Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Private Clinic getting the ire of government


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
41 replies to this topic

#31 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,519 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:37 AM

I'm not really informed on the issue but I'll offer my own personal experience which I'd be interested in people's opinions about.

I've played rugby for ten years or so. I broke my nose in 2010 badly, I couldn't breathe through my nose and became a mouth breather. I went to see an Ear, Nose and Throat Specialist who looked inside and gave me a diagnosis. Told me I'd have to have an operation to fix it and that the wait time would be 14 months.

I waited a week and it is intolerable to try to breathe mainly through your mouth. Your quality of life is much worse. I wasn't sleeping well. I did some research and checked out the private clinic at false creek. I booked a first appointment to see their Ear, Nose and Throat doctor who also works at St. Pauls and has one of the highest reputations in Western Canada. I was told it would cost 4500 dollars to fix. I agreed to this and had the operation done within a week. IIt went successfully.

Could someone please tell me why I shouldn't have been able to do this and save myself 14 unbearable months of poor quality of living? It costs a lot to live in Canada and sometimes I wonder if I should not just move a nice part of the USA considering that when I need the services they aren't there for me.


While we're at it, knowing that your a rugby player that has a higher time of getting the kind of injury that is painful but not immeadiate why not have the option of carrying some private insurance that would allow you to access this private care at a more reasonable cost?

If private health insurance was available there would be a lot of people buying it and a lot more private clinics (working under existing laws).

#32 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:38 AM

The two tier system in unavoidable , especially with the US system right down the road. If there is no pay service here then just head across the border to get it done right away.

To save that, we should keep that option here .

I am for universal care, but if providing that access causes the care to be rationed due to budget constraints then everyone's care suffers.

: Thus I not only feel its fair to have a pay for service on the side, but it brings down the wait time for those forced to wait in the universal lines. .
Posted Image

#33 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,519 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:39 AM

Horse****.


And I don't think we will be more complicated, since we don't have the impenetrable corporate lobbyists to go through as they do down south.


You don't think the high costs of malpractice insurance due to the extensive amount of high cost litigation in the states impacts costs? If you want to see an American doctor loose his marbles ask how much his malpractice insurance is!

#34 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,704 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 20 July 2012 - 11:11 AM

"Allowing people or governments to pay inflated prices will not diminish wait times in the public system. Studies have shown that adding forprofit health care services actually lengthens waiting times in the public system because doctors opt to perform services in the private sector where they are paid more. For example, in New Zealand, where doctors are allowed to work in both public and private sectors, specialists spend less than 49 per cent of their time in public hospitals. The rest is spent in private clinics. Given that Canada is already facing a doctor shortage, allowing physicians and other health care professionals whose education has been subsidized by taxpayers to move into the private system will drain much-needed resources and limit public access even further."

This is just ONE reason.


I don't see how this creates extra patients, so it would seem to indicate status quo for wait times.

How does it increase costs to the public sector?
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#35 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 20 July 2012 - 12:08 PM

You don't think the high costs of malpractice insurance due to the extensive amount of high cost litigation in the states impacts costs? If you want to see an American doctor loose his marbles ask how much his malpractice insurance is!


MYTH #4: MALPRACTICE CLAIMS DRIVE UP DOCTORS’ PREMIUMS


The “financial crises” medical malpractice insurers claim to go through are actually not as bad as they are portrayed. An analysis by the American Association of Justice of the 200 annual financial statements filed by the 10 largest malpractice insurers found that average profits of these companies are higher than 99 percent of all Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average for the same time period.

Medical malpractice insurers have underestimated profits and overestimated losses in part to justify new legislation to restrict the rights of those injured by medical negligence. Years later, when companies file revised financial statements, it becomes clear they were never in the financial peril they claimed.


A study of the leading medical malpractice insurance companies’ financial statements by former Missouri Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff found that these insurers artificially raised doctors’ premiums and mislead the public about the nature of medical negligence claims.19

According to the study, the amount the leading malpractice insurers projected they would pay out in claims in the future declined; the amount they actually paid out in claims declined; and their surplus—the extra cushion they have accumulated over and above the amount they have set aside to pay claims in the future—increased to an all-time high—five times the state minimum surplus for insurer stability.

http://www.justice.o..._negligence.pdf

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#36 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,519 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 July 2012 - 01:51 PM

MYTH #4: MALPRACTICE CLAIMS DRIVE UP DOCTORS’ PREMIUMS


The “financial crises” medical malpractice insurers claim to go through are actually not as bad as they are portrayed. An analysis by the American Association of Justice of the 200 annual financial statements filed by the 10 largest malpractice insurers found that average profits of these companies are higher than 99 percent of all Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average for the same time period.

Medical malpractice insurers have underestimated profits and overestimated losses in part to justify new legislation to restrict the rights of those injured by medical negligence. Years later, when companies file revised financial statements, it becomes clear they were never in the financial peril they claimed.


A study of the leading medical malpractice insurance companies’ financial statements by former Missouri Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff found that these insurers artificially raised doctors’ premiums and mislead the public about the nature of medical negligence claims.19

According to the study, the amount the leading malpractice insurers projected they would pay out in claims in the future declined; the amount they actually paid out in claims declined; and their surplus—the extra cushion they have accumulated over and above the amount they have set aside to pay claims in the future—increased to an all-time high—five times the state minimum surplus for insurer stability.

http://www.justice.o..._negligence.pdf


Either way it's the states and consider the source - it's the trial lawyers of america - aka one of the beneficeries of the sue happy USA.

But even in that source it shows the average doctor has to cover 40k in malpractice insurance. That is a very significant cost!

But you may have swayed me, after all, we're one court decision from a major overhaul in our coverage. Given the existing laws all we would really need it to allow for private insurance that does cover things that one could get from a regular hospital and we will have a public private system in place nearly overnight.

Given that the court case will be based on the fact that with the rediculous wait times in the public sector (despite using BC as an example health care funding doubling over the last decade) it's unfair to deny people private alternatives then we might as well note that it would also be unfair to not allow them to pool their resources together and develope insurance policies that would allow them to more easy access said services.

#37 kazin!

kazin!

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,235 posts
  • Joined: 06-September 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 07:25 PM

Either way it's the states and consider the source - it's the trial lawyers of america - aka one of the beneficeries of the sue happy USA.

But even in that source it shows the average doctor has to cover 40k in malpractice insurance. That is a very significant cost!

But you may have swayed me, after all, we're one court decision from a major overhaul in our coverage. Given the existing laws all we would really need it to allow for private insurance that does cover things that one could get from a regular hospital and we will have a public private system in place nearly overnight.

Given that the court case will be based on the fact that with the rediculous wait times in the public sector (despite using BC as an example health care funding doubling over the last decade) it's unfair to deny people private alternatives then we might as well note that it would also be unfair to not allow them to pool their resources together and develope insurance policies that would allow them to more easy access said services.


Again, private services are available. They just cannot double bill.
Posted Image

#38 kazin!

kazin!

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,235 posts
  • Joined: 06-September 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 07:27 PM

I don't see how this creates extra patients, so it would seem to indicate status quo for wait times.

How does it increase costs to the public sector?


Health care professionals are a limited resource. If it's spread over both tiers there will be even fewer to work.
Posted Image

#39 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,704 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 21 July 2012 - 10:23 PM

Health care professionals are a limited resource. If it's spread over both tiers there will be even fewer to work.

But if the patients can't go to a private clinic, they would be back on the public wait list. It's not like they disappear when the private option is taken away.
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#40 kazin!

kazin!

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,235 posts
  • Joined: 06-September 06

Posted 22 July 2012 - 12:20 PM

But if the patients can't go to a private clinic, they would be back on the public wait list. It's not like they disappear when the private option is taken away.


Patients CAN go to private clinics. That is a big misconception that needs to be cleared up. Canadians CAN pay out of their own pocket for private health care- it is entirely up to them. Physicians when working for a private clinic CANNOT double bill the government for compensation for the provision of "medically necessary" services.

The proportion of our population that utilizes private health care services is not big. If the staff from all private clinics were put into the public system there would be further relief.

Wait times are excessive and we can always stand to use a few more doctors and other health care professionals. It'll be interesting to see what policy makers do in the next few years.
Posted Image

#41 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,519 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 23 July 2012 - 08:36 AM

Again, private services are available. They just cannot double bill.


Well then the way I see it forward is not as complicated as I thought it would be. We simply need to remove the prohibition against providing insurance for those services that can operate privately but are in paralell with the public system. That way people that wanted to participate outside the public system could and you can bet a lot of employers would be offering that as a benefit.

#42 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,530 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 23 July 2012 - 08:39 AM

Well said. I agree with your sentiments.

To put it more frankly, the private tier for profit medical system in Canada is a cancer on the public system and the focus should be on healing the system that is almost universally regarded as the best system in the world, outside of the corporately controlled land to our South.


Let's not get carried away SS. We are #30 on WHO's list.
I like our system but it needs improvements.
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.