Words You Won't Hear in Canadian Health Care

[TimandJoyce 1]

What is the usual starting salary for GP physicians in Canada?

$5.50/hr and a bag of lint. jug of maple syrup.

Fixed.

[HAL 9000 96]

We pay monthly premiums in BC, so that ones wrong.

You're from BC. Cool, me too. I don't pay for my medical, it's paid for me. I don't make enough money to pay....

That's something else about the system. If your annual income is less than so much, you'll get 100% premium, and you're covered.

I like Kathryn, will miss this.

In 2004, my late husband was in an accident. He was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, stayed there over night, had a cat scan to show he had a broken neck, airlifted to Victoria, stayed in the hospital for two weeks, had surgery, and was driven back home, ( 3 hour drive). Our house needed to be outfitted with medical equipment to make his life easier as he healed.

We didn't have to pay for any of the above.

Hope he healed 100%.

I am curious about one thing... since opponents to these kinds of insurance/medical systems quite often cite how people end up waiting for months for therapies... wouldn't that mean that your hubby would've had to wait also to receive parts of that treatment? According to their logic I mean.

Sadly he died two months after the accident. Not from his injuries, but from some STUPID choices he made. He was healing rather nicely though. We didn't have to wait for the medical equipment, it was installed in the house the day before he came home. And his surgeon wanted X-rays sent to him at the 4 week mark, to see how he was healing. We did do that, but he died two days later. We would have gotten notice as to when physio would start, and I assume it would have been sometime in the middle of July or early August for that. ( He died July 4th, accident was May 3rd. ) However, because of his death, I really don't know how long we would have waited till we got the green light it was ok for him to work again.

I sincerely apologize...

Hell, if we could lower the malpractice lawsuits as well, maybe doctors would order fewer unnecessary tests just to cover their a$ later on. Last I heard, Texas is considered to have relatively inexpensive malpractice insurance somewhere around $80,000 per year. In some places it can rise as high as $200,000 per year. It also depends on the specialty, too. Because of the high rate of frivolous malpractice lawsuits, fewer and fewer people are becoming OB/GYNs nowadays and that can't be good for women (pregnant or not).

The CBO disagrees with you on the actual benefit of limiting malpractice lawsuits:

Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)

It has also been shown time and again that action taken in various states to lower a physician's potential exposure to malpractice suits has resulted in fewer cases and lower awards and yet, the malpractice insurance rates in those states still went up. If anything needs reform, it's - again - the insurance business which makes fat profits in this insurance sector.

It did seem rather a dubious assertion that the state of the national healthcare system rests solely on the shoulders of cynical lawyers and dodgy lawsuits.

That said of course, when you have insurers meddling in your care behind the scenes - its not really surprising that people would go to the courts.

I never said it rests entirely on malpractice. It does, however, severely hurt the medical profession.

True, it needs to be controlled... but the hurt on the profession is more psychological than monetary- unless you are referring to the gouging by insurers of professionals.

Just like any other insurance system... just taken to the extreme because the insinuation of people's health is involved.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hell, if we could lower the malpractice lawsuits as well, maybe doctors would order fewer unnecessary tests just to cover their a$$ later on. Last I heard, Texas is considered to have relatively inexpensive malpractice insurance somewhere around $80,000 per year. In some places it can rise as high as $200,000 per year. It also depends on the specialty, too. Because of the high rate of frivolous malpractice lawsuits, fewer and fewer people are becoming OB/GYNs nowadays and that can't be good for women (pregnant or not).

The CBO disagrees with you on the actual benefit of limiting malpractice lawsuits:

Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)

It has also been shown time and again that action taken in various states to lower a physician's potential exposure to malpractice suits has resulted in fewer cases and lower awards and yet, the malpractice insurance rates in those states still went up. If anything needs reform, it's - again - the insurance business which makes fat profits in this insurance sector.

It did seem rather a dubious assertion that the state of the national healthcare system rests solely on the shoulders of cynical lawyers and dodgy lawsuits.

It's one of those arguments put forth to deflect from the real issues and culprits.

[MissStacey 1]

Hell, if we could lower the malpractice lawsuits as well, maybe doctors would order fewer unnecessary tests just to cover their a$$ later on.

I think the above is one of the things that needs fixed in the US system. If we can fix the lawyers and the insurance companies, life is good. I am one of the fortunate ones who has fantastic healthcare coverage and could never be wiped out by any catastrophic events mentioned previously. My out of pocket maximum is only $3000.

I will say that seeing my husband's care in Ontario was appalling and if that's what "free" healthcare is, I want no part of it. He was having gall bladder attacks, but it took 3 weeks to see his doctor, 4 weeks to get an ultrasound and 2 weeks to get the results. So for someone to diagnose him, it took 9 weeks. He then waited another 3 weeks to see a surgeon and 10 weeks to have it removed. From beginning to end, we're talking 31 weeks - over 7 months. I understand if he were dying, they would have done surgery, but anyone who's had gall bladder attacks can imagine how difficult it is to live your live for 7 months with them. I had them for 3 weeks, was diagnosed and had surgery in 9 days.

Another kicker is that his doctor retired 4 months ago and currently he has no doctor. He has been on a waiting list this entire time. When things come up, he has to go to a clinic or the emergency room.

I haven't heard specifics from the government regarding their "plan", but being someone with good coverage, it scares me. Government involvement is rarely a good thing, particularly in medical - look at Medicare. Also, I truly hope that Americans realize this will not be free because those that I talk with about it are shocked when I tell them what kind of taxes my husband pays in Canada. I will never quit being amazed (until he moves lol) at the taxes he pays. Incredible.

The other thing I truly hope is that no one will b1tch about paying for their neighbor who weighs 400 pounds and smokes like a chimney. I have to admit that I do not like the idea of paying for someone else's healthcare coverage when I have no input on their health. Why should I pay for someone who does nothing to take care of themselves? Hopefully you catch my drift there and don't think I'm just a selfish American.

Sorry to hear that about your husband SomberCat. A friend of mine went through the same thing when she had gallbladder problems. Her first attack happened when we were on a plane together- I knew right away it was her gallbladder because I went through the same thing. It took weeks of tests and misdiagnoses before they confirmed it was her gallbladder- she finally got it removed once she was able to get in to the surgeon and get a date booked.

I totally lucked out when it came to my gallbladder attacks- I went to the hospital two night in a row, the second night they kept me and took it out the next day.

Edited July 22, 2009 by MissStacey

[DeadPoolX 9]

We pay monthly premiums in BC, so that ones wrong.

You're from BC. Cool, me too. I don't pay for my medical, it's paid for me. I don't make enough money to pay....

That's something else about the system. If your annual income is less than so much, you'll get 100% premium, and you're covered.

I like Kathryn, will miss this.

In 2004, my late husband was in an accident. He was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, stayed there over night, had a cat scan to show he had a broken neck, airlifted to Victoria, stayed in the hospital for two weeks, had surgery, and was driven back home, ( 3 hour drive). Our house needed to be outfitted with medical equipment to make his life easier as he healed.

We didn't have to pay for any of the above.

Hope he healed 100%.

I am curious about one thing... since opponents to these kinds of insurance/medical systems quite often cite how people end up waiting for months for therapies... wouldn't that mean that your hubby would've had to wait also to receive parts of that treatment? According to their logic I mean.

Sadly he died two months after the accident. Not from his injuries, but from some STUPID choices he made. He was healing rather nicely though. We didn't have to wait for the medical equipment, it was installed in the house the day before he came home. And his surgeon wanted X-rays sent to him at the 4 week mark, to see how he was healing. We did do that, but he died two days later. We would have gotten notice as to when physio would start, and I assume it would have been sometime in the middle of July or early August for that. ( He died July 4th, accident was May 3rd. ) However, because of his death, I really don't know how long we would have waited till we got the green light it was ok for him to work again.

I sincerely apologize...

Hell, if we could lower the malpractice lawsuits as well, maybe doctors would order fewer unnecessary tests just to cover their a$ later on. Last I heard, Texas is considered to have relatively inexpensive malpractice insurance somewhere around $80,000 per year. In some places it can rise as high as $200,000 per year. It also depends on the specialty, too. Because of the high rate of frivolous malpractice lawsuits, fewer and fewer people are becoming OB/GYNs nowadays and that can't be good for women (pregnant or not).

The CBO disagrees with you on the actual benefit of limiting malpractice lawsuits:

Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)

It has also been shown time and again that action taken in various states to lower a physician's potential exposure to malpractice suits has resulted in fewer cases and lower awards and yet, the malpractice insurance rates in those states still went up. If anything needs reform, it's - again - the insurance business which makes fat profits in this insurance sector.

It did seem rather a dubious assertion that the state of the national healthcare system rests solely on the shoulders of cynical lawyers and dodgy lawsuits.

That said of course, when you have insurers meddling in your care behind the scenes - its not really surprising that people would go to the courts.

I never said it rests entirely on malpractice. It does, however, severely hurt the medical profession.

True, it needs to be controlled... but the hurt on the profession is more psychological than monetary- unless you are referring to the gouging by insurers of professionals.

Just like any other insurance system... just taken to the extreme because the insinuation of people's health is involved.

Well, both my dad and my aunt (my dad's sister) are both physicians and I can tell you that it's far more than merely psychological. A lot of money gets dumped just in case someone decides to sue for whatever reason.

[Krikit 1,163]

In 2004, my late husband was in an accident. He was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, stayed there over night, had a cat scan to show he had a broken neck, airlifted to Victoria, stayed in the hospital for two weeks, had surgery, and was driven back home, ( 3 hour drive). Our house needed to be outfitted with medical equipment to make his life easier as he healed.

Hugs to you, Joyce.

Ugh, I couldn't neatly address questions in all the nested comments so I'm going to try to do this off the top of my head. Procedures done in the US to avoid the waiting lists in Canada are reimburseable, but I am sure there are guidelines which must be followed. Likewise, "executive" supplemental healthcare is available to those who can afford it or are employed by organizations which offer them as a part of their benefits package. There is also the standard supplemental healthcare which is a regular benefit for most organizations.

While there are some horror stories out there, as there would be anywhere, for the most part the system works well. True emergencies are addressed in a timely fashion. Elective surgery.... meaning non-emergency.... are scheduled on a first-come first-served basis, however appointments can be pushed through faster if the attending physician is concerned with a delay.

[HAL 9000 96]

Physicians don't want to practice certain specialties due to the costs involved in getting insured and the likelihood of getting sued. That's fairly psychological. Not t mention the prestige lost and the loss of license when it is shown that malpractice has occurred. Still this occurs in a minority of cases does it not?

Given that the majority of patients don't sue, those MDs in said fields pony up the costs to get insured or they get absorbed by their partnerships (hospital, practice, etc). Maybe you're referring to the insurance costs per se?

In 2004, my late husband was in an accident. He was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, stayed there over night, had a cat scan to show he had a broken neck, airlifted to Victoria, stayed in the hospital for two weeks, had surgery, and was driven back home, ( 3 hour drive). Our house needed to be outfitted with medical equipment to make his life easier as he healed.

Hugs to you, Joyce.

Ugh, I couldn't neatly address questions in all the nested comments so I'm going to try to do this off the top of my head. Procedures done in the US to avoid the waiting lists in Canada are reimburseable, but I am sure there are guidelines which must be followed. Likewise, "executive" supplemental healthcare is available to those who can afford it or are employed by organizations which offer them as a part of their benefits package. There is also the standard supplemental healthcare which is a regular benefit for most organizations.

While there are some horror stories out there, as there would be anywhere, for the most part the system works well. True emergencies are addressed in a timely fashion. Elective surgery.... meaning non-emergency.... are scheduled on a first-come first-served basis, however appointments can be pushed through faster if the attending physician is concerned with a delay.

Thank you.

I wonder where the naysayers are regarding this tidbit.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Physicians don't want to practice certain specialties due to the costs involved in getting insured and the likelihood of getting sued. That's fairly psychological. Not t mention the prestige lost and the loss of license when it is shown that malpractice has occurred. Still this occurs in a minority of cases does it not?

Given that the majority of patients don't sue, those MDs in said fields pony up the costs to get insured or they get absorbed by their partnerships (hospital, practice, etc). Maybe you're referring to the insurance costs per se?

It's practical. Any physician that lacks malpractice insurance is an idiot.

[Krikit 1,163]

Thank you.

I wonder where the naysayers are regarding this tidbit.

In the border States you will see/hear them advertising their medical services on the Canadian channels.

[HAL 9000 96]

Physicians don't want to practice certain specialties due to the costs involved in getting insured and the likelihood of getting sued. That's fairly psychological. Not t mention the prestige lost and the loss of license when it is shown that malpractice has occurred. Still this occurs in a minority of cases does it not?

Given that the majority of patients don't sue, those MDs in said fields pony up the costs to get insured or they get absorbed by their partnerships (hospital, practice, etc). Maybe you're referring to the insurance costs per se?

It's practical. Any physician that lacks malpractice insurance is an idiot.

And idiot to the nth power of stupid.

[thetreble 19]

I lived in Canada for 23 years of my life and can say with 100% honesty that I never waited 3 weeks to see my doctor, even when I had something like strep throat. Most I waited was 3 or 4 days. I had three different doctors over my life time there and this did not change.

If you have to wait 4 weeks to see your doctor, you should probably get a new one. I lived in a pretty busy area as well so it wasn't a thing of person to doctor ratio.

To be honest with you, every one is entitled to their own opinion. But, my mother was diagnosed with colon cancer in summer of 2008, received her treatments in due time, and is now in remission. I think every one has their own experiences within their own healthcare system.

But I was always treated well in Canada. I've been treated well here in the US, too. It's just come at a high cost.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I lived in Canada for 23 years of my life and can say with 100% honesty that I never waited 3 weeks to see my doctor, even when I had something like strep throat. Most I waited was 3 or 4 days. I had three different doctors over my life time there and this did not change.

If you have to wait 4 weeks to see your doctor, you should probably get a new one. I lived in a pretty busy area as well so it wasn't a thing of person to doctor ratio.

To be honest with you, every one is entitled to their own opinion. But, my mother was diagnosed with colon cancer in summer of 2008, received her treatments in due time, and is now in remission. I think every one has their own experiences within their own healthcare system.

But I was always treated well in Canada. I've been treated well here in the US, too. It's just come at a high cost.

I can see my GP practically any time I want. It's just when I need to see a specialist that I have to wait a long time. As I said, I need to see an ENT and the soonest I could get in would be fourth months down the road.

[thetreble 19]

And that is probably one of the downfalls, deadpool. I side with you there that it doesn't work well in all those cases in terms of seeing specialists.

But, I also think it's how your doctor approaches your referral and who he sends you to. When my mum had to get chemo, she was in and out of specialist offices all the time. She saw the specialist literally a week after her doctor said she needed to go get further tests. Maybe our doctor is like a god.

[DeadPoolX 9]

And that is probably one of the downfalls, deadpool. I side with you there that it doesn't work well in all those cases in terms of seeing specialists.

But, I also think it's how your doctor approaches your referral and who he sends you to. When my mum had to get chemo, she was in and out of specialist offices all the time. She saw the specialist literally a week after her doctor said she needed to go get further tests. Maybe our doctor is like a god.

Needing chemo is also a little more important than my nasal/sinus issues. I'll probably need corrective surgery, but my life isn't dependent on that.

[thetreble 19]

And that is probably one of the downfalls, deadpool. I side with you there that it doesn't work well in all those cases in terms of seeing specialists.

But, I also think it's how your doctor approaches your referral and who he sends you to. When my mum had to get chemo, she was in and out of specialist offices all the time. She saw the specialist literally a week after her doctor said she needed to go get further tests. Maybe our doctor is like a god.

Needing chemo is also a little more important than my nasal/sinus issues. I'll probably need corrective surgery, but my life isn't dependent on that.

My brother had to have corrective surgery on his nose for his deviated septum. To be honest, got him in there in a month and it was over. We have a contact over at the maple leaf's office in toronto and because my brother is a hockey player, they somehow pushed him through.