I received an email today from my family doctor's clinic telling patients to be less particular about whether they get to see their doctor or not when they schedule an appointment with... their doctor. The parts I take issue with are in bold. Here's the email body:
Good Morning <clinic> Patients,
A Reminder to Our Patients: <clinic> is Proud to Be a Teaching and Team-Based Facility.
Medical learners (students and residents, most of whom are training to be family physicians) are an important part of our team. Physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and locum/covering physicians are also crucial to our clinic functioning.
With the help of our team:
- We are able to offer non-urgent appointments usually within 1-2 weeks.
- We are able to offer same-day appointments for urgent issues.
- We are able to continue to provide care to our current <clinic> patients at a time when there are a record number of family physicians leaving practice.
- We play an important role in training the next generation of family physicians.
There have been an increasing number of patients requesting appointments with their provider only (and declining to see other members of the <clinic> team). This causes significant disruptions to the clinic and affects our ability to provide equitable care to all <clinic> patients.
Moving forward, when you book an appointment, you should expect that you may see a medical learner, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or a physician covering for your primary family physician. For many appointments, your family physician will be available to see you after you have been seen by another practitioner, if requested or needed. Please be aware that learners and physician assistants are supervised directly by your physician.
This team-based model of care may not be the right one for you, and if you wish to transfer your care to another clinic, we will be happy to waive the usual fee for transfer of records.
We appreciate the important role you play in medical education and making practicing family medicine sustainable.
Sincerely,
The physicians and staff at <clinic>.
So basically, patients want to see their doctors instead of medical students and the clinic is telling the patients to fuck off with their standards and expectations. Instead of building rapport, confidence, and sharing personal vulnerabilities with your family doctor, you can now expect to do it with random, unqualified, inexperienced people who you'll never see again and who don't know your history. If you don't like it, despite paying these fuckers' wages, you can pound sand.
FYI, when this email says the students and assistants are directly supervised, it's figurative. It means the students and assistants report to the doctors, not that the doctors are in the room while the assessments and appointments are conducted. You're expected to meet with these unqualifieds one-on-one. There used to be supervised appointments where medical students would simply shadow the doctor with permission from the patient, but that hasn't been the case for years.
Also, moving to another family doctor is extremely difficult. Most doctors have a maxed-out roster and are not accepting new patients. There are 2.3 million Ontarians without consistent access to a family doctor in a province of 14.5 million.
Canadian tax dollars at work.
Doomed. When they can't say 'equal' you know it's fucked. Equitable means no white men.
Was about to comment this. no longer interested in giving the best care, just care to some.
Just the ones they think "deserve" it.
With the kinds of DEI educations doctors get these days, I'm not sure I still want one.
Of course, the government isn't going to let go of their biggest leverage over the common person: prohibiting them from getting the care they want or the treatments they need unless signed off by a licensed stooge.
Governments have largely turned into incompetent mafias.
"Turned into"?
Equitable... aka everybody is equally poor and shitty.
It says they are unable to provide equal care because patients are expecting to see their doctor.
To me that says seeing your doctor is hogging all the high quality care. You need more low quality like everyone else.
I don't think equitable is actually the wrong word here.
What's missing is "random". "When you book an appointment you may be randomly assigned to be seen by a resident instead".
Some people getting the doctor and some the resident is fair if it's random. Of course in reality hardworking, decent people are being seen by the resident and parasites the real doctor.
Equitable is the next phase in equality. It's out and our marxism.
Got a hearing test a while back just as part of regular checkups. They asked if I'd guinea pig for a trainee and I said sure.
Got a diverse young woman, and I shit you not she managed to completely miss my ears when putting the headset on and proceeded to try and start the test anyway. (Edit - to be clear, this wasn't a bone conduction test and placed correctly off the ear. This was a regular, through air, speaker cup, cupping a random part of my scalp near my ear) Made solid eye contact with the supervising doctor who was equally diverse and barely paying attention and they did nothing to correct it. I had to say "No I can't hear anything, but it's not on my ears" and put the headset on properly myself.
She might as well have been a toddler playing pin the tail on the donkey. No shit people don't want anyone that incompetent and poorly supervised doing anything to them when there's actually something wrong with them.
We live in hell.
At least they're not telling you to kill yourself. By Canadian healthcare standards, simply not telling you to kill yourself is going above and beyond.
Oof.
Wait, if by directly they mean directly at that moment...why can't the physician do the thing, and the 'learner' watch and learn? People want to see their doctors, that's a basic part of the whole idea.
They don't. They mean the physician is connected with a line on the org chart. The way your supervisor/manager can be a person on another continent.
Obs are what you do in your first and 2nd year* (at least, in some systems/degrees/paths, a specific degree may be different, the point is that it is the first step in health learning)
Doing it while being directly supervised is the next step,
Then you fade that supervision away, and are under a more passive 'summary/reporting supervision'...
You don't just jump from doing obs to doing it independently. That's why. You need those intermediate steps where the learner is doing something with the other there, then they are doing it mostly independently just with backup/reporting requirements.
There is a tonne wrong with all of this yes, but not this.
It's a teaching clinic according to the letter. This is part of that.
Heads up, that's a shift from what they used to be. This is a bit of a rug-pull in that they haven't always done forced medical school student one-on-ones with patients. I also think they're leaning into that description more and more as a way to absolve themselves of the ever-lowering scrutiny and quality of care.
To be clear, I think there's a lot of merit to later-year students and residents getting the opportunity to pseudo-practice outside of immediate supervision. My problem is that patients of this clinic don't seem to have a choice over who we'll be seeing. We have to accept someone inexperienced or find a new doctor (almost impossible in urban areas). It's coercive and implies fault with us if we don't like it.
Anytime I went to the doctor and he was teaching a med student it was always "are you OK with a student being here?" and then "would you be OK with things being done twice?" Like, I'm going to take your blood pressure, but I want the med student to also take it to get experience. Never "hey, here's a dude, I'm going to dick off to another room now."
Exactly, there was a clear request for consent.
This is coercion. "Don't like our practice? Fuck off and go without a family doctor." Classic coercion, and coercion vitiates consent. What a farce.
That does change things somewhat yes.
But the point about 'why can't they just do observation work' to keinan still stands. That's just not how health learning works and there are those important intermediate steps where the student's/new grad's work is at various levels of supervision. Having your clinic change to start doing that though is a different matter, yes.
Student. They are students. Don't use commie language.
It extends out into being a new-grad. You’re no longer a student but this still happens for a bit longer still. That’s why I didn’t use ‘student’
Use "inexperienced" or something else then.
"Learner" is one of those commie bullshit terms. i.e. Children are "learners" and teachers are also always "learning" from the children as well so basically everybody is a "learner" so aren't they really all the same? Why even have this socially constructed "teacher"/"student" dichotomy, comrade?
I checked it's history.
Nah it's been in use well back into history in that way. You can find education as well as instructional books from the 1800s going on about 'the learner' this and 'the learner' that. I think it is useful in that it is broader, able to incorporate students, apprentices, new grads, experts who are learning a new skill, and autodidacts. And that is why I was using it, because I meant it in a broad way.
I am absolutely in favour of purging commie terms, and I don't doubt the commies with their big focus on education have probably started using this one a bit more. But unlike gender, this one is not theirs, it did not originate with them. And it is useful.
I pay a lot more in annual taxes for my "cheapest care in the world" than ever did for medical care in the US. If Canadians were actually billed each year, specifically, for the medical system, they wouldn't be so smug about "not paying" for healthcare.
Normies don't know how taxes work in general. If people had to write a check every year to pay their taxes instead of having it deducted out of their wages every month, they would riot.
Normies, riot? Come on man. I would love to believe that, but if they were going to riot they would have done so a long time ago.
Excuse me, I don't think you're giving the Canadian system enough credit.
You're suggesting that people die because they don't get Canadian 'care', rather than because they do get it.
How dare you impugn the honor of their lethal injections?
"Hi, I was playing hockey and broke my arm, I'd like to get a cast."
"Have you considered MAID?"
No, we can't fucking help you, you entitled bastard, but if your arm is that important to your subjective well-being, we can kill you if you want.
Oh you're a veteran with PTSD after we sent you to a foreign nation we don't need to be in, and made you kill some of their children?
Shame. Have you considered suicide?
I remember seeing an article not too long ago that was about hundreds of people lining up outside a clinic starting at 3am to try and get one of two open slots with a family doctor. And yet many Canadian still brag about their "free health-care" lmao
They ''fixed'' it in Québec. Now you have to take an appoitment to the ''no appointment clinic'' by first calling the phone line to wait 2 hours to speak to a nurse who will decide if you can get an appointment or not.
Last time I did this instead of going to the ER, the nurse told me to go to the ER. I tried again asking for an appointment the next day, she said no, go to the ER.
At least those nurses have access to the ''hospital load surveillance system'' and she could tell me which hospital would have the shortest ER wait. Got very lucky and was out under 3 hours. Average wait in Québec ERs is 9 hours. Yes nine hours average wait.
Is there a
suicideMAiD booth nearby if you didn't want to wait that long?Does single payer hurt or help a nations healthcare system? I can see it both ways, economies of scale says it would help, the law of governmental incompetence and graft however says it could hurt.
I think the ideal situation is probably one of free market practitioners (doctors clinics etc) and a single payer approach to supplies, drugs, technologies. Perhaps also a low level government funded clinic system for the truly needy, which can like the OP operate as a kind of training area. You aren’t getting the best care possible but it also isn’t bankrupting you of what little you have.
Anyone with thoughts or insights on the matter to share?
Switzerland is doing okay. They aren't part of the Shengen zone or the EU and took much fewer non-White migrants than its neighbours.
The state is the single-paying insurer, and private hospitals compete, thus have incentives to meet quality of care criterias and efficiency.
We have nearly full public everything in Québec and even if mass-migration wasen't bleeding services dry, lack of efficiency due to total job security and administrative bloat would be fucking things up too ( but to a lesser extent ).
I have a relative who left Quebec to work as a nurse in a French-speaking Swiss Canton and she said she would come back and work here if the government unfucked the work conditions of nurses ( mandatory unlimited overtime, can't choose how many hours you work, etc. ).
But last time she came to visit her mother, she saw the place getting invaded by non-Whites and now she won't come back no matter what.
Attachment to her people was the only reason why she would have came back. Globalists destroyed that.
One of the best things about AI is that it has the potential to drastically cut down on the size of bureaucracies. Fuck the bean counters if they're gonna deliberately overcomplicate everything at the expense of everyone else.
In a utopia, it's the best way. The problem is utopia doesn't exist. I'd probably even be inclined to argue for single-payer in small homogeneous cultures. Because it could work there. As soon as you start adding diversity, it breaks.
For what we have somewhere like the US, if I had my way I would break up and make independent most of the doctors practices and not allow them to ally with insurance companies, let's just call that price fixing. You show up, you pay the rate to the doctor. Whatever insurances is between the patient and the insurance provider. I might be inclined to regulate hospitals a bit from a more governmental level (no larger than State government). Mainly just cost transparency and oversight type things. Insurances become as big or as small as the consumer wants to make it. Pay for it yourself, ok. Want to have a Church healthcare cost sharing plan, go for it. Faggots want to fund Buttsex United Health Corp to pool the money they don't have to pay for other faggots to deal with their doctoring needs, that's fine too. I'd likely also propose some sort of taxpayer funding for kids somehow. Adults can take their own responsibility.
That’s true. I know, for instance, Canada has straight up “sin taxes” where a pack of cigarettes or bottle of beer will cost 4x what it costs on this side of the border. So many people would cross the border just to shop for shit where I used to live, even taking the hit in currency exchange rates that usually would entail. I understand that the idea behind these extra taxes is that these people will supposedly go on to cost their healthcare system disproportionately. The funny thing is that I’ve actually seen data suggesting the opposite, that smokers and drinkers drop long before their healthcare costs hit the stratosphere, while “healthy” people in their desire to cling on later and later into old age actually end up “costing” these government healthcare systems more. So yeah, that big ramble was basically just to echo your point about how this is all basically based on utopian thinking.
Tangentially, the only thing actually that I see people buying from Canada and bringing/shipping here is, oddly enough, medicine and certain health products.
Boomers are terrified of death in a way that no previous generation of old people has ever been. Used to be that back in the day you just accepted dying as a fact of life, the moment you fell ill with common old people diseases like cancer or heart disease or kidney failure you just laid down and died. I wonder how many boomers, despite professing religiosity, either don't really believe in an afterlife, or fear that their degeneracy has landed them a spot in hell.
Not to mention that at a certain point, you just don't have quality of life anymore. Euthanasia is a slippery slope, however once you're past, say, 70, I don't think it's unreasonable to say, sorry, all we can offer from this point on is palliative care.
Aging is entropy's effect on the human body, and when you fight entropy, the law of diminishing returns will make costs go up exponentially. Why invest a given sum of cash to give a diapered fossil one extra year of life, when the same investment can give someone younger an extra decade of a much higher quality of life?
Realistically, this (an aging population, in a socialized healthcare system, clinging longer and longer as tech advances) is behind the push for MAID, and realistically most people wouldn’t have a problem if they didn’t hear about depressed teenagers or young people cripple by the vax being offered euthanasia
That I believe, because I've seen way too much of it first hand. I really don't understand it myself, maybe when I get to that point I will. They make Joe Biden look like a picture of youth and perfect health in comparison, yet will do anything to add an additional breath to their lives. I also hear of all these tricks to basically ensure the taxpayer pays for it all. Let's just say I don't get a warm response for suggesting that I've had a decent life and afforded enough opportunity that I consider it my own responsibility to make sure I'm provided for in my old age.
It depends on your perspective. From the perspective of the medical "professionals", it helps. From the perspective of the patient, it destroys it.
Isn’t the “reason” (obviously more complicated but just for the sake of discussion) that the prices for a procedure or drug are less expensive with insurance is because of “bulk purchasing”? The insurance company is buying 1000 MRI scans per year per hospital, so they work out a discount between eachother, then when you need one of those procedures or prescriptions it’s available “cheaper” (though after accounting for all the money you spent on insurance but didn’t get maximal “value” from, you might end up paying more than a guy who isn’t paying for insurance his entire life )
For example, I wouldn’t want my doctor to have to hire people at his small family practice to haggle with the insurance companies and the drug companies and the one-time-use sterile syringe companies, and disposable scrubs companies, and so on and so on, but right now they are almost forced to. If the state (or federal, but most constitutionally appropriate, the state) government handled the sourcing and purchase negotiations they would, ideally/hypothetically, have far more leverage in getting better prices than the small family doctor, the clinic, the hospital, or even the network of hospitals which is often the case these days. Then these supplies would be distributed at or near their total cost.
So all that is to say, I don’t see why the idea of a single payer system necessarily harms the patient or the healthcare provider, I see it mainly just cutting into the extortionate profits of big pharma/insurance companies and the “administration” departments of healthcare providers
It harms the patient because UHC increases the demand for medical services (since everyone is now "insured"), while doing absolutely nothing to increase the supply of medical services. Hence, people in Canada having to wait for two years to get in for hip replacements and shit.
That’s a fair point but what I’m saying includes delineating between the ideas of single payer and universal coverage/healthcare, we don’t have to mix their pros and cons in a hypothetical - my idea was a single payer system upto the point of direct patient contact (the provider)
In that case, the free market would determine that there is a shortage of providers and would create more. This would decrease wait times, but have the side effect of eventually bankrupting the single payer.
The limited "bandwidth" of the healthcare system in places like Canada is what keeps the system solvent. If that check on spending is removed, parasites will bring down the system.
I think that at least for a while in the UK the economies of scale net outweighed direct gov incompetence, until government incompetence from other areas of governance started to bleed over too.
It doesn't matter if the care is more cost efficient with your tax money if the government is also giving away unlimited healthcare to huge numbers of people from fictitious warzones with almost zero verification and zero contributions.
It's also harder to be efficient when it turns out the supposedly smart people you selected to use the resources effectively were actually graded more on a color chart than a results table by the education system and are barely more effective than a flowchart with pills taped the end of each branch.
Just do it exactly like student loans. If you can't pay, you qualify for a low/zero interest loan to cover the cost which you can pay back whenever, but can't be discharged via bankrupcy.
This keeps the benefits of a market while also ensuring the poorest Canadians can access healthcare.
My father once said to never put your well-being in the hands of others, since they don't care nearly as much about you as you do. It seems bloody obvious, but there are so many people who make bad decisions so that they are.
Import the third world, become the third world.
Import the third world by a million a year? Accelerate becoming the third world.
Yeah there's a million flaws with socialism but you definitely can't have socialism and open borders.
Canada in a nutshell: no, we can't solve your medical issues, but if life has become unbearable for you, we'll gladly help you kill yourself.
Not many smart people in Western countries have any interest in medicine, as it's not particularly lucrative, there are very high barriers to entry, you don't have much mobility in terms of what careers you can pursue, you're constantly worrying about malpractice suits, and that's not even mentioning how many patients are just horrible.
Compare this with, say, law, where you don't actually have to be a trial lawyer, or in a public-facing position at all if you don't want to. You get a general set of skills that can land you a job almost anywhere in the world of white collar/bean counter work, you have an infinitely easier time setting up your own private practice, you don't have to watch people die or get screamed at by people you wish you could watch die instead of some unlucky kid, etc.
Oh yeah, there's also the part where as a doctor you're always on call because you're gonna be working at an ER for the first decade of your career at least, and that means you're usually sleep-deprived. So you get neither the stability of a regular 9-5, nor the flexibility of setting your own hours as a contractor. Frankly, who the hell would ever wanna become a doctor in today's world, when there are so many other avenues towards affluence that are infinitely easier?
Zoomers/Gen Alpha don't want to be doctors--they want to be streamers and influencers and OnlyFans """models""".
I figured this was the case since nobody would be asking to see their actual doctor if he was present at the appointments. It makes me wonder what kind of "supervision" these people have.
The Canadian healthcare systems, one by province, are fucked by mass-migration and bureaucracy.
I don't have a family doctor ( on the waiting list since 6+ years ) and last time I needed follow-up, I was told to, after getting the tests done the next day at a different facility, come back to the ER to see a doctor. Weird. So weird I asked the doctor repeats and also asked if I could get an appointment instead and she said ''no, come back to the ER after getting the tests done.''
When I did so, I got a comment insinuating I did sothing I should not have done, despite instructed to do just that.
This was not a one-time happening of something you absolutely do NOT want to hear when you are sick, exhausted and anxious.
Nobody wants to have the impression the doctor might be dismissive because they think you have done something wrong when another doctor instructed you to do that.
Example : told to quickly fill a urine sample for a useless test they kept insisting I did. Nurse leaves to do something else while I go produce the urine sample in the toilet she told me to go to. I come back to an incredulous secretary telling me they never accept samples brought there.
Only took it when I said, sorry, I did as instructed and cannot do anything else without knowing who would take this sample now, so I would put it in the trash and leave the ER.
Also told with a scolding tone I should not be interrupting the antibiotic treatment ( which I didn't need ) when I said I didn't take it in the last 12 hours, because I had been waiting for more than that in the ER ( yes, this is normal wait time in Quebec hospitals ) and didn't bring them with me, nor food I was supposed to take with it.
And when asked ''do you want me to start taking them again''... said no. Well thanks for making me feel guilty for something I didn't even do wrong.
And that's the least bad stuff that happened with doctors last times I had to deal with them. I do not want to deal with doctors again. I refused to go when I had a problem last time and just waited for whatever the outcome would be.
''BUT IT'S FREE'' fuck what leftists and globalists did to us.
P.S. : I can't recall the last time the doctor seeing me had looked at my medical record even if the appointment includes why I am there.
The US tries to push this more and more I've found too. I ended up going along after my old-school doctor retired. It's not that I can't see the real doctor, just expect it to take longer to get appointments etc. For me though, I'm really just showing up to get blood work done so I can track certain things ahead of time.
So it's not a ton different with us having the big insurance model, just less forced. I'm actually considering looking into something like hospitalization-only insurance if such a thing exists and planning to pay the rest out of pocket. You'll find US doctor's offices can often be receptive to the "how much if I pay you right now" model and it's not all that ridiculously priced. Hospitals on the other hand, wow. I had a surgery over a decade ago, I kid you not I was on the hospital premises for less than two hours from car door to car door, and it was around a $20k bill. Of the total bill, the highly experienced surgeon I'd chosen got less than 10%, anesthesiologist got about 15%, the remaining 75% went to the hospital. $15k for two hours in the hospital, one of which was spent in waiting rooms and the like.
My clinic has had pride flags up for YEARS. And all the secretaries/assistants are literal ham planets.
You should know that provincial healthcare has allied with the world economic forum, because of course they fucking did. https://web.archive.org/web/20221022002123/https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/news/Page15540.aspx Linking archive since the page was scrubbed from AHS' website.
Why are record numbers of physicians leaving?
Is opting out and paying for someone in private practice still allowed in Canada? You'll still probably lose whatever they're extorting from you to pay for their non-existent health care but at least you'll be able to see a real doctor.
Side note: Canadian coworker spent a couple weeks using my spare bedroom so she could escape Canada and get knee surgery. Her choice was get it done here in the US (and pay for it herself) or hobble around on crutches for 18 months waiting for a slot to open up.
You can go to a private clinic and pay out of pocket. For someone middle class and lower, it's expensive, unaffordable in case of anything beyond a regular exam.
You still have to pay for the public healthcare system though.
Paying a private clinic for test and referal, however, will get you weeks-ahead for a specialist appointment or treatment in the public system, and many people do that.
And yes, joint surgery waiting lists can be ''18 months'', which is already them cheating : they deliberately stall diagnostics and referals to artificially avoid exceeding the 18 months mark.
You will hear ''sorry, the schedule is full, you will have to call back in X weeks''.
Just book me for later? No they won't. Because then the waiting lists would exceed the threshold the government set to claim they are doing well with the healthcare system. They hope you will give up and not call in X weeks.
Depends which province, definitely not in Ontario.
I had a friend do that too. Medical tourism in New York state to fix her ACL tear. She still has to pay the same in healthcare taxes even with the out-of-pocket expenses in the US, so it's unfair either way.
Just ask for euthanasia. They will not deny anyone and they will see you immediately.
1 to 2 weeks, and you actually get to see someone.
So 100x better than the NHS.
Many specialists can take 1-2 years to see and almost all require referrals from family doctors.
Some specialists, like ophthalmologists, can be quicker to see and can be referred by an optometrist. However, if your family doctor thinks you may have colon cancer? Enjoy waiting 16 months.
Edit: just read this was in Canada. So I retract statement below because as I understand it you actually don’t have any medical autonomy in that shithole.
So a couple of things I would like to offer (edit: for those based in the USA)
I get your frustration, and I too, would want to work solely with my primary care physician for myself and family.
however, if you’re working with a Clinic - usually affiliated with a university- that is part of an educational program, it’s par the course that you are going to have care administered by residents and medical students in training. That’s literally part of their charter.
just devils advocate, but where do you expect residents to learn real world experience if not in a clinical setting?
Regarding use of the word equitable - yes woke term, but it’s pretty much standard language used to disarm criticism preemptively. I wouldn’t read into it.
TLDR: if you don’t want students administering care, don’t go to an educational medical facility. I’d say it sucks but that’s the function of those clinics, to teach doctors how to be doctors.
At the clinic I see is fine, if asked for less important appointments. However, I don't want to be forced to accept a medical student or be kicked off the roster. I also don't want to be told I'm in the wrong for wanting a doctor foremost.
FYI, these forced med. student appointments are new. It may be a teaching clinic (it didn't used to be), but that's no excuse for requiring people to see med. students instead of full-fledged doctors.
Furthermore, the teaching angle is an incomplete excuse. Notice how "physician assistants" was also on that list, right beside medical students? What's the justification for that?
In the states a physician assistant is an actual degreed position that requires medical education similar to an MD or DO. they are not literally an “administrative” assistant. They can prescribe medications, order lab testing, administer treatment, etc like an MD would. The largest difference is how insurance pays out for a physician va a physicians assistant.
Maybe in Canada there are differences, but for most of your general stuff at a clinic, a PA is generally qualified.
I get that you want to see your own doctor. I also get that you’re stuck in a shitty medical system. Ideally you should have the ability to opt out of that.
My point is simply that there’s a legitimate case to be made for education in a clinical setting; in fact that’s one of the foundational elements of western medicine, residency and clinical education.
the alternative is multi-generational incompetence , and a class of medical practitioners with literally zero real world experience and mentorship.
That pretty much sums up doctor offices that accept Medicare here.
non urgent appts within 2 weeks. lol. unless this is a specialist, wtf
We can't fix this mess now that ''diversity'' destroyed the country.
''Illegal practice of medicine'' needs to go since you cannot get treated in a timely manner the legal way if you're poor.
Yep, its bullshit. Almost 4 years now ive been dealing with low low phosphorous. Spent a year begging for a kidney test, which found the low phosphorous. Spent another year begging for a parathyroid test, another year to actually do the blood draw and get the results. Everytime I went to the walk in it was closed for some reason or another, usually shortage of doctors.
Spend another year waiting on a endocrinologist who spent five minutes to tell me it was low vitamin d. Doesnt even bother to look at vit d levels from 3 years ago which were slightly low but fine. Yeah I looked at all your paperwork he says when I asked if he looked at my previous bloodwork.
I dont know if im going back to be honest. I think im just going to let whatever is happening to me happen. Im appalachian, I dont fear death.
However, the college of physicians and surgeons, all of them but especially nova scotia.
Are creating the doctor shortage crisis and the people who run these entitys are truly wicked and evil people. They want to discipline doctors in nova scotia who are christian and refue to give maid or refer to another doctor, but my doctor who can lie about a medication that he never actually gave me can get away with it scott free.
Evil, evil people.
Ironically, the boomers around me seem to get their healthcare awfully quick, but the millennials and younger? One of my friends spent two years waiting to see a referral about their thyroid, and in the end never did get answers. Just given medication to take for the rest of their life. They swear it had something to do with the covid vaccine. :Shrugs: