Jenn Dolari

Ever seen Michael Moore's 'Sicko'?

From:

I know many canucks that saw that movie and were shocked at how rosie he painted their healthcare system.

No system is perfect. Much like Jenn, my partner lives in Canada. He talks about some of the negatives up there as well. I've seen some of them when he's needed non-emergency care.

From:

Yes, he did paint a rather rosy picture. But, unlike the profit driven system in the States, the first thing asked of you isn't your credit card number. Nor does anybody find themselves out on the street because they got cancer and had NO coverage whatsoever. No, it's not perfect, and there have been extremes when people fall through the cracks. But, at the end of the day, everybody up here DOES have coverage. The US system cannot say that.

The system up here has been screwed up in recent years by politicians who seem bent on having us convert to the US system, but refuse to admit is, as doing so would be political suicide. The system hasn't been properly covered in ages, and certainly not since around 1995, when our then finance minister Paul Martin turned off the taps to the provinces so he could make his books look good, and forced the provinces to do a lot of rearranging. The Harris government of Ontario, in the late 1990s, took this rearranging too far, and shut down far too many medical facilities, with the loss of thousands of medical practitioners, (many of whom went to the States).

From:

Hospitals, by law, are required to provide stabilizing care before asking any financial information. Its been that way since 1986. That is a huge misnomer that many seem to hang onto.

http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/docs/alertsandbulletins/emtala1.htm

http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm

From:

I stand corrected then. But still, the US has a ssubstantially high percentage of people that has insufficient or no medical coverage, while everybody up here is covered. I think that's the point. Jenn's partner isn't going to be bankrupt because of this infection.

We don't have any 'death panels' up here either.

From:

not to sound incredibly cold, 1/6 of the population is uninsured. That's not a "substantially high percentage" that's about 15%. Completely changing a system that covers 85% of the population seems to be overkill.

I've been uninsured. I've gone to the hospital while being uninsured. The bill was $16K. I called the hospital, told them I can't afford that. They lowered it to $8K, plus gave me afew years to pay it off with no interest. I know many people who have gotten huge hospital bills, then just blow it off. If you call them, they are happy to work something out. If you ignore them, they do get pissed off.

If I was in charge, I'd require the private insurance companies to setup pools for those not covered by work insurance and allow individuals to buy in at a group rate. Try to work within the existing framework than re-design it from the ground up. The other thing I'd do is push for heavy tort reform to limit lawsuits against doctors. California passed tort reform many years ago and has much lower medical bills. Much of the expense in a medical bill is malpractice insurance, as well as other liability related insurance.

From:

15% seems pretty horrendous to me...and what about those who don't have enough coverage? You might have had your bill halved by the 'good graces' of the hospital you went to, but consider that I prolly wouldn't have had to pay a damn thing up here. $8k is a lot of Tim Horton's Double-Doubles.

Doesn't it make more sense to have a single payer system in which everybody is covered and there's no profit skimmed off the top to pay executives seven figure salaries? Doesn't it seem a little foul to you that people are making money off the medical misfortunes of others? We like our system up here, and we're all looking south and shaking our heads.

From:

If an employer provide crappy insurance, I think there should be some safety nets out there. This is why I'd love to see pools required at the insurance companies that others can join if they wish.

If an employer provides good insurance, but someone chooses not to get it, there shouldn't be. My employer gives me about 4 options for coverage. Each has different costs and different deductibles. If someone goes for the cheap plan with a high deductible (one plan is about $10/mo, with a $6K deductable), ends up in the hospital and starts complaining about a $6K bill, I have little/no sympathy for them. They chose the higher risk plan. Insurance is gambling. You're gambling on how healthy you will be.

to answer your 2 questions, no and no. I'd rather see some reform done in the existing systems rather than toss it all out for a new one. It seems odd to toss out a system which works for a majority of people rather than trying to offer help to the ones that it doesn't work for within the existing system.

From:

I don't think the rest of the westernized world would agree with you. I think they see the US system as needlessly complex., with far too many people falling through the cracks.

From:

Many do. I had a Canadien friend move here and he was insured. He was terrified to go to the doctor because of all he had heard.. I brought him.. he paid his $10 copay and was done.. he was shocked at how easy it was, when insured. Its not complex if you're used to it. Plus we don't have some of the extra fees I've seen up there, like dispensing fees that pharamcies charge. I think that's taking advantage of the sick up there..

From:

Have to agree, 15% is a HORRENDOUS number. I want that to 0%. I really believe that healthcare is a fundamental right and no one should have to live with an issue that is chronic only because "I can't afford to fix it" ::looks at my ankles::

I'm part of that 15% right now (have been most of my adult life). Emily, had she been in the US, would also have been. She would have been treated down here. But she'd pretty much have to declare bankruptcy...assuming it's $30,000 for the almost two week treatment, that's 500% of her yearly income (no, I'm not joking or exaggerating).

From:

To be totally fair, they don't ask for your credit card up front. They DO ask if your insured and that makes a HUGE difference in the care you get.

Example the firste:

2006 or so I had a gall bladder attack. DNP had an AMAZING insurance plan. I went to an emergency room, was asked if I had insurance, was taken aside for a quick interview about my problem, put into an emergecy bed, given an ultrasound which determined I had gallstones but was no longer inflammed (in the hour I was in bed, the attack subsided). I was given a prescription for Darvocet which I picked up on the way home. Total out of pocket expenses $110 ($100 emergency care, $10 prescription).

Example the Seconde: Uninsured, with a possibly broken ankle. Went to an "urgent care" clinic instead of an emergency room. I was asked if I was insured, which I was not. I was seen in about 30 minutes (not bad). The doctor saw me, tapped around my ankle a few times, asked me to flex once or twice, declared the ankle sprained and sent me on my way. When I asked for an X-Ray (I've broken my ankle enough times to know the difference between a sprain and a break), he refused, saying it would be unaffordable (he told ME that, I didn't tell him it would be). No pain prescription (I used the left over darvocet for that) and only an ace bandage for compression. Was off my feet for three days as my ankle was unusable, and limping for several months (I've never had a sprain that lasted more than a day). Total cost $125. I could have had the same exact "treatment" by staying home and elevating the ankle. To this day the ankle still aches every so often.

Not sure how the BC healthcare system would have handled it, but im sure itdd be somewhere closer to that first example than the last.

From:

Example 4: Mom had emergency gall bladder surgery with absolutely no insurance. $29,000. She has pretty much blown off the cost ("I'll be long dead before I ever see $29,000 again") and simply never answers her phone anymore.

Example 5: Erin's right leg snapped in half, literally. Emergency surgery was done to reset the leg. Cost $24,000. She did have the hospital treat her surgery ss a "charity case" but this dropped the price to only $19,000. Its more than she makes in a year in her current job, and she dutifully pays what she can when she can, and will be for a LONG time.

From:

'Charity case', no painkillers or x-rays, no proper diagnosis for something simple, no proper treatment...where's the upside?

I view the position of 'if the cost of proper medical treatment for those who can afford it means some people fall through the cracks' as a modern day version of 'let them eat cake'. Are low income people not deserving of medical care too? Why not go the whole hog and bring back workhouses and debtors' prisons?

Now that you're nicely, gainfully employed at AwesomeJob, have you considered finally getting that ankle properly looked at?

From: