Those wait times don't consider people who aren't prescribed MRI due to .... you guessed it, wait time.

Well yes of course, why or how would you include those people?

I'm just here defending the publicly funded Canadian health care system. When people go online and make false claims, it devalues the system we have. Is it perfect? Definitely not. But is it better than fully private systems where your healthcare depends on a job and one injury or hospital stay could bankrupt you? Definitely, but only if people care to defend it.

You're here defending while brushing apart valid points that people bring apart without any logic. Is Canadian healthcare system good if you're dying? Yes, it's god send, they'll do everything to save. But if you happen to not be dying, good luck with this system.

> Well yes of course, why or how would you include those people?

That's the entire point, you can't take those numbers at face value because how many people who need MRI aren't prescribed one to begin with.

>you can't take those numbers at face value because how many people who need MRI aren't prescribed one to begin with.

Citation needed (that isn't your n=1 story). If someone's problem was bad enough, they'd book an MRI regardless of how far out it was. If someone says "nah, don't even bother" perhaps their problem isn't that bad.

> My coworker fell in Costa Rica, hurt her knee and came back and had an MRI the same week. I saw my doctor in mid-March and she ordered an MRI on my neck, it's scheduled for next week.

You started your entire argument on this point, i.e. (n=2) lol

Sure I'll give you that. However I then followed with population level data from two of the large Canadian provinces representing nearly 20 million people.