Our health care SUCKS!!! Failed my wife...

[HerrDrFunk]

@Lancaster I can't adauquately express how sorry I am to hear about your loss. My heart goes out to you and your wife.

[kurtis]

On 10/7/2017 at 5:48 AM, Sygvard said:

Yeah this sounds like a simple misdiagnosis, not a failure of the system. Definitely a slip up by the doctor, but unfortunately it happens. 

 

I remember one of my profs in patient care saying "You guys are all brilliant 95% students. 95 percent means that you still get 1 in 20 wrong. Be prepared to make mistakes". 

 

Sadly diagnosis is just harder than people think. It is fairly subjective, and based on that practioner's skills and biases. As some have pointed out, it sounds like he made the obvious call. He COULD have assumed to worst, dug deeper, and ordered scans. But if they did that on every patient than the health system really WOULD be slow.

Yah, after reading a lot of the comments I tend to agree with you. A friend of ours just had a very positive experience at the ER.

[aGENT]

On 10/6/2017 at 10:41 PM, inane said:

I've had nothing but good experiences. 

Same. Reasonable wait times for my symptoms, kind and knowledgeable staff etc.

 

Perhaps if people would stop over burdening the system with every sniffle they get, we'd have less problems like the OP's - which seems like a simple misdiagnosis - as doctors and nurses would probably have more time to properly assess. 

 

That said, they're still human, they're not going to get everything right, all the time.

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

There are two things that are negatives when it comes to Canada’s healthcare.

One is the wait times, yes wait times for walk-in but especially when you are in the need for non-life threatening surgery.

 

The second is the cost.  Most people don’t realize how expensive it is but, health care costs an average Canadian just over 5k a year (that’s over 250,000 in a 50 year span) .  Yes it’s nice to be covered by that safety net but what if you never use that safety net, what about the people that over use that safety and drive the costs up.  How come the people that chose to live a healthy life style bare the burden of the people that choose not to.  I don’t smoke, I stay in shape, yet I’m paying the price of the people who don’t.

 

We would think it’s crazy for a person that doesn’t own a car to pay for car insurance, yet we think it’s justifiable to do the same with healthcare.    

 

In the grand scheme of things, I guess it’s ok but it’s far from perfect, ideally there should be some sort of kick back/benefit or even tax credit for staying out of the doctors office.  It would sure help with keeping people with the slightest cough out of the clinics and thus likely reducing wait times.     

[250Integra]

@Lancaster I can't imagine what you and your family are going through right now. My thoughts and prayers go out to you at this time.

[PhillipBlunt]

On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 1:50 PM, Lancaster said:

My wife and I are currently at the hospital... just lost our daughter as she was only 20 weeks when she came out 

Doctors are all very friendly, and all the staffs (except one or two) were very helpful and courteous.  

 

My wife's water broke almost 3 weeks back, and we immediately went to BC women's.  The information kiosk and stuff were closed, so we had to wander around for a bit (about 5 minutes while she was leaking fluid) to find the correct admitting area (many staff pointed us to the wrong direction).  Was there from about 9pm to 2am, with the docs confirming that one of the water broke and we should be thinking about terminating the pregnancy.  They said the specialists won't be in until 8am, so they suggested we should go home and then come back the next day.  

Next day, and multiple other checkups the following weeks (cramps, fluid colour change, etc) our stays usually takes like 6 hours.  A lot of time wasted just by checking in and stuff... I mean, I'd assume that when you give them your CareCard, they would have all the information popping up and all stuff.... but I don't work in the hospital, so I don't know what happens behind the scene.  

 

It was very upsetting when we were given a room, my wife changed into those hospital clothing, then after a few tests (drawing blood, the one where they check for the heartbeat of the baby, etc), then they said we need to wait back in the hallway because there's a shortage of space and someone else more urgent needed it.  After waiting for like 3-4 hours, I asked one of the nurse for an update and she said, "I know this is very urgent for you guys.... but overall, it isn't that big of a deal...."  I was completely flabbergast..... my wife was sitting there, still leaking whatever amniotic fluid that was left (very little at the time as most of it was already gone) and having been preliminary told that the pregnancy might be over.... and the nurse was telling us that "it isn't that big of a deal".  When we told our OBGYN about it, she was also livid... she was asking for name and description of the nurse.  

 

Wasn't the only bad experience...... we went to see our original OBGYN, but she was out of town, so we saw a different doctor.  He said we might need to terminate of the pregnancy as the chance of going into term was improbable.  We were still hoping for the best, so we tell him we were gonna wait to decide.... his response was, "What's there to decided about?"  Seriously... what the hell kind of a response was that?

 

In any case, as my deceased baby girl is resting peacefully in a basket beside me, whether the health care system failed us....  I can't say it really did.  Probably nothing more could have been done.  While in Japan, my wife would have been staying in the hospital for the past 3 weeks and given antibiotic immediately (we had to see our doctor the week after to get the meds) instead of just her resting at home, any difference would have been insignificant (carrying the baby an extra week or two would have had the same outcome).  

Everybody we encountered these last couple of days (nurses, doctors, social workers, photographers, etc) were all very helpful and compassionate.  

 

Just 3 weeks ago were planning to shop for cute outfits for our daughter.... now we're shopping for her urn....

I am deeply sorry for your loss, Lancaster. There are no words.

[Mike Vanderhoek]

On 10/7/2017 at 1:15 PM, atillaMYhun said:

Seems pretty standard to have an x-ray taken when someone presents at an ER with your wife's symptoms.  Dr. should be held accountable.  

 

It's a healthcare system failure if Dr. didn't have option to x-ray at ER, based on cost concerns or unavailability of Tech/Radiologist etc.  Otherwise, as described, it's a Dr. failure.

 

"Seems standard" vs "is standard" are two different things. It is not standard when someone presents with swelling to request radiographs. it IS standard to treat the swelling, which this Dr did by prescribing anti-inflammatory medication.

 

It was not until later during a follow up appointment with the family Dr that an x-ray was requested and after being on anti-inflammatory meds the radiograph showed a stress fracture. People need to understand swelling interupts such views and makes it difficult to diagnose. There is a reason for these steps and it doesn't in any way mean that the healthcare system sucks or a Dr should be held accountable for a mistake they did not make.

 

Sorry, I see a lot of blame on this thread towards a Dr who treated swelling with correct meds. The one thing i'd like OP to confirm is did the ER tell them to schedule an appointment with the GP or did the OP wait for pain to go away after swelling and make the call ?

 

Also and I am sorry your wife was in discomfort, this was not an emergency, people are allowed to be sore, in discomfort or pain while healing or awaiting diagnosis. That doesn't mean someone is to blame it means this is real life and somethings other than social media do take time and sometimes we have to live with pain and work through it at nobody's fault.

[Mike Vanderhoek]

3 hours ago, J.R. said:

Same. Reasonable wait times for my symptoms, kind and knowledgeable staff etc.

 

Perhaps if people would stop over burdening the system with every sniffle they get, we'd have less problems like the OP's - which seems like a simple misdiagnosis - as doctors and nurses would probably have more time to properly assess. 

 

That said, they're still human, they're not going to get everything right, all the time.

 

 

soreness and swelling after an 8 hour hike is not an emergency and not to be insensitive to the OP but that is exactly the " sniffles " over burden people refer to. Also again it is not a misdiagnosis, having make the OP wait several more hours for a non-emergency radiograph skewed by swelling they likely would have had the same outcome until time and medication had time to work and reduce swelling to show a stress fracture on x-ray.

[aGENT]

Just now, Mike Vanderhoek said:

soreness and swelling after an 8 hour hike is not an emergency and not to be insensitive to the OP but that is exactly the " sniffles " over burden people refer to. Also again it is not a misdiagnosis, having make the OP wait several more hours for a non-emergency radiograph skewed by swelling they likely would have had the same outcome until time and medication had time to work and reduce swelling to show a stress fracture on x-ray.

Fair enough.

[Curmudgeon]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I don’t smoke, I stay in shape, yet I’m paying the price of the people who don’t.

 

We would think it’s crazy for a person that doesn’t own a car to pay for car insurance, yet we think it’s justifiable to do the same with healthcare.    

First thing: Good for you for opting for a healthy lifestyle. That will serve you in good stead in your later years. Unless of course you are severely injured or diagnosed with a life-altering disease or debilitating condition. Then you'll be mighty glad you are part of an insurance plan that covers the bulk of the costs of your care. You may be young, strong and healthy now, but you never know when you might need to rely on health insurance. Even the healthiest people get cancer, and rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus, and heart disease, and respiratory problems and any one of many diseases and conditions that don't show up until middle age or later. This is why we have insurance, because you just might need it. And believe me, you will eventually need it.

 

Second thing: The principal of insurance is everyone pays in and then receives benefits when they need them. if you want to play dice with your health and well-being, by all means opt out if you dare. (Fun fact: Every resident of BC is required by law to enrol in the BC Medical Plan) Just don't complain when or if you all of a sudden need health care and are presented with a $2000 bill for a trip to the emergency room.

 

Third thing: About the car insurance analogy, it is not the same thing at all. If you don't have a car, of course you don't need insurance because you won't be on the road, causing or being victim of an accident. But you can't opt to say "No, I don't need health insurance because I will not get sick or injured." Well, I guess you can say that, but you can't control it like you can control choosing not to drive. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Curmudgeon said:

First thing: Good for you for opting for a healthy lifestyle. That will serve you in good stead in your later years. Unless of course you are severely injured or diagnosed with a life-altering disease or debilitating condition. Then you'll be mighty glad you are part of an insurance plan that covers the bulk of the costs of your care. You may be young, strong and healthy now, but you never know when you might need to rely on health insurance. Even the healthiest people get cancer, and rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus, and heart disease, and respiratory problems and any one of many diseases and conditions that don't show up until middle age or later. This is why we have insurance, because you just might need it. And believe me, you will eventually need it.

Not unless there was an option for me to opt out and pay towards a private insurance at a much cheaper rate. 

 

1 hour ago, Curmudgeon said:

Second thing: The principal of insurance is everyone pays in and then receives benefits when they need them. if you want to play dice with your health and well-being, by all means opt out if you dare. (Fun fact: Every resident of BC is required by law to enrol in the BC Medical Plan) Just don't complain when or if you all of a sudden need health care and are presented with a $2000 bill for a trip to the emergency room.

Fun fact, I don't live in BC.

 

1 hour ago, Curmudgeon said:

Third thing: About the car insurance analogy, it is not the same thing at all. If you don't have a car, of course you don't need insurance because you won't be on the road, causing or being victim of an accident. But you can't opt to say "No, I don't need health insurance because I will not get sick or injured." Well, I guess you can say that, but you can't control it like you can control choosing not to drive. 

i'm not suggesting people don't have coverage, i'm suggesting that there should be either an alternative method for people who choose to live healthy live styles vs people who don't.  Or at least a kickback program that reimburses people who don't use the system to the extent of others.  Why am I paying for others poor life choices. 

[aGENT]

16 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

i'm not suggesting people don't have coverage, i'm suggesting that there should be either an alternative method for people who choose to live healthy live styles vs people who don't.  Or at least a kickback program that reimburses people who don't use the system to the extent of others.  Why am I paying for others poor life choices. 

This is why things like sin taxes exist FWIW.

 

One of many reasons I'm all for also taxing things like cane sugar, high fructose corn syrup etc.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 minutes ago, J.R. said:

This is why things like sin taxes exist FWIW.

 

One of many reasons I'm all for also taxing things like cane sugar, high fructose corn syrup etc.

I'd prefer a end year kick back, it would reduce wait times as people would be less inclined to go in for check ups.  Plus it's hard to tax stupidity, which is another cause for high cost.  Also tax hikes created a demand for a black market.  Maybe not so much on corn syrup, but things like cigarettes and soon to be marijuana.  There's a reason why 1/3 of all the cigarettes  purchased in Ontario are contraband.

[aGENT]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I'd prefer a end year kick back, it would reduce wait times as people would be less inclined to go in for check ups.  Plus it's hard to tax stupidity, which is another cause for high cost.  Also tax hikes created a demand for a black market.  Maybe not so much on corn syrup, but things like cigarettes and soon to be marijuana.  There's a reason why 1/3 of all the cigarettes  purchased in Ontario are contraband.

Then you marginalize the poor and reduce care for people who arguably need it most. 

 

Better education would help. More clinics and nurses able to triage people (and send them home for things like sniffles,  normal flus etc) would help.

 

I don't know, sin taxes seem a pretty easy way to tax stupidity 

[ice orca]

32 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I'd prefer a end year kick back, it would reduce wait times as people would be less inclined to go in for check ups.  Plus it's hard to tax stupidity, which is another cause for high cost.  Also tax hikes created a demand for a black market.  Maybe not so much on corn syrup, but things like cigarettes and soon to be marijuana.  There's a reason why 1/3 of all the cigarettes  purchased in Ontario are contraband.

 I would like a kick back on E.I. that i have never used but have paid for my whole working life, maybe roll that into health insurance.

[Curmudgeon]

17 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Why am I paying for others poor life choices. 

Because it is only marginally about lifestyle choices and more about risk factors like genetics, congenital conditions, environmental factors, infectious agents and/or viruses. If it were only about life choices, you might have a point, but it isn't about life choices. I had a close friend who was an ex-WHL player, hiker, cyclist, hunter and fisherman. Never smoked, didn't drink, exercised, ate well, kept his weight in check and, to top it all off, was a wonderful guy that everybody loved. He developed prostate cancer and was gone in less than a year. Now, by your metric, he'd be okay to be part of your insurance plan because he made good life choices. But here's the rub: Despite living as clean and healthy a life as possible, cancer didn't give a sh** and took him out anyway. Net result is the same: you are paying your premiums and they are used to treat people. And when your turn comes, a whole lot of other healthy members of the plan will be paying for your care. This is a feature of both universal health care coverage AND private insurance: everybody pays and everybody benefits. 

 

One final question: Who is the arbiter of what is and isn't a poor life choice? You?

 

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

Because it is only marginally about lifestyle choices and more about risk factors like genetics, congenital conditions, environmental factors, infectious agents and/or viruses. If it were only about life choices, you might have a point, but it isn't about life choices. I had a close friend who was an ex-WHL player, hiker, cyclist, hunter and fisherman. Never smoked, didn't drink, exercised, ate well, kept his weight in check and, to top it all off, was a wonderful guy that everybody loved. He developed prostate cancer and was gone in less than a year. Now, by your metric, he'd be okay to be part of your insurance plan because he made good life choices. But here's the rub: Despite living as clean and healthy a life as possible, cancer didn't give a sh** and took him out anyway. Net result is the same: you are paying your premiums and they are used to treat people. And when your turn comes, a whole lot of other healthy members of the plan will be paying for your care. This is a feature of both universal health care coverage AND private insurance: everybody pays and everybody benefits. 

 

One final question: Who is the arbiter of what is and isn't a poor life choice? You?

 

My premature twin boys who spent 3 and 4 weeks respectively in the NICU didn't make any poor life choices either. Nor did myself or my wife when pregnant with them. Yet there they were at roughly the cost of $3000/day that would have damn near bankrupted us (or at least added SIGNIFICANT debt) without universal coverage.

[D-Money]

12 minutes ago, J.R. said:

My premature twin boys who spent 3 and 4 weeks respectively in the NICU didn't make any poor life choices either. Nor did myself or my wife when pregnant with them. Yet there they were at roughly the cost of $3000/day that would have damn near bankrupted us (or at least added SIGNIFICANT debt) without universal coverage.

1/3 of U.S. bankruptcies are largely due to health care expenses.

 

It's crazy, because I can only imagine what it's like being a regular, middle-income earner in the U.S., and having to worry about what will happen to a member of your family if you lose your job (and, by extension, health care coverage). Or, as is sometimes the case, they contract an illness that is somehow not covered. You'd simply be screwed.

 

The funny thing is, a misdiagnosis like the one in the OP is common in hospitals South of the border too. In fact, researchers suggest that the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S. is medical error (http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/medical-errors-deaths-1.3565736).

 

...That's a shame about her sore foot though...

[ForsbergTheGreat]

9 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

Because it is only marginally about lifestyle choices and more about risk factors like genetics, congenital conditions, environmental factors, infectious agents and/or viruses. If it were only about life choices, you might have a point, but it isn't about life choices. I had a close friend who was an ex-WHL player, hiker, cyclist, hunter and fisherman. Never smoked, didn't drink, exercised, ate well, kept his weight in check and, to top it all off, was a wonderful guy that everybody loved. He developed prostate cancer and was gone in less than a year. Now, by your metric, he'd be okay to be part of your insurance plan because he made good life choices. But here's the rub: Despite living as clean and healthy a life as possible, cancer didn't give a sh** and took him out anyway. Net result is the same: you are paying your premiums and they are used to treat people. And when your turn comes, a whole lot of other healthy members of the plan will be paying for your care. This is a feature of both universal health care coverage AND private insurance: everybody pays and everybody benefits. 

You still don't seem to understand.  I'll try to simplify this for you, I don't care that there are instances where things are unpredictable, that means nothing to this point.

 

Let me ask you, why isn't there one universal car insurance provider?  Why are there so many different vendors, all providing different rates? Why do some people who've got bad driving records pay more than people who's got clean records? 

 

Should we have one universal provider of car insurance and everyone pays the same rates regardless of driving records, age, demographic, and vehicle you drive?

[Curmudgeon]

18 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You still don't seem to understand.  I'll try to simplify this for you

Yes, I do and no, not necessary.

 

If you lived in BC you would know there IS one universal car insurance provider. But don't let fact get in the way of you being right.