I don't understand the idea that insurance companies shouldn't see your medical records in order to qualify you for insurance coverage.
Who should be allowed access to your medical records?
- Thread starter Vanni Fucci
- Start date
Yep, that makes ABSOLUTELY no sense at all. The rule of thumb for insurance is that premiums are set according to risk. :smile:
Not for long, Vanni's going to take the big insurance bad guys on, all the way to the SCC. The Rev will take second chair.
He's read the Oakes Test, (which he'd never heard of until I told him about it). Read hundreds, (If not thousands by now) case law articles.
And now obviously knows infinitely better than the SCC.
Soon you'll be able to get million dollar policies for pennies a day, on your death bed. That will actually pay out!
Last edited:
Well, I did deliver pizzas at one time, for two years, (because the pay was pretty good), but I would never gladly divulge my medical records. The wage commensurate with a profession is not a right, it is earned by determination and hard work, its not like winning a lottery. Pilots are not required to divulge their medical records to an employer. They are, however, required to divulge, or self report any condition that would make them unfit, preferably to their doctor. Pilots are also required to inform their doctor that they are pilots, and doctors are also required to report to the Transport Canada aviation medical office any condition that may deem you unfit, (surprisingly, many doctors don't know this).
This is not like handing over your medical records to uninformed parties, like employers or the public, it sharing only that information which is relevant, and only between medical professionals. Seeing how even that can turn into a gong show, (try getting three or more doctors to agree is like trying to get as many lawyers to do the same), I could never agree to carte blanche divulsion of all medical records for any reason except by court order, even then, cause would have to be reasonably proven. And a big no to the nanny statists, "in the interest of safety" is not reasonable.
I would like to know if you, or anyone else here, has actually seen their medical records. I haven't seen mine. I have seen enough of them that I know I wouldn't want anyone else to, but again, those were just records pertenant to a particular issue. All my records would probably fill five evidence boxes.
When you fill out the questionaire and tick off a yes box, the insurance companies will usually ask for an explaination or letter from your attending physician. Again, that is responding to something specific. Giving anyone access to your medical records is giving them permission to go on a fishing trip.
Insurance companies don't need to see your medical records prior to insuring you. Even if you lie on a health questionaire, if your pre-existing condition results in a claim occurring more than two years after the questionaire they generally have no recourse.
Because in places without universal health care, people with a medical history are routinely refused health insurance. The idea that insurers should not be able to see medical histories is nothing other than an assertion in favor of universal health coverage.
The point is that medical history doesn't tell you if the potential employee has back problems. It might tell you that the potential employee had back problems. A medical examination will tell you what you need to know, a medical history won't. Plus if they have no history of back problems, it does not mean that they don't have back problems. So you need to do the examination anyways...
No., I have not seen my medical Record, but I've only had this doc forbade year, and only seen him three times, because I broke my knee.
LOL, and your envy is quite evident...
Yes, as I said, partly...
Let me explain it to you, since you obviously didn't read the Armed Forces recruiting link I provided...
While I graciously provided the link for you to read, I actually overstated the necessity of medical records during recruitment in Canadian Armed Forces...I was interested to see how long you would keep this up...
Medical history is only requested if a problem is detected during the physical fitness phase of the recruitment process...
What this means is that you are only partly right, at best, and that your touching story of providing medical history during the Armed Forces recruitment of yourself and your son is a blatant lie...while it's possible that you or your son failed to meet the physical fitness requirements and so were required to provide medical history, I doubt VERY much that BOTH of you were required to...so either you didn't both get recruited to Canadian Armed Forces, or you weren't both forced to provide medical history during the recruitment process...which is it?
I'm afraid I'm going to have to get you to post your Pers File to clear this matter up...
As I said, I don't recall having to provide that medical history, because I don't think I did...my physical fitness test was passed easily, with no issues other than being 2 lbs shy on my BMI, which the MO said I would put on in no time...
However, I didn't put it on, as that issue came up twice more when I came up for promotion...again both times being underweight was overlooked...
So would I Bear...so would I...
No it's not reasonable, because in a free and democratic society, rights are not infringed upon for the convenience of employers...
Still waiting for you to provide links to some of these jobs that indicate that disclosure of medical history is a requirement for employment...
http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/career/section_pilots.html
Show me where it says that disclosure of medical information is one of the requirements...
Well it's a good thing then that you aren't making these decisions, because any job can have risk to "society at large"...
A bus driver could have a blackout caused by latent epileptic seizure and crash his bus, a mechanic could go off his meds and have a schizo-paranoid psychotic episode and rig the brakes on someone's car causing a catastrophic accident on the 404, the chief engineer at a hospital could have a heart attack while he was recalibrating the boiler and BOOM...anything can happen...
How would you propose to determine which is more critically important than any others? Under your oppressive regime, we would all be forced to give up privacy rights for the chance to be employed...
If it's critically important that someone is fit, physically and mentally for a job, then proper testing can and should be conducted to determine their eligibility...
More accurately I parsed results through a well defined filter and skimmed the remainder...it was more than sufficient to show me that your premise was full of ****...
See above...
And yet you really don't understand it very well...
Pay attention and I may be able to teach you a thing or to yet...
BAZINGA!
No I don't think I am...
A labourer with back problems would be culled during their probation period...no need to disclose protected information...
Last edited:
The more I have to deal with doctors (because of my advanced years) the more I think they should not be allowed to practice medicine. I don't like being practiced on. I would prefer if they knew what they were doing before they are allowed to treat patients. I feel like I'm turning into a lab rodent.
I really don't follow your logic...you would have us give up rights that we have been given in order to save the company you are applying to some money?
Do you place such little value on all rights you have been granted?
It is the responsibility of the employer to ascertain the fitness of a candidate, and exploiting their rights to privacy is not an option that I think anyone should be forced to endure...
I disagree, when the employee costs the employer money, the customer ends up paying for it.
Is there anything shameful or embarrassing about arthritis?
Or high blood pressure?
Or high cholesterol?
Or previous surgeries of impinged shoulder and hemorrhoids?
There you go!
Or high blood pressure?
Or high cholesterol?
Or previous surgeries of impinged shoulder and hemorrhoids?
There you go!
My pointing and laughing isn't based on envy.
Erroneously.
Can you show me where I said anything to the contrary? I can show you where I said just that...
You disagreed with that as well. And replied with...
You wouldn't look so stupid, and come off as full of sh!t. If you could remain consistent.
Not that I saw your link to the Armed Forces recruitment forms, I didn't need it either. Here is a quote from them, just for you...
Following the physical examination, you may be required to submit additional medical reports from your family physician or specialist. In these cases you will be given a form containing the necessary instructions and questions to be addressed by the appropriate physician. Any costs associated with providing these reports are your responsibility, as it is your obligation to prove that you are medically fit for enrolment and military training. You should make every effort to ensure that any required additional reports are provided to our medical staff as quickly as possible, as any delay will slow down the processing of your application and could result in missed employment and training opportunities.
Which of course only corroborates what I already said.
Here's another little nugget I like...
Following this review, a description of limitations (if any) will be noted and you will be assigned an appropriate and approved medical category. Applicants will not be medically disqualified on the basis of a diagnosis or disease, but only because of medical limitations affecting employment.
Touching story? I made mention of the fact that the two of us had been through the process, how can that be touching, unless you're fabricating things?
Maybe you should stick to reality, you wouldn't look so silly all the time.
Maybe if you started at the beginning of the question, and worked through to the conclusion. Instead of starting at your conclusion and working to make it fit, and stopped fabricating things along the way. You wouldn't look so stupid.
You should probably see someone about that.
Can you point out where I said employers please?
Maybe you can show me where I said pilots had to do so? I didn't, because it's not a field I'm familiar with.
Some more than others, which is why some careers, come with medical history requirements. As has clearly been shown.
You sure do like your fabricated fantasy. Keep going, you're a hoot to read.
That's why that, in conjunction with a history is done.
Which premise? The one I actually laid out, or the one you made up?
Why? Your BS wasn't deep enough?
Yet I was right from the beginning. While you weren't.
I'm already familiar with how you use Gish Gallop, and a number of other fallacies, on top of fabricating what I've said, so as to appear right.
You really don't have much more to offer.
According to your measure, that's discrimination, under section 15, lol.
That's one of the problems with the world today...........everybody for himself and screw everyone else. When you look after others they tend to reciprocate.
I suppose, I think every right should be balanced off with a responsibility. :smile: