Canadian Healthcare for individuals

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    The Canadian study concluded:

    o As many as 24,000 patients die each year due to "adverse events" (doctors code words for a medical mistake).

    o 87,500 patients admitted annually to Canadian acute care hospitals experience an adverse event.

    o 1 in 13 adult patients admitted to a Canadian hospital encounter an adverse event.

    o 1 in 19 adults will potentially be given the wrong medication or wrong medication dosage.

    o 37% of adverse events are "highly" preventable.

    o 24% of preventable adverse events are related to medication error.

    A report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) indicated that nearly one quarter of Canadian adults (5.2 million people) reported that they, or a member of their family, had experienced a "preventable adverse event" (medical error).

    Are Canadian Medical Malpractice Claims Different Than in the U. S.?

    In a word; yes.

    Lot's of people have read about large jury awards for personal injury claims in the United States. Sometimes the American jury awards seem to be out of proportion to the injury.

    In Canada, court awards are much lower than awards for similar injuries from courts in the United States. Cases that might be successful in the U.S. are simply not economically feasible to pursue in Canada.

    For example, the province of Nova Scotia also has some of the most conservative (lowest) awards in Canada for compensation for personal injury claims.

    Role of the C.M.P.A.:

    In Canada, most doctors are defended by a single organization, the Canadian Medical Protection Association (the C.M.P.A.).

    According to a recent annual report, the C.M.P.A. has two point nine (2.9) BILLION DOLLARS in assets (money in the bank). The C.M.P.A. is able to use this money to hire the best experts and lawyers money can buy.

    Many victims of serious medical errors cannot work, or have huge expenses for ongoing rehabilitation or medical care.

    Against such overwhelming financial odds, Canadian victims of medical malpractice face an almost insurmountable challenge to obtain justice and fair compensation for their injuries.

    Remember the Canadian Medical Association Journal study that determined that over 87,000 patients in Canada suffer an adverse event and as many as 24,000 people die each year due to medical errors? That's more than 100,000 potential malpractice claims in Canada every year!

    But between 2002 and 2006 the C.M.P.A. reports only 5246 lawsuits were filed against doctors in Canada: only about a 1000 claims per year.

    In other words, out of 100,000 potential claims 99% of potential medical malpractice victims never even filed a claim!

    The C.M.P.A. reports it's success rate in defending claims brought against doctors. More than 3800 of the 5000 claims were dismissed or abandoned because the victim or his or her family quit or ran out of money, or died before trial.

    Some Frightening Statistics:

    o The C.M.P.A. settled only 229 claims out of court (usually after several years of litigation and just before trial).

    o Of the 577 cases that went to trial only 121 resulted in a verdict for the Plaintiff victim. In other words, only twenty percent (20%) of medical malpractice plaintiffs actually won their trial.

    o For the few victims who won at trial, the median damage award was only $95,500.00.

    o In 2006 the C.M.P.A. spent 72 million dollars on legal fees to defend doctors across Canada.

    o Of more than 5000 lawsuits filed against doctors, only two percent (2%) resulted in trial verdicts for the victim.

    In other words, 98% of Canadian medical malpractice victims never receive a penny in compensation!

    The odds against medical malpractice victims are almost overwhelming. If you think you or a family member has suffered an injury or loss as a result of medical malpractice it is critical to get proper advice. An experienced medical malpractice lawyer can tell you if you have a potential claim and can advise you what you need to prove to have the best chance of winning your case.

    John McKiggan is a medical malpractice lawyer from Halifax, Nova Scotia and a founding partner in the law firm Arnold Pizzo McKiggan. Mr. McKiggan has been representing victims of medical malpractice for 18 years.



    Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1192041

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Do you know how many medical errors occur in American Hospitals? Something like 100,000/year.

    And people think med. mal. suits are "frivolous"...  



    Canada less than 35 million people

    USA more than 300 million people

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    Canada has a subpar govt run healthcare system. It doesnt mean our will be to with more govt involvement; it just means govt run HC can suck and may not be the savior that some act like it is!

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    Your post is meaningless unless you are prepared to post the same numbers with regards to the US.

    Either way..it's difficult to overcome the US' low ranking among industrialized nations. No doubt our quality and research is near the top...but without access it is meaningless.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Canada has a subpar govt run healthcare system. 



    Both U.S. and Canadian systems are well above par.  That should not be mistaken.

    The question is which is superior, and a plurality of sources favor the latter in most categories.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Canada has a subpar govt run healthcare system. 

    Both U.S. and Canadian systems are well above par.  That should not be mistaken.

    The question is which is superior, and a plurality of sources favor the latter in most categories. 



    Im not comparing with any one else. Im saying if, you have this high level of malpractice issues you have a subpar system!

    The real point is to have private industry or govt run it.

    With private industry at least you have someone to hold accountible and other options when they f-up.

    Govt run HC may be cheaper by the avg individual cost but, at what level sacrifice to service and health?

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Canada has a subpar govt run healthcare system. 

    Both U.S. and Canadian systems are well above par.  That should not be mistaken.

    The question is which is superior, and a plurality of sources favor the latter in most categories. 

     



    Im not comparing with any one else. Im saying if, you have this high level of malpractice issues you have a subpar system!


    You're comparing to "par".  As in, an average of what other countries are doing.  BY that average, Canada's is well above par.  This is well established.

     

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    How many don't have access to health care in this country?


    i.e., how many people can afford it.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    Your post is meaningless unless you are prepared to post the same numbers with regards to the US.

    Either way..it's difficult to overcome the US' low ranking among industrialized nations. No doubt our quality and research is near the top...but without access it is meaningless.

     



    If you rank healthcare systems by criteria they have no control over, then yes the US ranks pretty low. But why would you rank a healthcare system by criteria they have no control over like deaths by accidents, murders, suicides, drug overdoses, obeisity, etc? You would if you have an agenda.

     




    Access is a valid criteria. You can have the best healthcare in the world in terms of quality...but if a significant amount of your citizens can't access it because of lack of affordability..then it is essentially meaningless. You may have great health care...but a healthcare system..not so much.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Your post is meaningless unless you are prepared to post the same numbers with regards to the US.

    Either way..it's difficult to overcome the US' low ranking among industrialized nations. No doubt our quality and research is near the top...but without access it is meaningless.

    If you rank healthcare systems by criteria they have no control over, then yes the US ranks pretty low. But why would you rank a healthcare system by criteria they have no control over like deaths by accidents, murders, suicides, drug overdoses, obeisity, etc? You would if you have an agenda.


    Access is a valid criteria. You can have the best healthcare in the world in terms of quality...but if a significant amount of your citizens can't access it because of lack of affordability..then it is essentially meaningless. You may have great health care...but a healthcare system..not so much.

     




     

    Ah, but perhaps you mistake the conservative mindset on this one:They can afford the care, so they want it to be the best possible. If that means that a large percentage of the country cannot afford care, well, it's not their job to worry about those people.

     




    Ha...good point. There is definitely a "head in the sand" mentality whenever it is mentioned that many people can't afford health care in this country. 

    Another play in the book is where they like to say that people flock to the US for healthcare. Not true. Wealthy people may come here for elective surgeries...and the very poor who come here through grants..but they also go to other countries as well. I doubt you'd see anyone from Canada flocking to US pharmacies to fill prescriptions...or people from Germany flocking to the US for elective surgery.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Your post is meaningless unless you are prepared to post the same numbers with regards to the US.

    Either way..it's difficult to overcome the US' low ranking among industrialized nations. No doubt our quality and research is near the top...but without access it is meaningless.

    If you rank healthcare systems by criteria they have no control over, then yes the US ranks pretty low. But why would you rank a healthcare system by criteria they have no control over like deaths by accidents, murders, suicides, drug overdoses, obeisity, etc? You would if you have an agenda.


    Access is a valid criteria. You can have the best healthcare in the world in terms of quality...but if a significant amount of your citizens can't access it because of lack of affordability..then it is essentially meaningless. You may have great health care...but a healthcare system..not so much.

     




     

    Ah, but perhaps you mistake the conservative mindset on this one:They can afford the care, so they want it to be the best possible. If that means that a large percentage of the country cannot afford care, well, it's not their job to worry about those people.

     

     



    You guys can cluck on all you want but as usual moonbat clucking does nothing to get results. THe facts never get in the way.

     

    Then you make some dumb pronouncement with no data that somehow conservatives can afford care and liberals can't? That is priceless ignorance from the self-proclaimed smartest people in the world.

    Then you imply that if you do not have access (according to some nebulous and secret definition) then it doesn't matter how good your healthcare system is. OK, then why not just rank access, call it a healthcare ranking and be done with it? Oh, is it because if you have access to a lousy healthcare system, then what difference does the access make?

    Have you ranked how affordable the whole mess you want is for the country when it is already $16 trillion in debt? I doubt it becaue that doesn't suit your agenda.

    YOu still don't address why healthcare systems are ranked by criteria they have no control over - it's done to get results you want to push your agenda.




    If you don't understand how the criteria used by the WHO to rank healthcare systems relates directly back to the then really..you need to do some more homework. You are comparing apples and oranges. You need to learn how outcomes are measured systemically..not in terms of one's individual experience.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    Your post is meaningless unless you are prepared to post the same numbers with regards to the US.

    Either way..it's difficult to overcome the US' low ranking among industrialized nations. No doubt our quality and research is near the top...but without access it is meaningless.

     



    Costa Rica has a better ranking than US. You telling me Costa Rica has better health care than the US? That tells me all I need to know about how the ranking works.

     




    If they have a better ranking it's because they have better overall outcomes for the entire population. I am sure their research and treatment is not as sophisticated as ours..but clearly what they are doing works for them. The same cannot be said for us.

    Outside of the state of MA..there are plenty of people who don't have access to quality healthcare...only to emergency or urgent care..when outcomes are less likely to be successful.

    Many lower working class people do not have access to the kind of preventative care that improves overall outcomes in everyone. 

    In Ma the numbers are somewhat lower because there is healthcare reform...but even then..there are exceptions. I know a woman who works at my hairdressers. She opted to pay the fine because she couldn't afford health insurance..made too much to qualify for any assistance..but not enough to be able to afford to pay for health insurance, food, housing, etc.  She never went to the doctors because she couldn't afford to pay out of pocket either. Then..she started having a lot of pains and her health deteriorated. She wound up in a hospital emergency room where she was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The cancer had spread to her bones..so her outcome is not going to be a good one. Sadly..stories like this one happen across the country daily. Hardworking people who just can't afford the cost of our healthcare and therefore don't seek treatment until it's too late.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

     

    Country healthcare systems are often ranked by life expectancy or that is included in some overall ranking process.

     

     


    Life expectancy is just one metric.  Infant mortality rate is another.  The overall quality is an aggregation of these different factors and many others.

     

    In both of these metrics, the US and Canada are above average (over par).  The latter ranks better than US in both categories, which are at least partially controllable by doctors.

    The US might lead in complicated procedures, but as a rule, they are much less prevalent, so weighting to the stats applies.

    Again, these numbers aren't mysterious.  The facts are well-documented on what's good, what's bad, how much it costs, and how much we spend.

     

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Canadian Healthcare for individuals

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     If that means that a large percentage of the country cannot afford care, well, it's not their job to worry about those people.

     




    EVERYONE IN THE USA IS GUARANTEED HEALTHCARE BY LAW!!!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share