|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 17, 2011 0:14:46 GMT -5
There's a reason swimming pools have chlorine in them, and it's not just to prevent algae from growing. It also reduces microbes that can harm you. Chlorine? Surprisingly enough, it sorta kills fish. Whaaat? No way! XD ...now I'm gonna have nightmares that I'm a fish that's been dumped in a chlorinated pool.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Jul 19, 2011 0:00:13 GMT -5
Wouldn't Health Canada make more money from having to treat the diseases? How would they make money from pedicures? How would they make money from treating the disease? It's universal health care, the money to pay for it comes from our taxes, from which they are given a yearly budget. The more sick people using the system, the more money is used to treat them.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 20, 2011 0:11:24 GMT -5
Sorry to kill your indignance buzz, but the ban on that is fairly legit. It's a health risk. There are indeed beach advisories. My family fell 1 lousy hour behind one such advisory. I went swimming in Lake Ontario and wound up throwing up almost every day for over a month due to gyrosilis. (Am I spelling that right?)
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 20, 2011 0:15:05 GMT -5
Wouldn't Health Canada make more money from having to treat the diseases? How would they make money from pedicures? How would they make money from treating the disease? It's universal health care, the money to pay for it comes from our taxes, from which they are given a yearly budget. The more sick people using the system, the more money is used to treat them. Rat, that is exactly my point. ETA: The last time I checked you don't go to your physician for a pedicure. You go to the physician because you got a foot infection from letting fish chew on it for half an hour (or however long it takes).
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Jul 20, 2011 10:22:24 GMT -5
How would they make money from treating the disease? It's universal health care, the money to pay for it comes from our taxes, from which they are given a yearly budget. The more sick people using the system, the more money is used to treat them. Rat, that is exactly my point. ETA: The last time I checked you don't go to your physician for a pedicure. You go to the physician because you got a foot infection from letting fish chew on it for half an hour (or however long it takes). Yeah, okay, I get the pedicure thing (though some people do go to podiatrists for that if they have bad ingrown toenails.) I just don't understand the making money by treating the diseases part. Technically speaking, if doctors did perform pedicures, they'd make more money, since that treatment isn't covered by our universal free health care, and they could charge for it. I suppose the individual doctors might make more money if they're being paid by the government for each patient they treat, and not receiving a salary. I know Canadian surgeons are paid per surgery, but I don't know about GPs or nurses or specialists. Even if the doctors are making more money, the government is losing it to pay them, and it's not the doctors who are in charge of the laws and regulations of health care.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 20, 2011 11:39:37 GMT -5
That's just it, though, doctors don't do what the fish are doing. It is not a service they are competing with so why would removing the service give those in the medical field any more money? By the way, removing dead skin is not going to do anything for an ingrown toenail.
Anyways, my overall argument is how is Health Canada supposed to make money from this, as was claimed in the OP? Following the money is a good idea but I don't think Health Canada exactly competes with spas.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Jul 20, 2011 18:56:35 GMT -5
That's just it, though, doctors don't do what the fish are doing. It is not a service they are competing with so why would removing the service give those in the medical field any more money? By the way, removing dead skin is not going to do anything for an ingrown toenail. Anyways, my overall argument is how is Health Canada supposed to make money from this, as was claimed in the OP? Following the money is a good idea but I don't think Health Canada exactly competes with spas. I think I get it now, I just wasn't following the thought train there. I don't disagree there. Even though in some cases the fish are being used as a treatment for medical conditions, such as psoriasis and eczema, making them potential competition for podiatric doctors and the companies that make medicated skin cream, if the fish spas make any dent in the market at all, it's minuscule. The potential cost of treating people who get sick because of fish spas is a lot higher. I think the OP might be thinking of it in a roundabout way - that by shutting down a perceived risk, Health Canada would be forced to spend less of the tax money they receive, and thus be making money through retention rather than marketing.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 25, 2011 14:03:48 GMT -5
Sorry to kill your indignance buzz, but the ban on that is fairly legit. It's a health risk. There are indeed beach advisories. My family fell 1 lousy hour behind one such advisory. I went swimming in Lake Ontario and wound up throwing up almost every day for over a month due to gyrosilis. (Am I spelling that right?) I'm not sure I feel that a ban on risky behaviors is legitimate if that harm is entered into knowingly. "Using this service may cause exploding man syndrome, your feet could fall off, and one guy's eyeballs got way smaller. Consult a doctor before having fish nibble on your feet."
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 25, 2011 18:51:19 GMT -5
Sorry to kill your indignance buzz, but the ban on that is fairly legit. It's a health risk. There are indeed beach advisories. My family fell 1 lousy hour behind one such advisory. I went swimming in Lake Ontario and wound up throwing up almost every day for over a month due to gyrosilis. (Am I spelling that right?) I'm not sure I feel that a ban on risky behaviors is legitimate if that harm is entered into knowingly. "Using this service may cause exploding man syndrome, your feet could fall off, and one guy's eyeballs got way smaller. Consult a doctor before having fish nibble on your feet." And if the risk caused by said behavior can spread to others?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 25, 2011 21:01:06 GMT -5
Then they aren't entering into the harm knowingly and the ban's probably legitimate, even if it conflicts with individual rights. Kind of a lousy choice to have to make if the risk isn't substantial, but most likely necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 25, 2011 21:21:52 GMT -5
Yeah, I doubt this has anything to do with doctors wanting to make more money. The fish aren't really doing anything that a home exfoliation kit or pedicurist can't do, and I don't see any bans on either of those (nor doctors offering those services), so even if there was some vast conspiracy of doctors manipulating Health Canada's bans, this wouldn't be an example of it.
|
|