A new poll says long wait times lead half of Canadians to avoid seeing a doctor or going to the hospital.

The poll was conducted by Léger and commissioned by right-leaning think-tanks the Montreal Economic Institute, SecondStreet.org, and the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

The percentage of respondents who say they avoid consulting doctors because of wait times is highest among women, people over 55 and Quebecers.

all 65 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 41 points 1 week ago (18 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    I've been fighting with SunLife to get a treatment covered and it straight up reminds me of the hell I used to go through in the US

    • It took 2 months and at least a dozen calls to convince them that it's covered, when it says right in my coverage doc that it's covered
    • They don't tell you any status updates. Everything is a letter sent through snail mail, and they refuse to tell you anything over the phone
    • They withheld a secret third form from me for over a month, after the initial two forms they made my doctor fill out
    • Their phone system has a bunch of robo-loops built in. When you finally get someone there's a chance they'll just hang up on you
    • Even after I filled out and submitted all forms via their online portal, multiple times, they didn't "receive" the forms for about two weeks
    • Now that I have a letter from them saying it's covered 100%, they pretend they don't do direct billing and require me to first get the procedure and pay the full $31k then hope for a refund. Besides the insanity of assuming people have $31k just laying around and can wait months to get it back, I don't trust that they'll keep their word
    • Despite sending in my initial estimate in fucking august, I still don't have a date due to their delays

    SunLife can go fuck itself. My coverage ends in December so it really feels like they've been purposefully dragging their feet. For-profit health insurance is a scam.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] -7 points 1 week ago (16 children)

    Obligatory reminder that the EU has private health care and is not the USA.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (15 children)

    In Germany someone I knew only had a hospital bed before they died because they had private insurance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (14 children)

    You just described Canada today. My mother's immune system is compromised. She needs one. She also has private insurance. That's still not guaranteed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    So that's a call for more public funding, not more private for profit care

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 week ago (12 children)

    It's a call for both, like they do in places like Germany. It is possible to have a properly run two-tier health care system. If your comparison is the US, you're not actually arguing against what I said but against what you heard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    If you have properly funded public healthcare, then there is no need for private. German has it because of conservative types pushing for profit driven models. As soon as profit is the metric, then patient quality of care suffers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (10 children)

    It is very possible to have a two-tier health care system, still value the public health care model, and have a right wing government. They've done it for years in Norway. And even in Germany, no one significant is pushing for full privatization. That is strictly an American concept and Canada would do well to train itself out of it. Especially since we're turning away from America and toward the EU.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (9 children)

    Give me a reason why private is needed, it matters not who's instituted it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (8 children)

    I can give you several. The question you should be asking is what makes pretty much every other health care system in the world better than ours. Our health care system is only better than the US. And part of the reason is because the better performing health care systems aren't entirely private, and aren't entirely public. They're both. And part of the reason Canada's system is slightly better than the US is because the US is the opposite side of Canada's coin. The US won't improve because it refuses to introduce a proper public system, and Canada's won't improve because we refuse to introduce a proper private system. The countries that get over themselves long enough to do that (again, see countries like Norway) are doing better than we are. Even with Conservative governments. Ask yourself why.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (7 children)

    So you can't answer why private is needed? Or what it provides.

    A public system in Canada could be world class if it wasn't always being under funded. Private doesn't bring any magic dust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (6 children)

    No, but it does bring flexibility, including services that the public system won't provide or won't provide soon enough. How long are the waitlists for hip and knee surgeries in your province? Private surgeries could shorten that list and let people who can't afford it move further up.

    Let me answer your question with a question. Why do people have private health insurance? Should we make it illegal? What would making it illegal do to the public system?

    I'm not saying don't properly fund the public system. It's not either or. It's and. You're stuck on either or because the US is right there. The UK does and. Norway does and. Germany does and. Australia does and. Canada and the US do or, and you know what the results are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

    Again your point about waiting for surgeries is a non funded public health system. If the emphasis was on patient care they would build in capacity. Private just charges more to perform the same . People have private care through employer because the public system is under funded. It also creates a class system of health care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    It does not matter how much money you throw at the public health care system. At the end of the day, it's the government deciding what your priorities are. That may be fine in your 20's, but you won't be there forever. I have absolutely no idea what health issue I'll wake up with tomorrow, but I'm getting to the age where I can't guarantee it's none. If I end up with a health issue that impacts my ability to work, I'm solving that problem as soon as fucking possible - I already have one disability; I don't need two. If the government decides I can weight two years to solve that problem, I'm going to decide that I'm not going to wait two years to solve that problem. What's within Canada's control is whether I decide to solve that problem sooner in Canada or in the US. And right now, it might be more expensive to solve that problem in the US, but that's less time spent with whatever the issue is preventing me from working.

    And that's exactly what I mean about Canada and the US doing either or, and the US being the flip side to Canada's coin. The people who can afford not to rely on the public waitlist are already not relying on the public waitlist. They're just going to the US instead. If that money wasn't leaving Canada, perhaps we can afford to better fund the public system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    Dude sorry about your disability. My wife and son both have one, and I must say Ontario is shit for that stuff, BC has been great though.

    Back to our points again, a properly funded healthcare system would not have a 2 year wait. It would have capacity. The trouble is we live in a capitalistic run society, so even if we all agreed fully funded health care was the way, and we always had open capacity to do the work, what you would end up with is:

    A scenario like slow period in the fall as sports wrap up and there's less injuries. There would be open spots and doctors / nurses finally getting some time off, and some opportunistic politician for the opposition would say "omg look at all the wasted tax payer money with idle surgery rooms", and people who can't critically think would be like "oh yeah they are fucking us". Rather than remembering we all agreed human health was the priorty, and not our tax rate.

    And they'd vote for the private solution, not realizing that the tax you save, gets paid out to private, either out if pocket or out of employers insurance... And employers insurance is not free, and hinders employer from hiring more staff or raising wages. (Been through this exact problem at our employer with ever increasing private health insurance premiums causing us to reduce staff, and raise copay, cut services)

    Anyway, its not solely limited to health care. I see the exact same problems in the manufacturing sector depending on if the facility is independently owned (public analogy) or share holder driven(private analogy). In the share holder model with conventional accounting every machine or workcell they want at 100% capacity, which creates waste and bottle neck problems. But they want to cut all costs and increase profit. There metric is not product delivery(human analogy) it is money.

    While the single owner can look outside of stupid metrics and see that their priority is the product throughput (human surgeries) and if one workcell is idle that's fine since they paid for it in the past, and its there for capacity reasons of to fill a sometimes necessary part of the process. But as a capitalistic society we focus on short term funds, and longterm longevity. So private health care looks attractive when your public system keeps getting cuts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    This is not a capitalism versus socialism thing. This is a government versus individual thing. There will never be adequate capacity, because we will always be catching up to increases in population. The only way to solve the capacity problem is to give that capacity somewhere else to go. Right now, those who can afford to will go to the US.

    But here's the thing. I live in Ottawa. There are, like, four hospitals I could go to if I needed surgery. Right now, under the current system, the government decides both if I need that surgery and how badly I need that surgery. The government gives absolutely 0 fucks if not having that surgery actually impacts me, and that would be true even if the system was properly funded. Me having only 75% mobility, for example, versus the 100% mobility I currently have, might be a low priority to the government but if it's preventing me from doing the things I need to do, it's a high priority for me. I do not have the ability, in Canada, to assert my priorities over the government's. The government says I can wait two years, then I can wait two years. If I lose my job, which then means I lose my apartment, which then means I move back in with my parents, which then means I no longer live in Ottawa, which then increases my costs of getting the care I need under this very same public system if and when the government decides to let me... that's my problem, not the government's. The government created that problem, but it's mine to solve. And my only solution right now is in the US. Solving it in Canada is illegal.

    This is not a hypothetical thing. In fact, in 2008 or 2009, not only did this happen but the Republicans in the US beat Obama and the Democrats over the head with it when they wanted to bring in some kind of universal health care - look up Shona Holmes. She had a tumor that resulted in her going blind. It wasn't life threatening, so the Ontario government at the time said she could wait. Of course she exagerated the hell out of it (the tumor was not going to kill her, according to the Mayo Clinic), but it didn't need to. The government said she was a low priority, her life was impacted (going blind as an adult will do that), she could afford to solve the problem. Solving the problem is still illegal in Canada, so she solved it in the US. She should have been allowed to solve it in Canada, but government said no.

    That is the problem, and no amount of funding the public system will solve that problem. If the government decides you're not deserving, then you're not deserving. Even if the government can afford it. Because here's the important part. The government isn't thinking about you. The government's thinking about society. And if society doesn't consider your problem a high priority, neither will the government. Just ask anyone on ODSP.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    The thing is though the government system has set limits (and Ontario has been terrible at underfunding and cost cuts) so the reason they determine you at 75% can wait two years is because they have enough funds only to do the person before you at 50 mobility. More funds would be less wait, and less of those govt decisions.

    The thing with private is you could go ahead and jump the line if you had funds. So it becomes a two tiered system, a poor person with a tumor would still die because they can't pay.

    Its the orphan crushing machine problem. Private care doesn't solve why we needed it inbthr first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago

    I admire your optimism. I think it's seriously misplaced, but you have it and that's a good thing.

    We could drive up the deficit specifically for health care, and you'd have the same problem. Because having the money and wanting to spend the money are two different things. There is always going to be someone who needs more help than you. And the government is always going to put them first. I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying if they're going to do that, they should grant you the ability to help yourself. Because that person with 50% mobility may be waiting on someone with 40% mobility. The person with 40% mobility may be waiting on someone with a spinal injury. It snowballs. Meanwhile, both the person with the 50% mobility and me with 75% mobility are being impacted and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. More funding does not change that, because the problem is not how much money the government has but where the government is choosing to spend it. And if the government chooses not to spend that money on my surgery, tripling the amount of money the government has access to doesn't necessarily change that.

    The problem was never the government can't afford my surgery. The problem was the government decided my surgery wasn't needed, or a priority. In fact, the entire idea behind universal health care was never about whether or not the government could afford it. The assumption was it could. The idea was always about prioritizing who needed that universal health care most. In other words, you were promised access. You weren't promised when. And if you have access to a replacement knee in two years, well, the government met its obligation. Does it help you? Yes, in two years. What do you do until then? Not the government's problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 53 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    The poll was conducted by Léger and commissioned by right-leaning think-tanks

    This is the point at which you should stop reading this obvious bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    Jean Marc Léger himself is more and more a right-wing propaganda person. He uses polls as ways to create right-wing news.

    10 to 20 years ago, it was considered unbiased, but today it has a clear bias.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

    CTV is right wing from what I know, and a friend who used to work there as a journalist until last month said the same about the people running CTV.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I know there are going to be wait times, but whenever I've had a serious issue the though "I might have to wait" was not enough to make me not go.

    The real issue is we have a lot of people got to the hospital for things their family doctor should be able to do, but we're understaffed and they can't book in time.

    And wait times are not as bad as they were during covid. If they are a problem, hiring more auxiliary staff like nurses to streamline doctors time is a good investment.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I won't go to a hospital unless I'm literally dying. Because unless you're literally dying, every hospital I've been to as a patient makes you wait at least 6 hours. Fortunately I was personally very rarely a patient there, but being there for 6 hours while the person you're with is trying to keep themselves upright isn't fun either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Well, kinda good? You shouldn't be going to a hospital for much less than that. That's what family doctors are for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago

    And if I had one, I'd agree. I have a walk-in clinic instead. And if I develop a problem after about noon, that's me fucked until tomorrow and hopefully it doesn't get worse between now and then.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    Ironically, people avoid the hospital in the US because we can't afford it, and yet somehow the wait times in my country are still atrocious.

    Don't let the pedo billionaires ruin your healthcare, Canada!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    I live here in the United States. During the brief period of my life when I moved to Dallas, TX, for a job with health insurance, my wait time for an appointment for a new patient physical was 1 year. Canada, private coverage isn't going to do shit to fix wait times. If you want to fix wait times here's what you gotta do, increase the # of doctors. To do that you'll need to:

    • Reduce how much it costs for doctors to get trained.
    • Pay doctors a livable wage that's takes into account costs of undergrad and med school.

    This will require the rich to pay taxes. When it comes to collecting those taxes, you're probably going to have to pry it out of their cold dead fingers

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    We could probably also get the money by:

    • Demanding the feds pay what they used to pay (50% of funding for this stuff used to come from the feds unti lthe 90's)

    • Not wasting the money on stupid shit, like a highway we don't need, a tunnel we don't need under an existing highway, or cancelling contracts early and resulting in penalties... just to name a few.

    Not buying a private jet for the Premier probably wouldn't hurt either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    This will require the rich to pay taxes. When it comes to collecting those taxes, you're probably going to have to pry it out of their cold dead fingers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Yes, I read that. And I pointed to a few things (trust me, there's a laundry list of them) we could be doing before we reach that point.

    Also, I feel it necessary to point out that there are a lot more billionaires in California alone than all of Canada, nevermind the rest of the US. Taxing your rich would have a whole lot more of an effect than taxing ours.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Also, I feel it necessary to point out that there are a lot more billionaires in California alone than all of Canada, nevermind the rest of the US. Taxing your rich would have a whole lot more of an effect than taxing ours.

    I agree. Tell it to nazi.world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    Here's the actual data:

    https://ontariohealth.ca/system/reporting/performance/time-spent-in-emergency-departments

    Perception is not reality: 2.1 hours. This is just feeding the myth that privatization will reduce wait times.

    US wait times: 2.35 hrs, then you get a $10,000 bill for a hangnail.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (5 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say the link gives it away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 week ago* (3 children)

    Cool. I didn't see anything about a $10,000.00 hangnail. I must have missed it.

    Enjoy your limb. I guess that's really nice for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I had sharp chest pains and waited 7 hours in the emergency room in the USA. Granted it was stress, but it felt like I was having a heart attack.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    If you're not dying in the next 2 hours, don't go to the ER. And even if you are that's not a guarantee. I'm sorry that this part doesn't matter what side of the border you're on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    and that doesn't shorten the wait times ?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    I wait less time at the hospital than I do at a walk in clinic in BC 🤣

    Edit: for now atleast, shits gonna probably get kinda shitty for a bit here.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Half? I wasn't asked. No one in my household was asked. What was their sample size? Spin doctoring fascists working for the corporate class.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    yeah and if your not going to the doctor because of wait times Im guessing whatever you have much not be that big a concern. I remember being in the us at one when I was a kid and it was super crowded and a guy was waiting with his arm all wrapped up in a bloody towel do to a chainsaw accident. He was not wild about the wait but was not going to call it quits.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    If you can avoid going to the ER because you would have to wait, then you don't need the ER obviously

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Or, alternatively, you've scheduled an appointment with your doctor and he said he can see you in two weeks. Hopefully it doesn't get worse before then. And if you don't have a doctor, sucks to be you I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    A health problem is either an emergency or it is not an emergency. If it's not, you can wait the two weeks.

    If it is, you shouldn't be making an appointment anyway, you should be seeking immediate help.

    If you think it's an emergency, and a medical professional tells you it'll be X amount of time before you can see a doctor, that means you've been triaged and it may not be as much of an emergency as you think it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    If you think it’s an emergency, and a medical professional tells you it’ll be X amount of time before you can see a doctor, that means you’ve been triaged and it may not be as much of an emergency as you think it is.

    Or it may be more of an emergency than they think it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Tragedies can happen, yes. In a perfect world, we would have enough medical manpower to see everyone immediately, every time, all the time. We don't live in that world. The article is particularly interesting given the original context of the post here. Should that person not have gone at all? They'd still have died.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago

    Based on the article we're discussing, I wouldn't have blamed them if they didn't. And if they didn't, someone would have almost certainly assumed it must not have been a real emergency then. Someone else commented in this thread about sitting in the ER for 7 hours with chest pains. Fortunately in that person's case it was not a heart attack, but in both cases it was "not an emergency". That's the problem. Not having a family doctor adds to that problem, but that's the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    I avoid going to the hospital whenever possible, instead going to a newer walk in clinic with few patients so I get in quickly.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Haven’t been to a doctor let alone a hospital in nearly 8 years, yay for free health care but it’s meaningless if there aren’t enough people in the profession to sustainably cover the country.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Uhhhhh....where are you (province)? Ive always had a family doctor / specialists in eastern Ontario and southern alberta.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    BC, I’ve tried contacting local family doctors and setting appointments but always got the “we’re not accepting new patients” or “we’ll get back to you”, I simply don’t have the ambition to drive 2-3 hours back and forth across town just to see a doctor so I eventually just gave up on the hunt.

    On the bright side at least I have a dentist!

  • source
  • parent