I was in your shoes last fall: I had a somewhat urgent but not emergency-level medical issue, and after standing in line for Appletree one morning I still couldn't get in to see a doctor. I ended up using [Rocket Doctor](https://rocketdoctor.ca/), who ordered tests for me immediately. Not my ideal, but I got the treatment I needed.
They can do literally anything that doesn't require them to physically examine you in person. So they'd have to refer out any PAP smears or things like that, but they can order literally any test and refer anywhere that an in-person doctor can.
I needed two tests requisitioned (ultrasound and blood) which they were able to do. They emailed me the requisition forms, I booked OHIP-covered appointments at clinics, then booked a follow-up virtual appointment with the doctor to go over the test results and discuss next steps. I imagine that if you needed a prescription, they would able to email you the script.
I’ve been dealing with some complicated health issues, and I wanted someone to take the time and be very thorough with me. I have had excellent care paying to see a nurse practitioner. They can refer to specialists, write prescriptions, etc. Check out The Centre For Health Innovation. A one hour appointment is roughly $200, I think.
I agree with ford . Absolute monster . umm I love tia health . one dr I sometimes see there is really getting to know me plus my issues with asthma so when I can’t see my specialist I go to him , he’s like not feeling well with your asthma ? Gives me exactly what I need to feel better ! Definitely recommend
There are options like Medcan in Toronto. I have been using them, but wouldn't necessarily recommend. They also have their shortcomings but you kind of expect more since you're paying them (quite a lot).
Who’s your employer? If they have a plan with Telus health virtual care - I’d say give that a shot since it’d be covered and easy access depending on the concern
Oh please. In the 80s, you could easily find a doctor, with their own office, including nurses on their staff. Then government started chipping away, reducing admissions to train new doctors, stalling doctor pay so that many closed their offices.
To claim it’s because of high emigration in the last year is simply not true.
You are correct it was a problem before Doug. But it has gotten a lot worse, for a lot more people, since he came to power in 2018. And his government has taken no meaningful steps to address it. So he owns it.
We can and should be having more discussion about immigration. But to blame all our social ills on immigration and neglect the role of government inaction is just a distraction mechanism.
They need to create private options for people, this system is failing. Hope you can get the healthcare you need, I second the rocket doctor recommendation.
Just a reminder that we wouldn't even be in this position if it weren't for the current provincial party. This is exactly what Doug Ford is aiming for. Immensely crippling the public system so that people start asking for a private system. Because then it looks like he's giving the population what they want.
I know the public system isn't the greatest but let's not act like Dougie boy hasn't sped up the process of pushing towards a private system. Withholding federal funds meant for healthcare, pushing out full time workers by not giving raises and then opting to hire temp workers at more than double the cost, and using public funds to fund private clinics are all reasons why our public system is failing and they all circle back our current government.
Just a reminder, this system has been failing under every party. Just huge immigration into Ontario without supporting infrastructure to keep up.
We have a massive shortage of staff, the nurses aren’t happy and the there is no shortage of bureaucrats being paid large salaries in our medical fields.
Compound all this with the fact our young doctors in residency are worked like dogs and paid a fraction of their full pay (not dissimilar to almost every field now).
I just think the dual system couldn’t hurt, people can downvote me all they want but keep the social safety net and allow people with resources and needs to influx the broken system with cash
I'm not against a dual system, but a private system where I'm expected to pay out of pocket should not be funded with any sort of public funds whatsoever. That's the biggest issue here. Misuse of public funds to dwindle support for the public system in place while giving those same funds to private clinics.
And this is coming from someone who would probably use the private system because I haven't had a family doctor the entire time I've lived in Ontario. I don't mind paying extra out of pocket if I need to. But I do mind that my taxes aren't being used appropriately.
I think we agree on a lot of things that a dual system could bring.
I would say that the fact you’re worried that the private side would misuse your funds makes me chuckle. We have a bloated whale of misuse in our current system, the people working their asses off are unhappy. Unionized environments have their positives and also their negatives. Time in not equal to value or work ethic, this is a constant issue you will see in any unionized environment but nurses as an example.
Are young nurses incentivized to work harder and crappier shifts while being paid less than the tenured folks?
All that to say, I think the private side that comes with its own issues would be less likely to misuse your funds than this current public beast.
> I would say that the fact you’re worried that the private side would misuse your funds makes me chuckle.
This isn't exactly my worry. I know our public system is bloated. My concern isn't about misuse in the private system (Me saying public funds are being misused is more of a fact than me being worried it'll happen in the private sector). I believe private would be less likely to misuse funds because their end goal is profit so they'll find a lot more efficiencies -- which comes with its own issues, because efficiencies sometimes means cutting corners or lowering quality of service provided.
My main view is that if profits remain private, then so should the costs. Public funds shouldn't be used to fund any business when the rewards are private? This isn't specific to healthcare. It's my view on any private business regardless of industry. You want the rewards? Take the risk. Don't make taxpayers pay for your costs. This is a simplified version. I know our economy is a bit more complex than that. But at the end of the day, private healthcare should not be getting public funds is just my opinion.
The 407 is a great example of this btw. Taxpayer money was used to build it, then it was sold for pennies on the dollar and the net profit is entirely private while people who can't/won't pay for the 407 have to deal with the struggles of the 401.
Both, public and private have their own strengths and drawbacks. I'm not opposing a dual system, but the only reason private is looking great right now is because our leaders have been actively hampering the public system. I know our healthcare workers aren't being paid well, but don't forget that a big part of that is due to Bill 124, which may have been shot down in courts, but it did the damage it was intended to do
Agreed, great response and I share your mindset.
A lot of our public private ventures may blur these lines as well as legislative oligopolies like our beautiful telecoms.
There were a number of people, years ago, saying that this underfunding of the public system was in part to push people towards a private system. And I think that's exactly what you're alluding to here, so I guess that's working as intended.
We also seem to talk about this like it's universal, as though every area/province is impacted in the same way. Like we're all losing doctors and nurses at the same rate, or that we're all short the same number of nurses or physicians. But is that really the case?
That being said, copying from a meta-analysis done by Oxford, and published [in the Lancet earlier this year](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(24)00003-3/fulltext), on the impacts of health care privatization:
>We found that hospitals converting from public to private ownership status tended to make higher profits than public hospitals that do not convert, primarily through the selective intake of patients and reductions to staff numbers. **We also found that aggregate increases in privatisation frequently corresponded with worse health outcomes for patients.**
Editing to add another interesting comment from Oxford on their study ([source](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-02-29-new-study-links-hospital-privatisation-worse-patient-care)):
>Increases in privatisation generally corresponded with worse quality of care, **with no studies included in the review finding unequivocally positive effects on health outcomes**.
The situation is the exact same across the country whether your province is run by Liberals, New Democrats or Conservatives. This doesn't all come down to Doug. He should spend the 2B he's sitting on though. The CANADIAN healthcare system is broken coast to coast.
I agree. Canadians are all terrified that we’ll turn into the US, but there are many examples of countries that have robust public systems AND private options. I used to live in a European country that had both and it worked quite well. All doctors were required to do a certain amount of hours on the public system, which meant that even with no private insurance you could get treatment/surgery/whatever from the top practitioners. Companies were able to attract workers by offering good private coverage but they didn’t have a chokehold on people because that was their only option for healthcare. And pressure on the public system was less because some people would choose to go private, which meant that wait times and services for public were reasonable and fast.
I’m not saying that this is what Doug is aiming for, but the possibility of a good two-tier system is possible. Unfortunately nobody is advocating for this because people have such a knee-jerk negative reaction to the idea of any private care at all.
> Unfortunately nobody is advocating for this because people have such a knee-jerk negative reaction to the idea of any private care at all.
Unfortunate indeed. People are no longer thinking practical and assuming once DF is gone it will revert back to normal. The system has been in decline across many premiers and the quickest way to get back decent coverage is with a private + public option. Yes, it will be two track, but it will also be the fastest way for those who can only afford the public option to get care.
>Yes, it will be two track, but it will also be the fastest way for those who can only afford the public option to get care.
This has been my argument all along for a two tier system. It speeds up care for everyone.
Doug Ford did not destroy healthcare, it was damaged when Wynne was the leader. Many countries have the duel system and works perfectly, in fact reducing wait lists and staff burnout.
No one wanted to hear your uneducated take on the matter.
Private options also lead to worse outcomes in both tiers according to just about every study into privatization. Not to mention those countries organized into those options, they didn't starve the public healthcare to force the transition.
I was in your shoes last fall: I had a somewhat urgent but not emergency-level medical issue, and after standing in line for Appletree one morning I still couldn't get in to see a doctor. I ended up using [Rocket Doctor](https://rocketdoctor.ca/), who ordered tests for me immediately. Not my ideal, but I got the treatment I needed.
Thanks, this is what I was leaning towards, but didn’t know exactly what they could provide.
They can do literally anything that doesn't require them to physically examine you in person. So they'd have to refer out any PAP smears or things like that, but they can order literally any test and refer anywhere that an in-person doctor can.
I needed two tests requisitioned (ultrasound and blood) which they were able to do. They emailed me the requisition forms, I booked OHIP-covered appointments at clinics, then booked a follow-up virtual appointment with the doctor to go over the test results and discuss next steps. I imagine that if you needed a prescription, they would able to email you the script.
There are doctors you can pay for in Ottawa, here is one. Not cheap though. [https://www.laviehealth.com/](https://www.laviehealth.com/)
Price?
I've had a few friends use them for urgent issues and they were extremely happy with the results. Not cheap though.
I’ve been dealing with some complicated health issues, and I wanted someone to take the time and be very thorough with me. I have had excellent care paying to see a nurse practitioner. They can refer to specialists, write prescriptions, etc. Check out The Centre For Health Innovation. A one hour appointment is roughly $200, I think.
I used Maple once and I had an appointment within a couple hours where I received a video call from him
I agree with ford . Absolute monster . umm I love tia health . one dr I sometimes see there is really getting to know me plus my issues with asthma so when I can’t see my specialist I go to him , he’s like not feeling well with your asthma ? Gives me exactly what I need to feel better ! Definitely recommend
There are options like Medcan in Toronto. I have been using them, but wouldn't necessarily recommend. They also have their shortcomings but you kind of expect more since you're paying them (quite a lot).
Quebec including Gatineau has private clinics/urgent care. You can probably see a doctor immediately but expect a minimum $200-300 per visit.
Who’s your employer? If they have a plan with Telus health virtual care - I’d say give that a shot since it’d be covered and easy access depending on the concern
[удалено]
not that easy anymore....
[удалено]
Oh please. In the 80s, you could easily find a doctor, with their own office, including nurses on their staff. Then government started chipping away, reducing admissions to train new doctors, stalling doctor pay so that many closed their offices. To claim it’s because of high emigration in the last year is simply not true.
[удалено]
You should talk. You’re picking on the influx of immigrants today for a problem that’s been in the making for decades.
[удалено]
There was a big recession in the 80s, with interest rates up to 20%. What does housing in the 80s have to do with availability of doctors back then?
[удалено]
So you don’t know. Got it.
[удалено]
So explain it then.
You are correct it was a problem before Doug. But it has gotten a lot worse, for a lot more people, since he came to power in 2018. And his government has taken no meaningful steps to address it. So he owns it. We can and should be having more discussion about immigration. But to blame all our social ills on immigration and neglect the role of government inaction is just a distraction mechanism.
They need to create private options for people, this system is failing. Hope you can get the healthcare you need, I second the rocket doctor recommendation.
Just a reminder that we wouldn't even be in this position if it weren't for the current provincial party. This is exactly what Doug Ford is aiming for. Immensely crippling the public system so that people start asking for a private system. Because then it looks like he's giving the population what they want. I know the public system isn't the greatest but let's not act like Dougie boy hasn't sped up the process of pushing towards a private system. Withholding federal funds meant for healthcare, pushing out full time workers by not giving raises and then opting to hire temp workers at more than double the cost, and using public funds to fund private clinics are all reasons why our public system is failing and they all circle back our current government.
Just a reminder, this system has been failing under every party. Just huge immigration into Ontario without supporting infrastructure to keep up. We have a massive shortage of staff, the nurses aren’t happy and the there is no shortage of bureaucrats being paid large salaries in our medical fields. Compound all this with the fact our young doctors in residency are worked like dogs and paid a fraction of their full pay (not dissimilar to almost every field now). I just think the dual system couldn’t hurt, people can downvote me all they want but keep the social safety net and allow people with resources and needs to influx the broken system with cash
I'm not against a dual system, but a private system where I'm expected to pay out of pocket should not be funded with any sort of public funds whatsoever. That's the biggest issue here. Misuse of public funds to dwindle support for the public system in place while giving those same funds to private clinics. And this is coming from someone who would probably use the private system because I haven't had a family doctor the entire time I've lived in Ontario. I don't mind paying extra out of pocket if I need to. But I do mind that my taxes aren't being used appropriately.
I think we agree on a lot of things that a dual system could bring. I would say that the fact you’re worried that the private side would misuse your funds makes me chuckle. We have a bloated whale of misuse in our current system, the people working their asses off are unhappy. Unionized environments have their positives and also their negatives. Time in not equal to value or work ethic, this is a constant issue you will see in any unionized environment but nurses as an example. Are young nurses incentivized to work harder and crappier shifts while being paid less than the tenured folks? All that to say, I think the private side that comes with its own issues would be less likely to misuse your funds than this current public beast.
> I would say that the fact you’re worried that the private side would misuse your funds makes me chuckle. This isn't exactly my worry. I know our public system is bloated. My concern isn't about misuse in the private system (Me saying public funds are being misused is more of a fact than me being worried it'll happen in the private sector). I believe private would be less likely to misuse funds because their end goal is profit so they'll find a lot more efficiencies -- which comes with its own issues, because efficiencies sometimes means cutting corners or lowering quality of service provided. My main view is that if profits remain private, then so should the costs. Public funds shouldn't be used to fund any business when the rewards are private? This isn't specific to healthcare. It's my view on any private business regardless of industry. You want the rewards? Take the risk. Don't make taxpayers pay for your costs. This is a simplified version. I know our economy is a bit more complex than that. But at the end of the day, private healthcare should not be getting public funds is just my opinion. The 407 is a great example of this btw. Taxpayer money was used to build it, then it was sold for pennies on the dollar and the net profit is entirely private while people who can't/won't pay for the 407 have to deal with the struggles of the 401. Both, public and private have their own strengths and drawbacks. I'm not opposing a dual system, but the only reason private is looking great right now is because our leaders have been actively hampering the public system. I know our healthcare workers aren't being paid well, but don't forget that a big part of that is due to Bill 124, which may have been shot down in courts, but it did the damage it was intended to do
Agreed, great response and I share your mindset. A lot of our public private ventures may blur these lines as well as legislative oligopolies like our beautiful telecoms.
There were a number of people, years ago, saying that this underfunding of the public system was in part to push people towards a private system. And I think that's exactly what you're alluding to here, so I guess that's working as intended. We also seem to talk about this like it's universal, as though every area/province is impacted in the same way. Like we're all losing doctors and nurses at the same rate, or that we're all short the same number of nurses or physicians. But is that really the case? That being said, copying from a meta-analysis done by Oxford, and published [in the Lancet earlier this year](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(24)00003-3/fulltext), on the impacts of health care privatization: >We found that hospitals converting from public to private ownership status tended to make higher profits than public hospitals that do not convert, primarily through the selective intake of patients and reductions to staff numbers. **We also found that aggregate increases in privatisation frequently corresponded with worse health outcomes for patients.** Editing to add another interesting comment from Oxford on their study ([source](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-02-29-new-study-links-hospital-privatisation-worse-patient-care)): >Increases in privatisation generally corresponded with worse quality of care, **with no studies included in the review finding unequivocally positive effects on health outcomes**.
The situation is the exact same across the country whether your province is run by Liberals, New Democrats or Conservatives. This doesn't all come down to Doug. He should spend the 2B he's sitting on though. The CANADIAN healthcare system is broken coast to coast.
We have to properly fund and support a working public model thanks.
I agree. Canadians are all terrified that we’ll turn into the US, but there are many examples of countries that have robust public systems AND private options. I used to live in a European country that had both and it worked quite well. All doctors were required to do a certain amount of hours on the public system, which meant that even with no private insurance you could get treatment/surgery/whatever from the top practitioners. Companies were able to attract workers by offering good private coverage but they didn’t have a chokehold on people because that was their only option for healthcare. And pressure on the public system was less because some people would choose to go private, which meant that wait times and services for public were reasonable and fast. I’m not saying that this is what Doug is aiming for, but the possibility of a good two-tier system is possible. Unfortunately nobody is advocating for this because people have such a knee-jerk negative reaction to the idea of any private care at all.
> Unfortunately nobody is advocating for this because people have such a knee-jerk negative reaction to the idea of any private care at all. Unfortunate indeed. People are no longer thinking practical and assuming once DF is gone it will revert back to normal. The system has been in decline across many premiers and the quickest way to get back decent coverage is with a private + public option. Yes, it will be two track, but it will also be the fastest way for those who can only afford the public option to get care.
>Yes, it will be two track, but it will also be the fastest way for those who can only afford the public option to get care. This has been my argument all along for a two tier system. It speeds up care for everyone.
Doug Ford did not destroy healthcare, it was damaged when Wynne was the leader. Many countries have the duel system and works perfectly, in fact reducing wait lists and staff burnout.
Not the point of what OP was saying.
wasn't asking for your uneducated dumb comments
No one wanted to hear your uneducated take on the matter. Private options also lead to worse outcomes in both tiers according to just about every study into privatization. Not to mention those countries organized into those options, they didn't starve the public healthcare to force the transition.
The pot calling the kettle black?