Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, I scanned these articles; I'll read them in depth later. The NPR story is 4 years old, before some of the provisions of the ACA kicked in, and it covers an indefinite time period back. It's a series of anecdotes that reads like the National Enquirer, typical for NPR, actually. It's mostly about mis-diagnoses, something people LOVE to talk about. Are we supposed to believe this never happens in Canada?
The Kaiser article seems more hard news.
I would actually love to see some sort of UHC in the US. I don't think you're doing the case of the failures of the US system any favors by picking articles about how "doctors are killing people" (in your first post) and articles by certified quacks like Mercola. If you're not familiar with the source, don't post it. Here's something recent about Mercola, who incidentally lives in some mansion in Texas. He's made his money selling supplements and going on speaking tours opposing immunizations. https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news...ds-041416.html
See this: https://www.google.com/search?q=merc...w=1745&bih=836
Of course not but neither should you believe everything you hear about the Canadian system as discrediting the system is a vested interest of your medical establishment of insurance carriers, medical suppliers and big pharma. That is a lot of lobby money lined up to discredit any system that might be performing comparable at far less cost.
I will continue to post links regardless, simply because it is not necessarily a given that discrediting the source automatically discredits the content.
My primary career ( passion) was in Risk Management ( market and contra party risks) in financial services.
Generally speaking, insurance is the most common form of risk management, the transfer of risk in exchange for a premium.
I have spent years as the Treasurer of various companies, NFPs and HOAs negotiating insurance premiums, liability, D&O, Employment Practices, Workers Comp, event, alcohol liability, healthcare and so on.
Then employees are there every day. What do you have against them having a nice work environment?? Even the lounge at a prison is probably pretty nice for the guards.
It's not about the employees.
It's all about creating an outstanding experience for the patient in a competitive healthcare environment.
All these bells and whistles add to the overhead and are one of the reasons why healthcare costs more in the US than anywhere else.
Physicians are NOT more intelligent than the average citizen. Most apply knowledge from trial and error from generations of doctors that came before them. Memorizing a bunch of medical jargon is not "intelligence". Many doctors are dumber than a box of hammers when it comes to anything other than medicine.
Should you ever find yourself in need of open heart surgery, you might want to consider keeping your erroneous perceptions to yourself before your doctor holds your life in his hands.
Of course not but neither should you believe everything you hear about the Canadian system as discrediting the system is a vested interest of your medical establishment of insurance carriers, medical suppliers and big pharma. That is a lot of lobby money lined up to discredit any system that might be performing comparable at far less cost.
I will continue to post links regardless, simply because it is not necessarily a given that discrediting the source automatically discredits the content.
I don't believe everything I hear about Canada. I haven't said anything about the Canadian health care system on this thread. If you want to believe swine like Mercola, you'll lose your cred faster than you can say "Jack Robinson".
Ummmm............... we had that in the US prior to the Flexner report in the early 1900s and the efforts of Johns Hopkins to eradicate quackery and provide some standards to medical training.
There is a good reason that medical school is four years long and most residencies are four years plus. Would you board a jet aircraft in which the pilot had no formal training?
A. Before the Flexner report, there were over 400 medical schools / institutions. Instead of establishing reasonable criteria, the "AMA" closed so many that only 30 or so remained, insuring that Physicians would be scarce and in demand (instant boost in income).
B. "Quackery" is an obvious attempt to discourage anything that the "AMA" doesn't administer. Consider herbalists, whose "natural remedies" were later found to have efficacy. And before being protected by law, the Allopaths engaged in much "quackery" - and unsanitary practices - that killed countless patients.
C. There is no "good reason" to limit the acquisition of medical knowledge to "approved" sources.
D. Licensing is no guarantee of competence. If it were, there would be no malpractice lawsuits.
E. A well trained idiot is not preferable to one who can actually perform a task, regardless of how that skill was acquired.
Need corroboration?
Simply proctor an exam, for which a passing grade establishes one's ability.
But do not erect a sham edifice of "god-like" miracle workers that we must defer to in all healthcare issues.
That is the problem that I have with it. Someone can choose an unhealthy lifestyle or hazardous activity and just send the bill to the taxpayer when they get sick or injured. No accountability. Do I get a credit for NOT using services???
The FLIP SIDE of government operated health care is the danger of prosecution for those that disobey.
I wouldn't be surprised to see legislation that prosecutes those who access "free" health care but ignore the prescribed changes or fail to take their medicine.
A universal system requires gov't intervention, regulation and money.
No.
Before government intervention (and socialism), many private charities operated hospitals and clinics.
The poor got "free" or low cost care, but had to endure the lesser accommodations of an open ward, whereas the "paying customers" got private rooms.
In some hospitals and clinics, the staff were religious ZEALOTS who worked for NO remuneration, viciously caring for the sick and dying. (sarcasm flag off)
Funny thing, you don't hear about people being bankrupted by medical costs BEFORE the glorious socialist revolution. . .
Before government intervention (and socialism), many private charities operated hospitals and clinics.
The poor got "free" or low cost care, but had to endure the lesser accommodations of an open ward, whereas the "paying customers" got private rooms.
In some hospitals and clinics, the staff were religious ZEALOTS who worked for NO remuneration, viciously caring for the sick and dying. (sarcasm flag off)
Funny thing, you don't hear about people being bankrupted by medical costs BEFORE the glorious socialist revolution. . .
Move on, nothing to see here, go home.
Charities are fine. Only there are not enough and in the right place at the right time to meet the needs of the people. Now if you mean not for profit, well that's a whole other ballgame.
Saving money by saving using wards is an illusion. With modern medicine and surgery it is best to isolate patients.
There are huge numbers of volunteers throughout the medical community. And they save us a ton of money.
Not long ago medical care had little to offer, so while BK was unlikely, death was likely.
A. Before the Flexner report, there were over 400 medical schools / institutions. Instead of establishing reasonable criteria, the "AMA" closed so many that only 30 or so remained, insuring that Physicians would be scarce and in demand (instant boost in income).
B. "Quackery" is an obvious attempt to discourage anything that the "AMA" doesn't administer. Consider herbalists, whose "natural remedies" were later found to have efficacy. And before being protected by law, the Allopaths engaged in much "quackery" - and unsanitary practices - that killed countless patients.
C. There is no "good reason" to limit the acquisition of medical knowledge to "approved" sources.
D. Licensing is no guarantee of competence. If it were, there would be no malpractice lawsuits.
E. A well trained idiot is not preferable to one who can actually perform a task, regardless of how that skill was acquired.
Need corroboration?
Simply proctor an exam, for which a passing grade establishes one's ability.
But do not erect a sham edifice of "god-like" miracle workers that we must defer to in all healthcare issues.
2. The Flexner report required that medical training be guided by the contraints of rational science, thus eliminating quackery.
3. There is good reason to limit medical training to "approved sources". Part of the quality improvement in physicians was requiring at least a highschool education and two years of college This has been increased since to four years of college. MANY citizens are simply not intelligent enough to understand the cornerstones of medicine- physiology, pharmacology, anatomy, microbiology, biochemistry, pathology, and anatomy.
If you do not believe the above, simply take a look at the average high school senior.
4. Assuming that physicians are "idiots" is outrageous. Physicians, in order to gain admission to medical school in the US had to have had GPAs above 3.6 and MCATS above the 80th percentile. I would assure you that you could not satisfy the criterion for medical school admission.
5. "Performing a task" requires the establishing a diagnosis (which is based on years of training) and then knowing when and when not to implement treatment. Surgical and procedural training is not able to be mastered in a short period of time. I would like to see what you could do when asked to diagnose a patient, select a medical or surgical option, and successfully perform that operation. That would be hilarious.
6. Residency training and licensure is not a guarantee of competence, but a guarantee that minimal knowledge and skills have been achieved. Board certification, which requires demonstration of higher knowldege and skills IS the best assurance of quality. There is a clear correlation between higher malpractice and lack of board certification in a particular area. That data is clear. DOs tend to have higher malpractice than M.D.s, and foreign trained doctors have the highest malpractice incidence.
Your contention of passing a "proctored exam" is simply absurd and defies the cumulative data and experience of over 100 years of science and medicine s/p Flexner.
Would you fly in a jet in which the pilot had no training, but simply "passed an exam"?
Would you drive on a bridge built by an engineer who had no training, but simply "passed an exam"?
Would you trust someone to wire your house who had simply "passed an exam"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
