaps a legislated cap at msp+10%. gives a profit over socialized health care but isn’t unreachable for the everyman.

      haven’t thought this through at all, so any ramifications are outside scope of this drunken suggestion. i’d appreciate critiques

      • garbagebagel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Government like the ones in Alberta are actively and very intentionally working to privatize health care so they would never go for this.

        • neonmagician@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          well of course, i’d much prefer globalized universal health care. unfortunately i don’t see that as an option, so give me governmental price +10% as a legislated limit on privatized.

          in a perfect world we’d see socialized glp-1’s and socialized safe use sites. hell if i could buy clean coke from a federal store i would.

          unfortunately that’s not the world we live in so i’m limited to imagining November 5th happening to every western government and aspiring freedmen until then.

          EDIT: forgive any rambling, am on vacay and hammered