re long waits for patients to see physicians, particularly in certain specialties. Although patients eventually may be able to see a specialist, many people do not want to wait as long as is necessary. Some are simply impatient, while others rightly fear that their condition may worsen during the wait.
As a consequence, there is a move toward privatization of the health care system at some level. Now, patients with the money and time can travel to the United States to obtain private medical treatment. They are able to purchase the kind and quality of services that they desire. However, patients without this kind of access are limited to obtaining the services available through the state's system. There is currently a burgeoning trade in medical care because of this, with companies in both the United States and Canada set up to bring patients in to the United States for various kinds of services, including organ transplants and cardiovascular surgery (Possehl, 1997).
Both governments have dealt with the problem of escalating costs by instituting cuts in funding that affect consumers, health care practitioners, and hospitals. The response from those segments has been negative, with angry consumers and physicians pressuring the government to return to earlier levels of funding services. For example, doctors in Canada held work stoppages this spring to protest cutbacks both in funding for physicians and decreases in hospital beds. Other protesters included laboratory technicians, cleaners, and other support workers (Pressure points, 1998).
Interestingly enough, doctors in both countries are claiming to be on the side of the patients in the battle for increased funding. Although clearly they stand to benefit from improved funding, the major media focus, and the major efforts of the doctors, have emphasized declines in patient care under the new systems. For example, the president of the British Columbia Medical Associ...