Canadian ident quadruplets born in Montana because Calgary hospitals FULL

[Little-Acorn]

The good news is, all four quadruplets are breathing easily and doing well. The bad news is, when the couple contacted the hospital in Canada's socialized medical care system (a system lavishly praised by U.S. leftists), they were told that there would be no room for them in the delivery rooms.

It is not known if they were asked to go on a waiting list to deliver their babies.

They did the smart thing, and drove 300 miles to the United States where Hillary's nationalized health care scheme had been defeated. The delivery then went well.

--------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293522,00.html

Canadian Woman Gives Birth to Rare Identical Quadruplets

Friday, August 17, 2007

HELENA, Mont. — A 35-year-old Canadian woman has given birth to rare identical quadruplets, hospital officials said Thursday.

Karen Jepp of Calgary, Alberta, delivered Autumn, Brooke, Calissa and Dahlia by Caesarian section Sunday afternoon at Benefis Healthcare Hospital in Great Falls, Montana, said Amy Astin, the hospital's director of community and government relations.

The four girls were breathing without ventilators and listed in good condition Thursday, Astin said.

"These babies are doing grand," said Dr. Tom Key, the perinatologist who delivered the girls.

The babies were born about two months early and were conceived without fertility drugs, he said. They weighed between 2.6 pounds (1.18 kilograms) and 2.15 pounds (0.98 kilograms).

Jepp and her husband, J.P., declined to be interviewed by The Associated Press.

The couple also have a 2-year-old son, Simon.

J.P. Jepp works for Shell Oil Co., and both parents worked for nonprofit groups until recently, Astin said.

The chances of giving birth to identical quadruplets is about one in 13 million, Key said.

"This is a very big medical event," he said. "Identical quadruplets are extremely rare."

Medical literature indicates there are less than 50 sets of identical quadruplets, said Dr. Jamie Grifo, director of the NYU Fertility Center in New York.

The last reported set were born in April 2006 to a 26-year-old Indian woman.

The Jepps drove 325 miles (523 kilometers) to Great Falls for the births because hospitals in Calgary were at capacity, Key said.

Two of the girls were to be transferred to a Calgary hospital later Thursday. The other two could be moved Friday if their conditions remain favorable, Key said.

They will likely remain hospitalized for four to six weeks, he said.

 

[Ruby]

And who is paying the hospital bill for the births?

One more question, there were no other hospitals within the 300 miles they could go to in Canada? That seems a bit odd.

Its also odd that a woman in labor (premature labor) chose to drive over 300 miles or was it plan to have the kids in Montana ahead of time?

We have a doctor saying thats what happened, it would be more interesting to hear what the parents say and so far they declined to be interviewed.

Wait we have this story as well on this.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...uplets_070816/20070816?hub=TopStories&s_name=

Karen Jepp gave birth to her girls Sunday at the Benefis Hospital in Great Falls, Montana. They were flown south of the border because Foothills Medical Centre NICU in Calgary was over-capacity with the addition of three more preterm babies Friday.

That seems to make more sense. Its a bit hard to believe that anyone would DRIVE that far while IN labor with a high risk situation (premature birth of quads would most certainly be high risk).

You think that might be somthing the canadian medical system arranged and are paying for?

Fox dosent mind lying though about any detail, lets not forget they went to court to affirm that it is LEGAL for them to lie and the courts agreed that it is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And who is paying the hospital bill for the births?

One more question, there were no other hospitals within the 300 miles they could go to in Canada? That seems a bit odd.

Its also odd that a woman in labor (premature labor) chose to drive over 300 miles or was it plan to have the kids in Montana ahead of time?

We have a doctor saying thats what happened, it would be more interesting to hear what the parents say and so far they declined to be interviewed.

Wait we have this story as well on this.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...uplets_070816/20070816?hub=TopStories&s_name=



That seems to make more sense. Its a bit hard to believe that anyone would DRIVE that far while IN labor with a high risk situation (premature birth of quads would most certainly be high risk).

You think that might be somthing the canadian medical system arranged and are paying for?

Fox dosent mind lying though about any detail, lets not forget they went to court to affirm that it is LEGAL for them to lie and the courts agreed that it is.

Spinning like a top.

 

[Toro]

Why are you guys so quick to make this political?

To connect this somehow to "Hillary-care" is silly.

Calgary is absolutely booming. It is the epicenter of the Canadian oil industry. The city has been flooded with so many people that professionals are sometimes homeless - if just for a brief time - because there can be no place to live. In a city that is surrounded by farmland, the price of an average house jumped from $200,000 to $400,000 in a few years. I've had friends move to new subdivisions where there is no school because the pace of home construction has outstripped the pace of school construction. The demand for labour is so intense that fast food workers can make up to $15 an hour. Some fast food restaurants just shut down in mid-afternoon because they can't hire workers. The infrastructure and even parts of the economy simply cannot keep up with the crush of people who have moved to Alberta.

To anyone who knows that's going on, it is no surprise that a hospital in Calgary or almost anywhere in Alberta would be filled with capacity.

 

[Ruby]

Spinning like a top.

The spin is in the article.

First it contains an outright lie. It presents it as if the hospital was full and they just flat out rejected her and refused her medical care. They try to make it seem as if she was refused care and had to drive over 300 miles while in premature labor with 4 babies.

The TRUTH is they were full and had 3 other premature babies and this is a hospital that is located in an area that has seen rapid growth and is having trouble keeping up with the growth.

The TRUTH is that they didnt refuse her, they FLEW her to a hospital that could give her medical care and they PAID for it as is the custom in socialized medicine.

If anything, it shows how GOOD the care is and how they did everything they needed to do to insure the health and well-being of the mother and the 4 babies.

 

[Gem]

Some here seem to be claiming that event actually highlights the effectiveness and/or caring of the Canadian healthcare system because - when the couple's local hospital failed them, the Canadian government was kind enough to send them to the United States for the birth. I'm sorry, but I find that just a bit nearsighted.

If the Canadian government decided that the best solution was to fly this woman to another hospital because her local hospital could not help her - then why couldn't they fly them to someplace in their own country to provide the medical attention she needed?

Edmonton, the 6th largest city in Canada, with a population of over 1,000,000 (Calgary is 5th) is much closer - approximately 100 miles away - and has at least 2 major hospitals. (Great Falls, by comparison is over 300 miles away and has a population of approximately 56,000).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_metropolitan_areas_in_Canada

Were the Edmonton hospitals full as well? Or were the Edmonton hospitals too poorly equipped to handle a difficult birth such as this one? (The same questions of course must also be posed about the other hospitals in Calgary.)

One must question what the Canadian healthcare system's choice in this example means and what we can infer from this decision.

I do not find it to be commendable at all that the 5th and 6th largest cities in a nation, both with populations over 15 times larger than Grand Falls, MT fail to be able to provide its citizens with healthcare equal to what can be found in a small town in a remote section of the United States. In fact, the decision to fly their citizen to another nation really should not be viewed as anything other than a nation fully admitting that its own healthcare system is woefully unable to provide care and services for its patients...and instead must "outsource" that job to nearby nations...

 

[Ruby]

Some here seem to be claiming that event actually highlights the effectiveness and/or caring of the Canadian healthcare system because - when the couple's local hospital failed them, the Canadian government was kind enough to send them to the United States for the birth. I'm sorry, but I find that just a bit nearsighted.

If the Canadian government decided that the best solution was to fly this woman to another hospital because her local hospital could not help her - then why couldn't they fly them to someplace in their own country to provide the medical attention she needed?

Edmonton, the 6th largest city in Canada, with a population of over 1,000,000 (Calgary is 5th) is much closer - approximately 100 miles away - and has at least 2 major hospitals. (Great Falls, by comparison is over 300 miles away and has a population of approximately 56,000).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_metropolitan_areas_in_Canada

Were the Edmonton hospitals full as well? Or were the Edmonton hospitals too poorly equipped to handle a difficult birth such as this one? (The same questions of course must also be posed about the other hospitals in Calgary.)

One must question what the Canadian healthcare system's choice in this example means and what we can infer from this decision.

I do not find it to be commendable at all that the 5th and 6th largest cities in a nation, both with populations over 15 times larger than Grand Falls, MT fail to be able to provide its citizens with healthcare equal to what can be found in a small town in a remote section of the United States. In fact, the decision to fly their citizen to another nation really should not be viewed as anything other than a nation fully admitting that its own healthcare system is woefully unable to provide care and services for its patients...and instead must "outsource" that job to nearby nations...

I think you ask valid questions. I wouldnt mind those questions being posed to those who made the arrangements for the birth at all, I hope they do get asked and answered.

I also think we shouldnt be overlooking the fact that we have a unique situation and it is high risk and they are PREMATURE babies so we need equipment to deal with 4 premature babies. Even in the US there are many hospitals that cant deal with such a situation, especially if they are already treating babies with that equipement.

I find it very commendable they handled the situation and they did so in a way that placed the mother and childrens health and well being as a top priorty.

 

[Toro]

Some here seem to be claiming that event actually highlights the effectiveness and/or caring of the Canadian healthcare system because - when the couple's local hospital failed them, the Canadian government was kind enough to send them to the United States for the birth. I'm sorry, but I find that just a bit nearsighted.

If the Canadian government decided that the best solution was to fly this woman to another hospital because her local hospital could not help her - then why couldn't they fly them to someplace in their own country to provide the medical attention she needed?

Edmonton, the 6th largest city in Canada, with a population of over 1,000,000 (Calgary is 5th) is much closer - approximately 100 miles away - and has at least 2 major hospitals. (Great Falls, by comparison is over 300 miles away and has a population of approximately 56,000).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_metropolitan_areas_in_Canada

Were the Edmonton hospitals full as well? Or were the Edmonton hospitals too poorly equipped to handle a difficult birth such as this one? (The same questions of course must also be posed about the other hospitals in Calgary.)

One must question what the Canadian healthcare system's choice in this example means and what we can infer from this decision.

I do not find it to be commendable at all that the 5th and 6th largest cities in a nation, both with populations over 15 times larger than Grand Falls, MT fail to be able to provide its citizens with healthcare equal to what can be found in a small town in a remote section of the United States. In fact, the decision to fly their citizen to another nation really should not be viewed as anything other than a nation fully admitting that its own healthcare system is woefully unable to provide care and services for its patients...and instead must "outsource" that job to nearby nations...

First, Edmonton is 200 miles away, not 100.

Second, the problems in Calgary regarding the inability to handle growth are as applicable to Edmonton as they are to Calgary, or in most other places in Alberta for that matter, as I stated above.

Third, ever hear of medical tourism? Lots of Americans flying to places like Thailand and India for medical care because they cannot afford it in the United States. Surely that must be "viewed as anything other than a nation fully admitting that its own healthcare system is woefully unable to provide care and services for its patients...and instead must "outsource" that job to nearby nations..." Right? Perhaps we should ask the poor inhabitants of the inner cities of New York, LA and Chicago - world class cities with suburbs the size of Calgary and Edmonton - whether or not the American health care system is failing them. Oh, and let's not forget about all those Americans going across the Canadian border to get their prescriptions filled. That, too, is outsourcing of medical services.

There are many problems in the Canadian medicare system, just as there are great problems in the American system. But Canadian voters would crush a political party that would scrap Medicare and replace it with an American style system, just as in virtually every other industrialized country on the planet.

 

[Gem]

You were right about the distance...it was closer to 200 (185) miles. Of course, it really doesn't change the fact that the Canadians chose to send the woman to an almost equidistant American hospital as opposed to a Canadian one.

While you certainly bring up some good issues regarding American healthcare, I was not really addressing American healthcare other than to say it seems that our small town hospitals are better equipped to handle emergency situations than the hospitals in large cities in Calgary and Edmonton - and that that surely can not speak well of the Canadian system. Not to mention that in the Canadian instance above the hospitals were UNABLE to treat this woman...whereas in the cases of medical tourism or drug shopping in Canada it isn't that America is unable to provide...it is that the people can not or do not want to spend the amount being charged. Does this mean that if we found a way to lower the prices of medical procedures and drugs you would be willing to state that the American healthcare system is better equipped to meet the needs of its citizenry?

You speak of medical tourism, which I find a bit disingenuous...because the largest numbers of people seeking out medical treatment from nations like India and Singapore are from Middle Eastern nations, and the "Western European/American Contingent" are made up of large numbers of British and European citizens who have government sponsored healthcare. More importantly, while mentioning it for Americans you don't include Canadian medical tourism.

The reason I bring this up is because my first experiences with the Canadian healthcare system came not from reading about it, or imagining how wonderful government sponsored healthcare would be...but rather from talking with Canadians students who had had to come to the U.S. for medical treatment at one time or another, or who had had to wait for procedures, tests, etc. because their system was "full" at that moment. There were a lot of them.

And, because I'm interested in honest debate I will tell you that almost none of them wanted to change their system - they all spoke glowingly, not of their own treatment experiences, but rather the "comfort" and "security" of knowing that everyone could see a doctor whenever they wanted to "for free." When I mentioned that A)They had come to the States because they couldn't see a doctor anytime they wanted to and that B)It wasn't free, they were paying through the nose for it - they smiled and said that it wasn't a perfect system, but at least everyone had healthcare. At the same time, I'm not sure I want to have to wait 6-12 months to find out whether or not I have a potentially debilitating disease, as one of my students did...or have to come to the U.S. because the wait for her knee surgery (she was an athlete) was too long and she was just in too much pain to wait.

As I said, you bring up good questions/concerns about the American system, but my post was not really about the American system other than to say that it was apparent, at least in this instance, better equipped to help someone than its Canadian counterpart. Having the government pick up your medical bills is great and all...provided they can actually give you the medical help you require.

 

[Toro]

You were right about the distance...it was closer to 200 (185) miles. Of course, it really doesn't change the fact that the Canadians chose to send the woman to an almost equidistant American hospital as opposed to a Canadian one.

Without being intimately familiar with the situation, I cannot answer assuredly. However, as I stated, the problems with infrastructure are as acute in Edmonton as they are in Calgary, so it would not surprise me to know there would be no available beds in Edmonton. Or Red Deer for that matter. As the article states, the hospitals in Calgary were over-flowing.

Karen Jepp gave birth to her girls Sunday at the Benefis Hospital in Great Falls, Montana. They were flown south of the border because Foothills Medical Centre NICU in Calgary was over-capacity with the addition of three more preterm babies Friday.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...uplets_070816/20070816?hub=TopStories&s_name=

While you certainly bring up some good issues regarding American healthcare, I was not really addressing American healthcare other than to say it seems that our small town hospitals are better equipped to handle emergency situations than the hospitals in large cities in Calgary and Edmonton - and that that surely can not speak well of the Canadian system.

Again, it is false to compare small town hospitals in America to hospitals in Calgary or Edmonton because small towns do not have the unique stresses Alberta faces.

The reason why I compare the American system is because the two systems deal the same problem differently with different outcomes, and that problem is rationing demand relative to supply, which I'll explain at the end.

Not to mention that in the Canadian instance above the hospitals were UNABLE to treat this woman...

I apologize. I have read both articles and nowhere do I see any reference to not having the technical ability to perform such a delivery. Could you please point out to where it says they do not have the ability to perform the procedure? As I stated earlier, supply is under stress across many sectors of the Alberta economy, not just hospitals.

whereas in the cases of medical tourism or drug shopping in Canada it isn't that America is unable to provide...it is that the people can not or do not want to spend the amount being charged.

America is unable to provide all Americans adequate health care. If Americans can not afford to pay for health care, then America can not provide all of its citizens adequate health care. Brushing aside the ability to pay for health services is to brush aside the problem in its entirety.

Does this mean that if we found a way to lower the prices of medical procedures and drugs you would be willing to state that the American healthcare system is better equipped to meet the needs of its citizenry?

Sure, as it would with any medical system in the world.

You speak of medical tourism, which I find a bit disingenuous...because the largest numbers of people seeking out medical treatment from nations like India and Singapore are from Middle Eastern nations, and the "Western European/American Contingent" are made up of large numbers of British and European citizens who have government sponsored healthcare. More importantly, while mentioning it for Americans you don't include Canadian medical tourism.

It is hardly disingenuous. This is how the American system deals with limited supply to meet unlimited demand. You have already pointed out - correctly I might add - that the Canadian system rations medical services. You used this premise to assert, and I quote

the decision to fly their citizen to another nation really should not be viewed as anything other than a nation fully admitting that its own healthcare system is woefully unable to provide care and services for its patients...and instead must "outsource" that job to nearby nations...

to condemn the Canadian health care system as "woefully unable". Well, now that we know Americans also go abroad to undergo procedures, are you willing to also assert that America is "woefully unable" to provide its own care and services for its patients and must outsource its services as well?

You can't have it both ways.

The reason I bring this up is because my first experiences with the Canadian healthcare system came not from reading about it, or imagining how wonderful government sponsored healthcare would be...but rather from talking with Canadians students who had had to come to the U.S. for medical treatment at one time or another, or who had had to wait for procedures, tests, etc. because their system was "full" at that moment. There were a lot of them.

Let me tell you about another perspective. I know at least a dozen of Canadian nurses who have worked in the US, and they all pretty much say the same thing - that the American system is a great system, if you can pay. The fact that they have seen many people get substandard care, or no care at all, because they have the wrong insurance or no insurance, is common, and every single one disapproved. So its great for the 90% of Americans who can afford it. Its not so great for the other 10%.

And, because I'm interested in honest debate I will tell you that almost none of them wanted to change their system - they all spoke glowingly, not of their own treatment experiences, but rather the "comfort" and "security" of knowing that everyone could see a doctor whenever they wanted to "for free." When I mentioned that A)They had come to the States because they couldn't see a doctor anytime they wanted to and that B)It wasn't free, they were paying through the nose for it - they smiled and said that it wasn't a perfect system, but at least everyone had healthcare. At the same time, I'm not sure I want to have to wait 6-12 months to find out whether or not I have a potentially debilitating disease, as one of my students did...or have to come to the U.S. because the wait for her knee surgery (she was an athlete) was too long and she was just in too much pain to wait.

As I said, you bring up good questions/concerns about the American system, but my post was not really about the American system other than to say that it was apparent, at least in this instance, better equipped to help someone than its Canadian counterpart. Having the government pick up your medical bills is great and all...provided they can actually give you the medical help you require.

The reason why I brought up the American system is because Americans often point to Canada as what occurs with a universal government run health insurance system. And the criticisms are absolutely correct. There is rationing in Canadian health care. There are many problems with the Canadian system.

But what Americans don't seem to understand - or at least they don't when they point to Canada - is that there is rationing in the American system as well. It just manifests itself differently.

In Canada, everyone gets about the same level of health service. But they don't get everything they want. For simplicity's sake, let's say they get 90% of what Canadians demand. That creates backlogs and waiting lists for some procedures. It also leads to restrictions of some services. But everybody has access to what is considered to be a high level of care. The level of care in general in Canada is very good. If it was "woefully unable," as you argue, all those Canadians you cited would want to change the systems. But they don't, right? Most do not. Canadians aren't stupid, after all.

Now, in the American system, you can get the best health care in the world - if you can pay for it. If you cannot pay for it, then you're SOL. So in America, 90% of the population can get access to the best health care in the world, and the rest get 0%. So in Canada, 100% of the population gets 90% of the best care whereas in America, 90% get 100% while 10% gets 0%. That's an exaggeration, I know, but most Americans cannot get 100% of the best care - ask your HMO - while the 10% who don't have insurance certainly do not get 0% of the care.

But the point is that Americans and Canadians both have to deal with the rationing of health services, but they do so in different ways.

And, as I pointed out, of all the industrialized nations in the world, only America does not offer a government-sponsored national health insurance system.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Without being intimately familiar with the situation, I cannot answer assuredly. However, as I stated, the problems with infrastructure are as acute in Edmonton as they are in Calgary, so it would not surprise me to know there would be no available beds in Edmonton. Or Red Deer for that matter. As the article states, the hospitals in Calgary were over-flowing.



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...uplets_070816/20070816?hub=TopStories&s_name=



Again, it is false to compare small town hospitals in America to hospitals in Calgary or Edmonton because small towns do not have the unique stresses Alberta faces.

The reason why I compare the American system is because the two systems deal the same problem differently with different outcomes, and that problem is rationing demand relative to supply, which I'll explain at the end.



I apologize. I have read both articles and nowhere do I see any reference to not having the technical ability to perform such a delivery. Could you please point out to where it says they do not have the ability to perform the procedure? As I stated earlier, supply is under stress across many sectors of the Alberta economy, not just hospitals.



America is unable to provide all Americans adequate health care. If Americans can not afford to pay for health care, then America can not provide all of its citizens adequate health care. Brushing aside the ability to pay for health services is to brush aside the problem in its entirety.



Sure, as it would with any medical system in the world.



It is hardly disingenuous. This is how the American system deals with limited supply to meet unlimited demand. You have already pointed out - correctly I might add - that the Canadian system rations medical services. You used this premise to assert, and I quote



to condemn the Canadian health care system as "woefully unable". Well, now that we know Americans also go abroad to undergo procedures, are you willing to also assert that America is "woefully unable" to provide its own care and services for its patients and must outsource its services as well?

You can't have it both ways.



Let me tell you about another perspective. I know at least a dozen of Canadian nurses who have worked in the US, and they all pretty much say the same thing - that the American system is a great system, if you can pay. The fact that they have seen many people get substandard care, or no care at all, because they have the wrong insurance or no insurance, is common, and every single one disapproved. So its great for the 90% of Americans who can afford it. Its not so great for the other 10%.



The reason why I brought up the American system is because Americans often point to Canada as what occurs with a universal government run health insurance system. And the criticisms are absolutely correct. There is rationing in Canadian health care. There are many problems with the Canadian system.

But what Americans don't seem to understand - or at least they don't when they point to Canada - is that there is rationing in the American system as well. It just manifests itself differently.

In Canada, everyone gets about the same level of health service. But they don't get everything they want. For simplicity's sake, let's say they get 90% of what Canadians demand. That creates backlogs and waiting lists for some procedures. It also leads to restrictions of some services. But everybody has access to what is considered to be a high level of care. The level of care in general in Canada is very good. If it was "woefully unable," as you argue, all those Canadians you cited would want to change the systems. But they don't, right? Most do not. Canadians aren't stupid, after all.

Now, in the American system, you can get the best health care in the world - if you can pay for it. If you cannot pay for it, then you're SOL. So in America, 90% of the population can get access to the best health care in the world, and the rest get 0%. So in Canada, 100% of the population gets 90% of the best care whereas in America, 90% get 100% while 10% gets 0%. That's an exaggeration, I know, but most Americans cannot get 100% of the best care - ask your HMO - while the 10% who don't have insurance certainly do not get 0% of the care.

But the point is that Americans and Canadians both have to deal with the rationing of health services, but they do so in different ways.

And, as I pointed out, of all the industrialized nations in the world, only America does not offer a government-sponsored national health insurance system.

The "10%" are not SOL. They can and do have access to health care. That claim is simply a bald face inaccurate claim.

And there IS a big difference between going to another country for a procedure because you can not get it in your own and going because you can get it cheaper in another country. But hey lets play games and pretend they are the same thing.

 

[Gem]

I do think that there is a difference between people going to foreign countries for cheaper procedures than a nation having to send its citizens elsewhere because no city in the entire province can provide them with the care they need.

I agree with you completely about our system not meeting the needs of all citizens...but it seems like we are tiptoeing around saying that both systems have issues...and we simply have to "choose our poison" when it comes to living under a nationalized health care system or under the U.S. system.

I suppose that since I have read about/heard about similar problems from most of the other nations with Canadian-like systems (Canada, Great Britain, France, Poland), I'm wondering if the U.S. should be rushing to embrace a system that seems to create these problems - or if we should be looking to break new ground by fixing our current system...or working on something new - rather than saying, "Well our system doesn't meet the needs of all...and their system has loads of problems but they are different problems, so lets try that one out...and see if we like having their problems instead of ours."

 

[Toro]

The "10%" are not SOL. They can and do have access to health care. That claim is simply a bald face inaccurate claim.

And there IS a big difference between going to another country for a procedure because you can not get it in your own and going because you can get it cheaper in another country. But hey lets play games and pretend they are the same thing.

How do you know? Do you work in a hospital? Nurses I know have seen patients turned away.

"Cannot" and "will not" are different things.

I wonder how many people chose not to go to the hospital to get a procedue done because they didn't have adequate insurance?

 

[Said1]

I've mentioned this before and one of the biggest problems all fairly large cities face, in Canada is fluctuating populations. Once the boom in Alberta ends (which is primarily in one sector) and people start going home, there will be an over abundance of beds and health care professionals in places such as Calgary. I've seen this happen in Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver, in the past. The latter two already have very large populations that fluctuate as well, depending on the economies.

Any city, regardless of nation, will have problems dealing with fairly large and sudden changes in population - especially when it comes to housing and healthcare. This is the case for Calgary at present. The economy is BOOMING. Try finding a place to live, you'd have a better chance finding a hospital bed.

Of course, this isn't the only problem with Canadian health care, but it's not communist era Russia either.

 

[Diuretic]

Toro - well explained and objective too if I may say so.

I think one of the other problems facing Alta. is that they are finding it difficult to find health professionals. I mean if you were a nurse and looking for work would you go to a province that had rents going through the stratosphere due to the oil boom (knowing the hospital couldn't pay you what you would need to get by) or would you find somewhere where your money bought you much more? I mean I know TO and Vancouver are expensive places to live but Canada's a big country and there are places you can move to that haven't got the expensive real estate of Vancouver, TO/GTA or nearly all of Alta.

 

[Ruby]

After living in both systems, I would definitely, hands-down, no-doubt-about-it...choose socialized. I am thrilled that I now live in a more socialized system and have found I am HAPPIER with the health care overall here.

 

[Toro]

After living in both systems, I would definitely, hands-down, no-doubt-about-it...choose socialized. I am thrilled that I now live in a more socialized system and have found I am HAPPIER with the health care overall here.

And, despite my explanation of what is happening in Canada and attempting to de-mystify posters here about the Canadians health care system, I prefer the health services I have here in America. But I'm financially comfortable. I'd think different if I were poor.

 

[Ruby]

And, despite my explanation of what is happening in Canada and attempting to de-mystify posters here about the Canadians health care system, I prefer the health services I have here in America. But I'm financially comfortable. I'd think different if I were poor.

I was financially comfortable in the states and still am here in Sweden. I also had insurance in the US. I was pretty lucky and I still find that what I have here is better than what I had in the US.

The US is a large place though, I have no idea how one region stacks up against another. I was in the Northeast, and my experiences were in the states of Virginia, Delaware and NY.

 

[Bern80]

The spin is in the article.

First it contains an outright lie. It presents it as if the hospital was full and they just flat out rejected her and refused her medical care. They try to make it seem as if she was refused care and had to drive over 300 miles while in premature labor with 4 babies.

Um, she was refused care

The TRUTH is they were full and had 3 other premature babies and this is a hospital that is located in an area that has seen rapid growth and is having trouble keeping up with the growth.

The difference in being full and being refused care would be what exactley?

The TRUTH is that they didnt refuse her, they FLEW her to a hospital that could give her medical care and they PAID for it as is the custom in socialized medicine.

yes the hospital did refuse her. Amazing how you try to spin the unspinnable.

If anything, it shows how GOOD the care is and how they did everything they needed to do to insure the health and well-being of the mother and the 4 babies.

wow lmao, see above. Who again was it who said free healthcare won't be able to meet demand. Oh yeah, me.

 

[Toro]

Um, she was refused care



The difference in being full and being refused care would be what exactley?



yes the hospital did refuse her. Amazing how you try to spin the unspinnable.



wow lmao, see above. Who again was it who said free healthcare won't be able to meet demand. Oh yeah, me.

They didn't have enough beds.

Just like Tim Hortons doesn't have enough workers in Calgary so sometimes they have to shut down selling donuts and coffee. Is that because of "socialized medicine" too?