Medical INDUSTRY does NOT want to Heal & Cure (campaign, drug, death)
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.
This is common from what I've seen. I've worked w/ elders for quite a few years. New hips at 93, new knees, etc. We had a woman have repeated eye surgeries, 2 or 3 at 95, or close to that age, that still can't see well after the surgery. Falling more frequently and not a good general quality of life overall.
We had one man, 90's had a subdural hematoma (blood on layer of the brain) after a fall and they did surgery on the poor soul. The surgeon said "it was a great success." He told the family that. The man died 2 or 3 days later. How they don't separate their "successful" surgery from the man passing away is beyond me.
I knew of a family member, at end stage of a disease process, and they wanted to "do more scans." Luckily the family said no. Families have to step in to control the situation at times like this.
My beef and experience with the medical industry is they are often the cause of disability and death by doing the most aggressive, invasive, disabling and risky procedures that will maximize medical billing when there is almost always an alternative that is conservative and less invasive that would work better, but not maximize medical billing and the patient being dependent on more medical treatment.
It's a repeated theme, rush and pressure the patient or family into the invasive, riskier and higher billing treatment before the patient starts getting better under the natural healing process without treatment, telling you it's a "necessity" or the patient likely will die. Then they downplay the alternative conservative treatment, basically providing no option but the maximum billing option. If the person survives, you're handed off a debilitated or disabled love one to rehabilitate, and if they don't you lost your loved one and are paying for a funeral. The medical providers don't care either way because maximizing medical billing is their only real concern and they're walking away regardless. Something needs to be done about the profit corruption, but I'm not sure what.
My beef and experience with the medical industry is they are often the cause of disability and death by doing the most aggressive, invasive, disabling and risky procedures that will maximize medical billing when there is almost always an alternative that is conservative and less invasive that would work better, but not maximize medical billing and the patient being dependent on more medical treatment.
It's a repeated theme, rush and pressure the patient or family into the invasive, riskier and higher billing treatment before the patient starts getting better under the natural healing process without treatment, telling you it's a "necessity" or the patient likely will die. Then they downplay the alternative conservative treatment, basically providing no option but the maximum billing option. If the person survives, you're hand off a debilitated or disabled love one to rehabilitate, and if they don't you lost your loved one and are paying for a funeral. The medical providers don't care either way because maximizing medical billing is their only real concern and they walking away regardless. Something needs to be done about the profit corruption, but I'm not sure what.
Boy do they ever downplay the alternative conservative treatments and plenty can be found on the forums and often have vested interests in pharma world, their jobs, their paychecks, etc etc etc.
After I ended up in the ER back in the 80's from a pharma drug, I started my work and boy did I get into it, finding integrative MD's to work with when I needed a doc and subscribing to many publications, that was all before the net and all the wonderful info from good ole Doc Google...loved loved finding my own answers to the health issues entering my life.
Last edited by jaminhealth; 10-16-2019 at 02:29 PM..
In this case and my mother's premature death, it was doctors in a hospital, not ones that we selected. I'm sure they like to maximizes their medical billing too, and hospital administrators also demand maximizing medical billing. Are there good doctors that believe in treating patients as conservatively and non-invasively as possible, especially when the patient is requesting that? I can't seem to find them, as that would not maximizes their medical billing and is going against the healthcare industry drive for maximum profits.
Hospital pencil pushers will always try and boost collected revenues. But I don't see hospital docs being much a part of testing and treatment for just profit. Most hospital docs do not benefit financially from ordering excess testing and treatments. But one needs to look out for it. In my wife's extreme hospital experiences these last 3 years, we did not see any of that.
Also one needs to understand how hospitals are paid by 3rd parties. For instance like with Medicare, the docs can order all they want, but the bill is based primarily on the diagnosis. Not based on a running total of all that is done during the hospitalization.
IMO it is now a sorry day where the patient's primary doc is no longer there at the hospital bedside.
When my dad was near his end and he lived to 95, and while in hospital for an issue, he and we had directives NO MAJOR LIFE SAVING THERAPIES, at least 3 different surgeons came to my sister and I wanting to give dad a pacemaker....I'm guess back then the industry would have profited at least $25K, I don't know but have ideas...No was our answer to the docs 3 times.
They are so obsessed with profit lines they keep trying in spite of Directives -- what good are they....
Pacers are not cheap, but easy to do. There are some life threatening arrhythmias easily solved with a simple PMR placement. If at 95 years of age the patient has some time left and is agreeable, it can be a sensible and ethical treatment.
Pacers are not cheap, but easy to do. There are some life threatening arrhythmias easily solved with a simple PMR placement. If at 95 years of age the patient has some time left and is agreeable, it can be a sensible and ethical treatment.
Oh come on at 95 with directives many are ready to go. Let me go, I can hear my dad now.
This is common from what I've seen. I've worked w/ elders for quite a few years. New hips at 93, new knees, etc. The one woman had a new hip done (for osteo) and 5-6 months later died from kidney failure. Her kidneys were impaired right along, chronic, and they still did it instead of comfort measures, non inflammatories, PT, etc. for comfort regarding the hip. We had another woman have repeated eye surgeries, 2 or 3 at 95, or close to that age, that still can't see well after the surgery. Falling more frequently and not a good general quality of life overall, but they still did repeated surgeries.
We had one man, 90's had a subdural hematoma (blood on layer of the brain) after a fall and they did surgery on the poor soul. The surgeon said "it was a great success." He told the family that. The man died 2 or 3 days later. How they don't separate their "successful" surgery from the man passing away is beyond me.
I knew of a family member, at end stage of a disease process, and they wanted to "do more scans." Luckily the family said no. Families have to step in to control the situation at times like this.
That just means everything that happened in the OR went well. You can put really nice stitches on a dead man, Doesn't mean he cares.
Doesn't take into account the effect on the patient.
Oh come on at 95 with directives many are ready to go. Let me go, I can hear my dad now.
Your Dad refused the PMR. And if that is what he wanted, then fine. My point is that 95 years of age itself does not disqualify one for a PMR. Docs coming onto your Dad's medical scene at his time would not yet know his intent to decline treatment. It can be a sensible treatment option even at that age.
This is common from what I've seen. I've worked w/ elders for quite a few years. New hips at 93, new knees, etc. The one woman had a new hip done (for osteo) and 5-6 months later died from kidney failure. Her kidneys were impaired right along, chronic, and they still did it instead of comfort measures, non inflammatories, PT, etc. for comfort regarding the hip. We had another woman have repeated eye surgeries, 2 or 3 at 95, or close to that age, that still can't see well after the surgery. Falling more frequently and not a good general quality of life overall, but they still did repeated surgeries.
We had one man, 90's had a subdural hematoma (blood on layer of the brain) after a fall and they did surgery on the poor soul. The surgeon said "it was a great success." He told the family that. The man died 2 or 3 days later. How they don't separate their "successful" surgery from the man passing away is beyond me.
I knew of a family member, at end stage of a disease process, and they wanted to "do more scans." Luckily the family said no. Families have to step in to control the situation at times like this.
Of course there could be cases of very mild and asymptomatic, but you almost always have to surgically treat a trauma related sub-dural at almost any age. Unless declined by the patient or legal guardian.
You don't give an elderly lady with kidney impairment a non-steroidal, as it most likely will make them worse.
Eye sight is so critical, you do almost everything to retain the ability at any age.
This is why we have Living Wills. But even then, when the primary care doc is left out of the loop, more of this unnecessary or even outrageous stuff gets done.
I'm an American born citizen who has spent a LOT of time in Canada.
One huge advantage to a universal style healthcare is the access to medicine that helps people stay out of doctor's offices and Emergency Rooms.
In America we have all experienced (or know someone who has) really busy ER's. A big part of that is the uninsured don't have a primary health care provider OR do but can't afford the copay, so they either wait until their condition is so bad they need the ER, or they go to the ER for simple things.
Then when/if they can't afford to pay for it the hospital raises it's prices, which raises insurances, etc.
In Canada many types of pain releivers are available over the counter.
For example, in America if you need Voltaren (an ointment treatment for bad joints) you have to get a prescription for it and a tube costs $500. In Canada, where I buy it, it costs about $12.00.
Believe whatever you want, but the American health care system's first priority is making as many people as much money as it can, which is why the country has always tried to brainwash it's people into believing that a Universal healthcare system would be bad for them
First the cost of a tube of brand voltaren gel is in the $60 and generic is about $25. These are pharmacy prices though. My wholesaler has new listings for brand Voltaren gel. They are different sizes than the 100 gram RX tube. They list them as an otc product and not RX. I tried searching online for any information about this but can't find anything.
Absolutely profits before people. To think the medical industry cares about YOU...forget it.
Gosh, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Step off son.
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.
