U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-03-2009, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,377 posts, read 111,940,913 times
Reputation: 35920

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Why, how sweet... But you're wrong.



Great slanting - shows intense hostility!

Are you a psychiatrist? I thought you were some sort of an engineer/IT person.
[] No, it's not "abuse by consumers NOW", but the abuse by some consumers under a single payer government insurance scam - ah - I mean program.
Oh, aren't you funny, not! You don't think there is consumer abuse now, under our system. While the 'big-time' "waste, fraud and abuse" generally comes from a few (please take note of that word few) providers, I can also tell you stories of consumer abuse. Some people just like to game the system.
[] As a former recipient of the glorious Socialist health care system for paupers (i.e, poor), I can vouch that it is (expletive deleted) bad. The bone specialist who put a cast on my young child's broken leg put it on WRONG. Of course, he was on-call, and it was a holiday - perhaps he was DRINKING.
You don't think that doesn't happen under our system, too? Google "news of the weird", or "medical mistakes", you'll find plenty of examples of the wrong extremity cut off, the wrong kidney removed, etc, right here in the good ol' USA. []

I may lack a complete knowledge of the health care profession, but I think your attack represents an intense reaction from what you've read. Does it hit too close to home?

Again, are you a psychiatrist? No, I do not favor some libertarian return to snake oil salesmen type health care. Yes, I support standards for health care providers, educational and otherwise. You want to offer discounts to providers with lower GPAs, then complain about someone putting on a cast wrong?

[] The difference between a government mandated monopoly and competing medical treatment systems is not "going back to snake-oil".... unless you're part of the Allopathic special interest group.
You ARE part of allopathy, aren't you?

I am an RN. You have every right, under any kind of health care system, to not avail yourself of it and treat yourself with bat-s*** if you so choose. Most of us would rather our health care providers have studied, well, health care.

[] Life expectancy and medical care are sometimes inversely proportional, when "physician imposed" harm is involved.
Iatrogenic:
Due to the action of a physician or a therapy the doctor prescribed.
Iatrogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the United States, from 120,000 to 225,000 deaths per year may be attributed in some part to iatrogenesis.
[] In case you misread the post, I stated that the government would be the records keeper for all who have established their credentials, via testing and training, to perform more complicated medical services. I do not hold with the notion that care givers be required to have a license to kill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy for Selected Countries, 2007 — Infoplease.com
Infant death (per 1000 births)
U.S.A..... 6.4
U.K........ 5
Canada...4.6
OMG - 1.4 MORE than U.K.!!!!

Yes, 28% higher than in the UK, 39% higher than Canada.

However, in contrast with other nations, that statistic is not impressive.
South Africa ... 59
Russia .......11
Mexico.......19 (Hmmm, perhaps that is why they seek to have anchor babies in the USA - higher change of living?)

Showing your race card, I see.

Angola.....184
China.......22.1
Brazil.......27.6

Life expectancy
U.S.A.......78
U.K..........78.4
OMG - 0.4 years more life if in the U.K.!
Canada....80.3

Switzerland .. 80.6
S.Korea..........77.2
First of all, you cherry picked your statistics for the UHC countries, and secondly, you obviously do not understand statistics if you feel these are meaningless.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2009, 01:38 PM
 
6,960 posts, read 7,671,653 times
Reputation: 3875
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
. Besides, there is no reason to believe that people can't buy private insurance... they do in countries where UHC exists (which is the entire developed world, and many developing countries).
My understanding is the premium for private health insurance in the UK is a fraction per month of what most Americans pay per month. I've read anywhere between 50-75 pounds per month. I wonder why?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Oregon
1,177 posts, read 3,606,549 times
Reputation: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Sniper View Post
I'm not taking an R or D stance on this. The system is broke, period. Only the rich and the welfare poor get good health care while the middle class covers the cost for others while we do not "qualify" for good care ourselves. What good is health insurance and why does it exist? I pay in thousands per year so they can exclude or deny anything that I might need them for in the first place. I'm having to back off of my "it's socialism" views on this one. Health care should be a right not a priveledge. The left wants to nationalize and the right only wants to prove the left is wrong. What is the solution?
I agree with you. The thing I worry about, and why I've been so resistant, is I'm sure somehow the middle class who barely make over minimum wage, but too much for any assistance, will end up paying to cover everyone else, and the low income will get it for free. I really wish there was a good solution. Right now the fact that it's tied to a job is not a good way to go IMO. And not everyone can get private health insurance. I was rejected years ago because I had taken fertility drugs in the past 7 years. Why the heck is that a reason for refusal? They refuse anyone that has any kind of health issue.
If they can figure out a way that makes everyone pay the same amount for good coverage, then I'd support it. Not holding my breathe though.
I did hear someone yesterday (Howard Dean I think?) saying on a show that if it was given as an option, but still allow people the choice to get their own insurance, the fact that there is competition might drive down some of the costs. He was talking about making medicare available to everyone for what it is now for seniors, but as an option, not forced. Not sure how I feel about that, but certainly worth looking into.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,377 posts, read 111,940,913 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav Scout wife View Post
Every hospital in the country HAS to accept a medical card, if they have ever taken a penny in Gov funding (from what I understand); also they have to treat you no matter what, even if you are broke and can't pay.

What I think we should do is get rid of exorbitant insurance costs (IMO get rid of insurance altogether!), and bring down healthcare costs again. It seems to me that since insurance got in the mix, the costs have increased while the care has decreased.

Also, get rid of stupid medical lawsuits. I know there are cases where a Dr. SHOULD be held accountable for their actions or lack of action (I myself was given an opportunity to sue a Dr. for a rock solid malpractice case, but didn't.), but being sued left and right for BS, is uncalled for.

Whatever happened to Dr.'s helping patients out, and exchange for a bottle of cough syrup and a few antibiotics, you got milk and eggs, or your lawn cared for, or a free babysitter, or some thing like that?! I know Dr.'s can't survive on favors alone (nor should they have to), but what's wrong with it on occasion, especially if you know that person NEEDS medical attention but just can't afford it?

My Uncle (RIP) was an "old school" Dr., and my only Dr. until he retired right before his death. Up until 6 months before he retired (a year before death) he still made HOUSECALLS! Housecalls! What Dr. does that these days!? He also donated his time and experience to people in our area that couldn't afford medical treatment any other way. He cared more about his oath, than his bank account.
I don't think it's the doctors who are the "problem" in our health care situation. As you yourself stated, a dr. can't live entirely on favors, especially with med school loans to pay off for half their careers or more. I work in a dr's office and we do give some "gratis" care. Also, when my daughter had surgery for cancer, the dr. came to our house on a Sunday morning to take her drain out. This was 7 years ago.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 01:54 PM
 
15,566 posts, read 18,667,270 times
Reputation: 25868
I have not read the entire thread. But I don't think we can think about health care reform without looking actual costs for care v. what you get billed for care. It's like some bizarre parallel universe. My elderly mom was recently in the hospital for about 5 days. I was reading one of her itemized bills from the hospital. It said that her IV stick cost $712. WTF? I was standing right there. It took 5 minutes. I know that you have to factor in the nurse's pay, insurance, the building costs and the air you're breathing while you're there, etc., but $712?

They also billed her $850/hr for monitoring while she was in the hospital. And that was with her sleeping most of the time and my having to tell them "She needs to use the restroom. Can you help me?" I'm not complaining about the level of care because it was excellent. But $850 an hour???? And Medicare pays most of it and her secondary insurance pays the rest. Of course Medicare is going broke.

Until costs reflect the reality of the situation, there can't be any talk about paying for it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Oregon
1,177 posts, read 3,606,549 times
Reputation: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
I have not read the entire thread. But I don't think we can think about health care reform without looking actual costs for care v. what you get billed for care. It's like some bizarre parallel universe. My elderly mom was recently in the hospital for about 5 days. I was reading one of her itemized bills from the hospital. It said that her IV stick cost $712. WTF? I was standing right there. It took 5 minutes. I know that you have to factor in the nurse's pay, insurance, the building costs and the air you're breathing while you're there, etc., but $712?

They also billed her $850/hr for monitoring while she was in the hospital. And that was with her sleeping most of the time and my having to tell them "She needs to use the restroom. Can you help me?" I'm not complaining about the level of care because it was excellent. But $850 an hour???? And Medicare pays most of it and her secondary insurance pays the rest. Of course Medicare is going broke.

Until costs reflect the reality of the situation, there can't be any talk about paying for it.
One reason for exploding costs is hospitals trying to recoup losses from having to provide free emergency room care to anyone, including illegal immigrants, who comes in there. My brother-in-law works for a major hospital chain here in California that had to close many of their hospitals because they were losing money giving free care to people using the emergency room as an urgent care facility. So they raise the costs to those that do have insurance to cover for their losses. Hardly seems fair. I actually think if the government is going to force them to provide care they should reimburse them, but then again, that too would come out of my pocket.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 02:07 PM
 
15,566 posts, read 18,667,270 times
Reputation: 25868
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlaT2 View Post
One reason for exploding costs is hospitals trying to recoup losses from having to provide free emergency room care to anyone, including illegal immigrants, who comes in there. My brother-in-law works for a major hospital chain here in California that had to close many of their hospitals because they were losing money giving free care to people using the emergency room as an urgent care facility. So they raise the costs to those that do have insurance to cover for their losses. Hardly seems fair. I actually think if the government is going to force them to provide care they should reimburse them, but then again, that too would come out of my pocket.
It's hard to know what comes first. If it didn't cost so much, maybe people would at least try to pay for it and might even be able to. But it you're making $18,000 a year and an ER trip costs $3,000 (another experience we had with my daughter--$3,000 for 3 hours in the ER following a hard fall off a scooter and possible head injury), why even bother to to try and pay it? If it the real cost were, say, $600, a person might be inclined to start on a payment plan.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 03:24 PM
 
Location: London UK & Florida USA
7,921 posts, read 8,356,420 times
Reputation: 2053
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking View Post
My understanding is the premium for private health insurance in the UK is a fraction per month of what most Americans pay per month. I've read anywhere between 50-75 pounds per month. I wonder why?
If you are talking about value for money, you CANNOT beat a UHC, All the rhetoric on here about why a UHC should not be created in America is exactly that....... rhetoric. There is absolutely NO valid argument against a UHC on here. We have posters who like to think that they are experts in health care or some even try to say they know about the laws as far as not allowing a UHC. So far they have just produced tabloid fear headlines and extremely bised reporting. The truth is that UHC's work extremely well and at a fraction of the cost of the current American system.
You are so right jmking, the price of private health in a country with a UHC is considerably less than in America. NO real competition means that the Insurance ompanies can ask whatever makes them rich a a premium.
I saw the facts you put forward about Insurance bosses mega bonuses. I am sure everyone remembers AIG and their scandalous bonuses too.
My wife pays roughley $100 per month for private health insurance in the UK and that covers everything from physio to psychiatric to cancer to anything care. NO co pay. I have explained some of the perks insurance companies give clients to get their business you would be amazed.
This could happen in America too. A great UHC for every man woman and child and a private health insurance system all for a fraction of what people are paying now. I have stoped taking certain people on here credibly since i have seen plenty of statements but no hard facts. In fact i have seen down right lies.
UHC's work and if anyone on her says that they couldn't work in America ask them how do they know, have they ever experienced long term UHC and.............why are they so keen to see America with a second rate health service?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,765 posts, read 26,980,574 times
Reputation: 12296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
I have not read the entire thread. But I don't think we can think about health care reform without looking actual costs for care v. what you get billed for care...
The key here is preventive care, something either Americans don't have or don't seem to care about. As a result, health issues linger, get worse over time, and often lead to emergency care or extensive procedures at some point. This is one of the issues with medicare as well. Preventive medicine costs little, treatment of advanced stage diseases a lot. These add to the costs of running emergency care and medicare as well. These costs need to be recuperated somehow anyway, and when they aren't the crisis deepens (see Medicare in about a decade from now).

Health care reform has to go beyond just offering insurance to all. It also should educate people about ills of not participating in regular check ups, having healthy habits, and just emphasize on preventive care.

Considering the cost of living (and doing anything) in America being higher than several other countries, the costs of treatment aren't going down. However, what can be done is how we go about reducing costs by preventing it to be a profit based system (unless someone chooses to continue doing so for self), reducing costs by eliminating fat and promoting preventive health care. Besides that, the only option could be to just take a vacation to another country, like a person did, from Boston to India, to get an MRI done at a fraction of the cost ($3700 for MRI in Boston versus $900 r/t ticket to India plus $150 for MRI and other expenses).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
15,822 posts, read 11,560,570 times
Reputation: 12702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
First of all, you cherry picked your statistics for the UHC countries, and secondly, you obviously do not understand statistics if you feel these are meaningless.
In case the data was within a 0.1% range of accuracy, the data comparison between USA, UK, and Canada are not significant, and actually overlap.

U.S.A. 6.4 per 1000 (7.4 to 5.4 per 1000)
U.K. 5 per 1000 (6 to 4 per 1000)
Canada 4.6 per 1000 (5.6 to 3.6 per 1000)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Again, are you a psychiatrist? No, I do not favor some libertarian return to snake oil salesmen type health care. Yes, I support standards for health care providers, educational and otherwise. You want to offer discounts to providers with lower GPAs, then complain about someone putting on a cast wrong?
Ah, so only an allopathic physician with credentials in psychiatry can express an opinion about your over reaction? Perhaps you ARE showing bias toward allopathy. I presume you consider osteopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, herbal medicines, vitamin therapy, Christian Scientists, faith healers, electrotherapy and other "alternatives" as "quackery"?
And you disregard the placebo effect, too?
Obviously, "spontaneous remission" of cancer absent allopathic treatment must be suspect, too!
Next, will you say that the only vitamin supplements should be by prescription?

And what was YOUR GPA? Does a higher GPA automatically prove that someone is a superior care giver?
Or merely that they score higher on tests?

The original point was that if the customer had MORE DATA about his care giver, he could make more intelligent comparisons.
(wink, wink, nod, nod - everybody likes a discount!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I am an RN. You have every right, under any kind of health care system, to not avail yourself of it and treat yourself with bat-s*** if you so choose. Most of us would rather our health care providers have studied, well, health care.
As a well indoctrinated member of allopathy, it goes without saying that you consider anything but allopathy as "beneath contempt" or quackery.

But consider this oddity: why would free people (aka Americans) have to BUY permission from an allopathic physician before they can buy medicine?
Isn't that "raising the cost" for one's health care?
In many other countries, responsible adults can purchase whatever medicines they deem necessary. In fact, why are lay people forbidden, by law, to treat themselves with medicines that are not narcotic unless given permission (prescriptions that they PAY for) ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I am an RN. I work in a dr's office and we do give some "gratis" care. Also, when my daughter had surgery for cancer, the dr. came to our house on a Sunday morning to take her drain out.
Well, duh....
See how many physicians do house calls on folks on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder -or who aren't in the same business line.

BTW - I hesitate to call physicians "doctors". Doctor is a honorable title for one who TEACHES. (related words: doctrine, docent, document). Physicians were held in such low regard that they appropriated that title to their sorry profession. (Most early-19th century physicians tended to attribute contagion to "bad air" and blamed disease on imbalances of the "four humors" - - - that's blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile, in case you weren't familiar.) But, hey, if janitors can be maintenance engineers, physicians can be doctors, too.

Rockin' with Galen, fir shir...
Galen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:02 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top