[Merridith]

Hi everyone:

I just participated in a very interesting interview. The reporter was wanting to discuss with breast cancer patients the cost of having cancer. What is and what is not covered by provincial medical insurance.

Cancer is the only medical disease that isn't fully covered by provincial medical - the government has just come up with this plan to mitigate insurance costs by selectively covering the cost of treatment.

This puts those of us who have been recently diagnosed in an awkward position. Because this is a new political manuver, it hasn't occured to most people to purchase extended medical to cover this oversite as most Canadians STILL believe that regular provincial medical will cover all cancer costs including chemo - but this is no longer true. And the government is being careful not to advertise this fact. It isn't educating the population that private extended medical is something that Canadians should be considering to cover the gap.

So there is a bit of a vacume. Now that the government has recently changed it's coverage policy - those of us already diagnosed will never have, (or HAVE HAD the chance - if it had occured to us) to purchase insurance. Of course we are totally uninsurable now.

That leaves a great number of us in the unenviable possition of having to self-insure through our own savings accounts!

Here is another problem - employment.

Many companies are not interested in having their old employees return to work after a serious illness. What I found interesting was that among the breast cancer people that were interviewed - I heard annecdotal stories about how their employers had either quietly gotten rid of them by deskilling their jobs, refused to hire them beyond "casual" to avoid manditory benefits or documented them out of a job.

People like ourselves will not be covered under company extended health plans because there are often riders for pre-existing diseases that preclude us.

Companies are not interested in dealing with people who have a greater probability of collecting on the company insurance plan. It causes increases to the company's premiums - just like having a car accident - so of course - given a field of candidates - why take on the sick one -or even deal an old employee when a bit of manovering can make them miserable enough to conveniently quit?

Companies are not interested in investing in training a person for a job, investing in education etc if that person has a serious illness. Seriously, why would they? It's an investment risk!

I have been trying to think of a solution. I don't particularly blame the companies - because companies by their very nature need to mitigate costs & risk to remain competitive with their cohorts. They are not in the business of public health care subsidy. This is a political problem.

Right now, I don't think that the Canadian government even officially recognises this situation as a problem because none of the victims are willing to shine a light on it. Not the unemployed ones looking for work - because winning the "lable" would certainly decrease their future employability and increase their financial risk. There is far too much risk fingering previous employers. After all - previous employers hold "the quality of your work references" ransom against your silence. If you want to get a new job -and you want a decent reference - you had better keep your mouth shut and find a positive excuse as to why you left (Workplace bullying doesn't count!).

The question is - is there enough of us to deliver a significant voting block? It is the only way that the government will consider seeking solutions the problem. After all - as we all know - our Canadian politicians have a very linear and personal way of examining any political problem - what's in it for me?

One of the only solutions that I could think of is that our government offer strong encouragement for self-employment for victims of cancer and other catastrophic illness. Because right now - it's an uphill grind to get a job - and if you do get one, I'll bet that there is a significant chance that you are under-employed based on qualifications. To make up for the fact that the company is taking on both risk and expense to hire you compared to comparable candidates.

So here is the bottom line - I have this reporter's email. If you want to email her your stories on this topic - I will forward them. (I don't want to put her email out there) She will only be interested if you are Canadian - preferably from Vancouver, BC - as this is a local paper.

What are the stats? - 1 in 8 women will get breast cancer. 1 in three people will experience cancer at some time in their lives.

I have a question for you Canadians. Are there enough of us? Is it time to shine a light on this problem?

Thanks for letting me say my peice.

Merridith