Great Falls Clinic

After this post generated a great deal of interest, I ran over to the Tribune's forum. I noticed that there sure seem to be plenty of people in this world with an awful lot of opinions, but I was struck by the fact that many of these opinions have very little basis in actual fact. I will comment on some here, and hopefully will not take any too far out of context:

I don't know why the other posters think the healthcare of our children is not important news -- I can't think of anything more important. -- Rosebud

There were a number of comments along these lines, i.e. that the Tribune was doing some sort of community service by publishing a story about private, contractual relationships. It's as though people think that by dropping the words "healthcare" or "children" into the conversation it somehow changes the fundamental relationships involved. Was there some evidence suggesting that Dr. Garver's decision to move to a new practice some how affected the "healthcare of our children?" Nope.

The fact he broke his contract should not take precedence over patient care. --robingay

Again, there is no indication that any of Dr. Garver's patients' care has suffered in the least.

The clinic requires me to pay in full within 30 days or my bill automatically goes to collect. --robingay (The author then goes on to describe how some sort of convoluted administrative error has damaged the author's credit and to allege the Clinic won't fix it.)

Why shouldn't the Clinic require patients to pay in 30 days? Is there some reasonable argument to suggest that the Clinic is unique among the world and that its payments schedules must be only as considered convenient by its customers? The fact that the Clinic doesn't usually require payment in 30 days is a voluntary benefit the Clinic chooses to bestow on people. But instead of accepting that, the entitlement mentality bitches that the SOB's want their bills paid.

I pay my medical insurance premiums out of MY POCKET each and every pay day (NO ONE ELSE - JUST ME) - WHY SHOULD THE MEDICAL SYSTEM - GF CLINIC - BENEFIS - BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD MONTANA CARE - DICTATE WHERE I GO FOR MEDICAL SERVICES FOR MY CHILDREN OR MYSELF. -- slmb1999

This, too, is another common thread: "I pay my health insurance premiums out of my own pocket, so I should get what I want, from whom I want, when I want it." Excuse your self-righteousness for a moment, but a health insurance policy is a contract. You sign it, you have certain legal obligations. Your insurer signs it, they have certain legal obligations.

When an insurer decides to place a policy on the market they can, within certain constraints, choose what to cover, who to cover, and at what rates they will pay. That's how they decide what premium to charge you. You, on the other hand, as a consumer, can look at the various policies available, and choose the one you like. (I, personally, have changed coverages in order to obtain 'full' coverage for a doctor I chose.) So, if you don't like your policy, buy a different one. If a different policy costs more, the decision is yours.

Also, no one "dictates" where you go for medical care. You are free to see who you want. You just might have to pay for the services you receive (I know, this is a shocking concept when applied to "healthcare" for the "children")

CHILDRENS HEALTHCARE SHOULD BE PRIORITY OVER THE GF CLINIC WHINNING [sic] OVER ANOTHER DOCTOR LEAVING!!! --slmb1999

slmb1999, you really need to remove yourself from the center of the universe. With all due respect, there is no evidence that the Clinic's desire to enforce its contracts has harmed "CHILDRENS HEALTHCARE." I suppose by your logic, then, the laws applicable to contracts should not apply to pediatricians?

This has to do with a GREAT peds doctor, who is going out on his own and GF Clinic has no tolarance [sic] in [sic] it. It is a shame! Because he is leaving the Clinic, they are afraid they are going to loose [sic] out on the almighty dollar!!!!! The Clinic does not care about the PATIENTS. --slmb1999

I hate to pick on slmb1999, because she is obviously facing some difficulties in her life. But the fact remains that she is terribly uninformed about the facts of entering contracts. Let's assume, Ms. 1999, that your landlord sends you a letter today claiming that it has decided to double the amount of your rent. It seems his child has gotten sick and he needs the money to pay for doctor bills. Ms. 1999, would you choose to enforce your lease?

UPDATE: A newer post at the Tribune's website:

Just looking at the amount of responses shows that this is not only a story but a big story. -- Rosebud

So, that's how we decide whether or not a story is anyone's business? Ok, Rosebud, let's assume for a minute that you cheat on your spouse. If the Tribune decided to do a story on it, replete with all of the lurid details, do you think people would read that story? I think they would. And I'll bet it would evoke all kinds of discussion, both on the forums and by the water coolers. But is it news? Is it anyone's business?

(Obviously, Rosebud, I am not implying that you cheat on your spouse, or that you're even married.)