Health Care in Kelowna

[Logitack]

when it comes to user pay, I think seniors in extended care, now called residential care, are paying their share of the cost. The government is now taking 80% of the senior's after tax income, leaving the senior with a couple hundred dollars to pay for other things. The maximum they can take from the senior's after tax income is $2 932 a month. The minimum amount is $897.90. How they calculate what is considered "income" is questionable. Anyone know?

[I Think]

some sort of nominal fee attached with with each medical visit, in my view, would help alleviate much of the emergency room pressure by cutting out unnecessary trips to hospital.

That is a viewpoint shared by many people who are under the age of 60, especially those making a good living. Are you planning on allowing granny to moulder away in her room because not only can she not pay for her meds (no pharmacare does not pay for all meds) but also she cannot pay for visits to doctors.

[grammafreddy]

That would seem to be the general concept these days - the old people are disposable because they serve no purpose and take money away from the entitled younger ones who think they should have life on a silver platter handed to them.

They negate the concept that older people have contributed for many, many years to the system they now feel like raping instead of paying their own way.

[Glacier]

That is a viewpoint shared by many people who are under the age of 60, especially those making a good living. Are you planning on allowing granny to moulder away in her room because not only can she not pay for her meds (no pharmacare does not pay for all meds) but also she cannot pay for visits to doctors.

Anyone over 60 and low income earners should probably be exempt.

User fees work in countries like Sweden, so I don't understand why they can't work here? With ever ballooning healthcare costs, this is surely something we should at least look at. I don't know, I'm just trying to offer solutions to a rather large problem that is has no easy fixes.

[grammafreddy]

I was just the other day looking at a news story about an agreement Canada signed with the EU regarding prescription drugs. This does not bode well for a lot of seniors or low income people because it could mean the drugs they now get through PharmaCare may not be covered in the future - and they will be more expensive for everyone.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story ... drugs.html

[Al Czervic]

I think part of the problem is that we assume there is an easy solution, but there are no easy solutions. Yet fixing healthcare is not rocket science; it is a simple as making people more financially accountable for lifestyle choices. The fact is financial accountability is about the only demonstrated condition that our society regularly and successfully responds too.

We shut off lights and turn down the heat because the meter is running and it will cost us more money if we do not. We generally do not speed because speeding can lead to points and tickets and that costs money. We generally pay our taxes on time because we suffer financial penalties if we do not. Small vehicle damage we often pay for out of own pocket so as to keep our insurance rates down.

Yet in healthcare we abandon all of these approaches. Drink, smoke, do drugs, eat in an unhealthy manner, refuse to exercise, basically do anything we don’t care we will treat you no differently than people who make efforts to be more healthy. It is like some sort of sacred sanctity that we continue down this road to never never land. It is just so bizarre, the government has no problem forcing us to wear seatbelts, dictating what kind of light bulbs we purchase, forcing us to pay taxes on our lifestyle choices as they apply to spending and yet for whatever reason the single most important aspect that affects us all, our health, it is totally off limits. Why ? What is worse is that it is illegal in many cases in Canada to pay out of your own pocket for most healthcare services, yet we can pay out of our own pocket to destroy our health, just not to make it any better.

The problem is slowly reaching epic proportions; it is not only the system that in unsustainable from an increasing costs perspective, the model it operates under is deeply flawed. And now virtually every aspect of our society is underwriting these costs. Healthcare spending outpaces ALL other ministries combined. Is it really fair that less money can be spent on environmental protection because so many people refuse to modify their lifestyles to the point that diabetes is now becoming a costly epidemic? That ultimately nonprofit service clubs get less grant funding because more of that money is being directed into health care? As parents we are all responsible for our children but at some point should we as adult children not become more responsible for our parents? How often do our parents get dumped off at the care home when the adult children (usually living in Vancouver or someplace else) turn around and complain about the quality of care or how much it is costing their parents ? I mean come one here, at what point do WE take more responsibility for our healthcare and related costs instead of pointing the blame always at others?

[Phoenix Within]

Phoenix Within, getting people up to acute care beds is as important as not having to have that bed in a closet.

I never said it wasn't as important. I was pointing out your definition of Code Purple was incorrect. And they're not in closets... they're in hallways.

Any insight into funding beds then?

If I had all the answers for that, I'd be running for office.

Personally - and what should be the most obvious - is to get rid of any excessive and unnecessary spending. As an example I'd heard from people in the know that the new tower cost an extra $1 million in the design process because whoever drew up the plans, didn't make the elevators big enough to accommodate stretchers. Oops! That cost should have been eaten by the designer and not by IHA. Other factors are a lot of duplicity and redundancy that go on that could be eliminated. Getting into details would take to long.

Give the ER a discretion to charge a "user fee" to patients who are in the ER for things that are non-emergency. Like having a headache and needing a Tylenol, or getting your birth-control prescription refilled (just silly examples, but you get my meaning). Use the ER for what it's for: Emergencies! You'd save about $350 a head.

More long-term and specialized long term (behavioral) facilities for patients that don't need to be in a hospital bed but can't go home. There can be people using up a bed for a month or more, waiting for placement in an appropriate facility. But of course, this takes money.

Everyone's going to have to be prepared for a revamp of the medical system currently, as it's unsustainable in it's current state. God help us should we end up with a health care system like the US (pre-reform). With advancements in health care, people are living longer and can cost the system more over the long haul. The first generation of post-war "baby boomers" hit retirement age this year, so we ain't seen NOTHING yet!

[Phoenix Within]

User fees work in countries like Sweden, so I don't understand why they can't work here?

The idea would work for people who don't take care of themselves and would essentially cost the system more. Those who use it more, pay more. Although a baseline of what would be "covered" under our monthly fees versus extra and need user fees would have to be defined (lets just not use the same guys who determined what is and what isn't covered under the HST!).

I'd like to see exemptions for people who are in accidents (or in hospital by no fault of their own), just a thought.

[Queen K]

PW, sorry but I always understood Code Purple to mean, "must empty hospital beds to make room for people in even WORSE condition than those occupying beds now."

I'm I wrong? And that's how I meant it the first time.

[I Think]

Maybe a user payment for visits to ER & Doctor charged at so much per kilo body weight.

[Nebula]

Nibs, so you would charge a 400-pound person with a splinter in his finger more than a baby with a congenital heart defect?

[I Think]

Yup baby gets a baby sized bill, splintered slim would get a much higher one.
What do you think about that?


This was my answer to your post which you have now switched around.
No Neb, you got it backwards at $0.25 per pound the baby would get a bill for $2.00 the 400 pounder would pay $100.

[Queen K]

Phoenix Within, by "unsustainable in it's present state" I agree. Presently the government is chopping off the cheapest workers hours creating a negative feedback loop. Few hours by which to support families, fewer workers interested in getting into Long Term Care training, fewer workers applying for jobs. Or if they do, they do not stay.

Btw, LPN's are an integral part of homecare as they do what we cannot. And we do what they used to, give meds, patches, drops and on and on. So in a way, cheaper labour has replaced LPN's and made the system sustainable.

[Nebula]

It is not sustainable. It is out of control. You can point out who got cut back all you want, but you can't change the fact that we keep dumping more and more money into healthcare.

[Queen K]

Neb, did you see my agreement with PW? And could you make an argument that North American habits are out of control? Diet, drugs, alcohol, gambling, sedentary lifestyles and such?