We Need Healthcare Reform

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Let me ask you a question, Tanker. Hypothetically, you contract some kind of disorder - you name it - cancer, heart disease, trauma, eye disease, diabetes, whatever. Now let’s suppose you have the magical ability or the financial wherewithal to snap your fingers and transport yourself to any country in the world for treatment. Where are you going to go? Tell me.

You honestly going to elect to go to Marseilles instead of Rochester?

San Marino over Tampa?

Malta over Seattle?[/quote]

No way, and that is one thing our Healthcare has going for it. We have some of the best and brightest doctors in the world and all of the best medical schools.

However there are some big discrepancy’s hospital to hospital within our healthcare system in terms of quality of care. I’ll use myself as an example to illustrate this.

One of the best hospitals in America is just across the river from my home town. I do not go there to receive treatment because it’s a little unwieldy for ordinary problems, I go to the hospital in the next town over which has a community care center. I like my doctor there, he’s a good man who’s seen me through a lot.

When i was at the end of middle school I started to have a pain in my left leg. Soon after I woke up and felt terrible, I was dizzy, sweaty, and I couldn’t eat anything. I didn’t complain but my parents noticed I wasn’t feeling well. That night I threw up and had a high fever so the next day my parents took me to the care center. My doc was not there, so someone else gave me a diagnosis of “cat scratch fever”(if such a thing actually does exist). They told me after an xray that the severe pain in my leg was a “benign cortical defect”. Even as an 11 year old kid I knew thy were full of shit.

So for two weeks this continued until I could no longer walk, I was vomiting regularly, and each night I would shit uncontrollably while sleeping. Eventually I was taken to the E.R. and given an M.R.I. at the good hospital. It revealed that I had a massive bone infection in my shin and would have died within a week or two without treatment. I was then given the best treatment at this hospital for several months until I was restored.

The reason I wasn’t diagnosed properly? The weaker hospital was poorly staffed and didn’t have an MRI machine. I almost died because of this.

22

[quote]MikeyKBiatch wrote:
Dont have anything to add really other than this:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1502&status=article&id=337909690110379&secure=1&show=1&rss=1
[/quote]

Can you give me the sample size for this poll? If this is at all accurate and non-biased (I have a difficult time believing it off the bat, lies and damned lies don’tcha know) we’re in big fucking trouble.

23

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
The reason I wasn’t diagnosed properly? The weaker hospital was poorly staffed and didn’t have an MRI machine. I almost died because of this.[/quote]

I bet it was cheaper too. I wonder why you CHOSE to go there hmm?

People sacrifice quality for price in ALL goods. Why should healthcare be any different?

Oh wait, because of the government protected AMA endorsed insurance companies, you have no idea WHAT you’re paying, so you can’t price shop for quality!

Yep, government involvement sure is awesome <_<

24

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
I’m sure you can imagine i don’t like being called a twit for making my argument.

Perhaps I am being obtuse though. How do you you factor murders, smoking, and obesity into the ranking system? Other countries smoke a lot more than us and still have better health. We are also a VERY obese nation which should in no way be discounted in our health system. Plus, like I said I think there are around 10,000 murders a year in the u.s. which shouldn’t really affect mortality rates when we have 300,000,000 people in our country.

Here’s a few statistics to help make this clearer.

A) 51% of U.S. adults do not receive all recommended screenings and preventative services.
B) Only 52% of adults are insured all year long.
C) Quality of care vs. Cost of care has a very poor ratio.
D) 53% of citizens with a serious mental illness do not receive care in a given year.
E) We have a high mortality amenable to healthcare rate(115 deaths per 100,000 population). France (the real #1) has the lowest (75 per 100,000).

The rating system can’t ignore those facts.

You didn’t make an argument you ignored one. And you have to consider that murder and accidents often take YOUNG lives, screwing statistics. Also, Americans are fat. French people aren’t fat. This make a significant impact on our life expectancies. If Sweden had as many fat asses as we do, I assure you their life span average would be quite lower.

I’ll address your points as lettered.

A) …And? I fail to see how this is a problem. If people want to get preventative services they can pay for them. If they don’t WANT to pay for them, they won’t get them. I don’t see how this is so horrible.
B) Again, I fail to see the issue. Plenty of adults feel they don’t need insurance, particularly young adults.
C) Bully. We have the best QUALITY in the world bar none, and we don’t pay a price THAT much higher all things considered (tax rates, lost jobs due to government price controls etc…).
D) Define “serious mental illness.” A very vague term. Why is it the states job to care for the supposedly “mentally ill?”
E) You’re gonna have to clarify this stat. No idea what it means =P[/quote]

Hmm, i didn’t see him support his argument with anything factual such as a reference. And I didn’t ignore it, I explained how that wouldn’t really effect ratings that much. Mortality rates may even discount murders, I’m not sure. Are you?

In the morning i will talk about this. I have to get up so early…

But the statistic you mentioned is how many deaths are attributed to healthcare per capita (In more lamens terms, how many people our hospitals kill). Actually, that’s definitely in the same vein as mortality and I can reference that statistic from my textbook (Jonas and Kovner 56).

26

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Hmm, i didn’t see him support his argument with anything factual such as a reference. And I didn’t ignore it, I explained how that wouldn’t really effect ratings that much. Mortality rates may even discount murders, I’m not sure. Are you?[/quote]

They do. I’ll find a reference for you at some point, I have one in my thousands of bookmarks >_<.

[quote]

In the morning i will talk about this. I have to get up so early…

But the statistic you mentioned is how many deaths are attributed to healthcare per capita (In more lamens terms, how many people our hospitals kill). Actually, that’s definitely in the same vein as mortality and I can reference that statistic from my textbook (Jonas and Kovner 56).[/quote]

So basically, more people die at the hospitals here? Is that controlled for accidents (car accidents in particular), shootings, and the relative heart attack rates?

I assure you, the heart disease rate of Americans is FAR greater than that of the French. I’m pretty sure that would make those statistics pretty much worthless as far as comparing hospital care goes.

27

Just a question.
If we are discussing hospital deaths caused by the hospital, who is doing the reporting? The patient or the hospital?
The obvious answer is the hospital, ie the doctors themselves are doing their own oversight and policing.

Lets take this to the next level. You are a doctor/hospital in a country with socialized medicine. Immense bureaucracies (politicians)are supported and dependent upon this system. Do you honestly think that they hold themselves to the same level of accountability? Do you think the bureaucrats would allow such scrutiny?

Out of curiosity, what kind of organization is the WHO? Where and how do they get their funding? Is it possible that there could be a bias?

28

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
pushharder wrote:
…

You made my point. Your folks, even if they’d had the dough, would not have put you on a Lear jet and taken you to Palermo, Sicily for a bone infection even though Italy is “#2!” These stupid WHO “rankings” aren’t worth used Cuban toilet paper. Let’s use a little common sense and perspective before we rant and rave about the “pathetic” U.S. health care system.

We’ve got it pretty good here. It’s valid inadequacies aren’t reason to shriek and pull our hair out by the roots and demand an overhaul.[/quote]

Side story, to be enjoyed by those of us who enjoy the crazy logic of Insurance.

I was at a conference by a interventional neuroradiologist touting the placement of coiled wires into aneurysms of the brain arteries. He showed a case of a particularly evil one with unique anatomic features–a widow-maker-- in a 36 year old man. His insurance company denied emergency treatment; it wanted to delay the procedure for a few weeks so that he could be transferred to an “in-plan” hospital. Doctors there refused to take the patient on a delayed basis, for risk of his life. SO…the insurance company was “forced” to transfer the patient…by Lear jet…to (drumroll, please)… Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Anyone who says our “system” is screwed-up is correct. But that doesn’t constitute an argument in favor of something worse.

29

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
orion wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:

Cuba Is 38 I believe. Of course they also pay about 600 dollars a year for health care compared to thousands we spend. They also live longer, so go figure.

Did he mention that the WHO does not do them anymore because there are too many variables to judge health care system?

If he went to their page he would know that.

Did he also mention that if you factor in accidents and violent deaths you are actually number 1?

I’m more than aware that there are a lot of variables in judging a healthcare system( i.e. cost, death rates, life expectancy, obesity, etc.) . I also know that if you’re 37 on the list your not anywhere close to #1 which is where we should be.

And what? I know our murder rates are incredibly high in the u.s., but I don’t think they would affect the average life expectancy that much. Certainly not pushing us to #1. Accidents are just as frequent in other countries as well. Besides, you just mentioned that there are a lot of variables in measuring a healthcare system. We generally suck in all of them.[/quote]

Accidents are not more frequent but they are much more densely populated.

Therefore aid takes longer for help to arrive in the US and people die.

30

This article is very interesting

http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html

Medical Insurance that Worked - Until Government “fixed” it

and if you are too lazy to read, this dude is just gonna tell you!

(do not read or listen if you are a goddamn commie, I WARN YOU!)

31

Some more of the same guy:

Why is healthcare so expensive

32

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
The reason I wasn’t diagnosed properly? The weaker hospital was poorly staffed and didn’t have an MRI machine. I almost died because of this.

I bet it was cheaper too. I wonder why you CHOSE to go there hmm?

People sacrifice quality for price in ALL goods. Why should healthcare be any different?

Oh wait, because of the government protected AMA endorsed insurance companies, you have no idea WHAT you’re paying, so you can’t price shop for quality!

Yep, government involvement sure is awesome <_<[/quote]

What I’m learning about is that sometimes exactly the opposite is true. For instance the hospital that I go to is not really all that cheaper, it’s just a better fit for average appointments. Instead I get to see a doc I know and that is a family friend, instead of one that can’t pronounce my last name.

There’s a graph I have that shows quality of hospital care as it relates to cost for procedures. If quality and cost increased together, there would be a straight line. Unfortunately the graph is a confused assortment of dots, often showing that people pay way too much for the care they receive.

Essentially, the data shows on multiple levels that Americans are paying way too much for the level of healthcare they get back. That in itself is an important reason for reform.

33

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
The reason I wasn’t diagnosed properly? The weaker hospital was poorly staffed and didn’t have an MRI machine. I almost died because of this.

I bet it was cheaper too. I wonder why you CHOSE to go there hmm?

People sacrifice quality for price in ALL goods. Why should healthcare be any different?

Oh wait, because of the government protected AMA endorsed insurance companies, you have no idea WHAT you’re paying, so you can’t price shop for quality!

Yep, government involvement sure is awesome <_<

What I’m learning about is that sometimes exactly the opposite is true. For instance the hospital that I go to is not really all that cheaper, it’s just a better fit for average appointments. Instead I get to see a doc I know and that is a family friend, instead of one that can’t pronounce my last name.

There’s a graph I have that shows quality of hospital care as it relates to cost for procedures. If quality and cost increased together, there would be a straight line. Unfortunately the graph is a confused assortment of dots, often showing that people pay way too much for the care they receive.

Essentially, the data shows on multiple levels that Americans are paying way too much for the level of healthcare they get back. That in itself is an important reason for reform.[/quote]

Americans don’t pay for health care. They pay for health insurance (which exists due mostly to medicare) which then pays for their health insurance.

Most doctors have no idea how much anything they do costs. That is because the government has basically given insurance companies a shit ton of power by introducing medicare and using it to set price controls.

That is why quality and cost don’t correlate. They would, if not for government interference.

34

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
The reason I wasn’t diagnosed properly? The weaker hospital was poorly staffed and didn’t have an MRI machine. I almost died because of this.

I bet it was cheaper too. I wonder why you CHOSE to go there hmm?

People sacrifice quality for price in ALL goods. Why should healthcare be any different?

Oh wait, because of the government protected AMA endorsed insurance companies, you have no idea WHAT you’re paying, so you can’t price shop for quality!

Yep, government involvement sure is awesome <_<

What I’m learning about is that sometimes exactly the opposite is true. For instance the hospital that I go to is not really all that cheaper, it’s just a better fit for average appointments. Instead I get to see a doc I know and that is a family friend, instead of one that can’t pronounce my last name.

There’s a graph I have that shows quality of hospital care as it relates to cost for procedures. If quality and cost increased together, there would be a straight line. Unfortunately the graph is a confused assortment of dots, often showing that people pay way too much for the care they receive.

Essentially, the data shows on multiple levels that Americans are paying way too much for the level of healthcare they get back. That in itself is an important reason for reform.[/quote]

its like that in every industry. just look at the fitness industry - higher prices do not necessarily equal a better product. But the type of reform that is being discussed is not going to change that. Instead it will lend itself towards eventually turning every hospital into the one you described going too.

on a side note, i now have had my second doctor tell me they will find another occupation if this goes through. My daughters pediatrician, and my family doctor.

35

Without getting bogged down to much in political ideology, think about this: in our country, one of the richest in the world, 50% of Americans cannot afford to receive access to healthcare all year long. 15% do not receive healthcare at all!

Everyone seems to mention that because we are obese and smoke cigarettes the health care ratings are skewed. Of course many countries like China smoke absurd amounts of tobacco and have better systems than us. Not to mention last time i checked McDonalds was a worldwide corporation. Of course what Americans really don’t understand is that when you see a doctor on a regular basis you become educated about the costly effects of smoking and poor diet (meaning there quality of life goes up!). In france, they even educate children from a young age about nutrition. Ultimately, it is our healthcare that is responsible for improving statistics like Obesity that relate directly to quality of life.

So while this may be being addressed as political issue, it is really of course a human rights issue which stretches across party lines. When Americans can no longer pursue happiness in freedom of debt because of the healthcare America cannot provide, the system should be fixed. We have the knowledge and the resources, but not the coverage America needs.

36

[quote]orion wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
orion wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:

Accidents are not more frequent but they are much more densely populated.

Therefore aid takes longer for help to arrive in the US and people die.

[/quote]

Have you ever been to china? Kind of a populated area ya know? There better than us supposedly.

37

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

Essentially, the data shows on multiple levels that Americans are paying way too much for the level of healthcare they get back. That in itself is an important reason for reform.[/quote]

Ok, fine. But the answer is not to reduce quality of care, which you’ve just admitted yourself is the best in the world (given your choice to go anywhere in the world). “The best and the brightest”.

The answer is to undergo serious tort reform, and keep doctors from paying 250K a year in malpractice insurance. That drives costs up. The answer is to connect the consumer with the cost and give them the power. Right now the insurance companies do that with the doctors, not the patients. The answer is NOT to involve a big hulking inefficient bureaucracy and power hungry politicians and let them control things.

38

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
The reason I wasn’t diagnosed properly? The weaker hospital was poorly staffed and didn’t have an MRI machine. I almost died because of this.

I bet it was cheaper too. I wonder why you CHOSE to go there hmm?

People sacrifice quality for price in ALL goods. Why should healthcare be any different?

Oh wait, because of the government protected AMA endorsed insurance companies, you have no idea WHAT you’re paying, so you can’t price shop for quality!

Yep, government involvement sure is awesome <_<

What I’m learning about is that sometimes exactly the opposite is true. For instance the hospital that I go to is not really all that cheaper, it’s just a better fit for average appointments. Instead I get to see a doc I know and that is a family friend, instead of one that can’t pronounce my last name.

There’s a graph I have that shows quality of hospital care as it relates to cost for procedures. If quality and cost increased together, there would be a straight line. Unfortunately the graph is a confused assortment of dots, often showing that people pay way too much for the care they receive.

Essentially, the data shows on multiple levels that Americans are paying way too much for the level of healthcare they get back. That in itself is an important reason for reform.

Americans don’t pay for health care. They pay for health insurance (which exists due mostly to medicare) which then pays for their health insurance.

Most doctors have no idea how much anything they do costs. That is because the government has basically given insurance companies a shit ton of power by introducing medicare and using it to set price controls.

That is why quality and cost don’t correlate. They would, if not for government interference. [/quote]

This.

39

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Only 52% of adults are insured all year long[/quote]
and

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
in our country, one of the richest in the world, 50% of Americans cannot afford to receive access to healthcare all year long.[/quote]

So, are you claiming the sole reason that 50% of Americans (if your uncited sources are correct) do not have health insurance year-round is because they can’t afford it? You don’t think maybe it has something to do with the fact that the vast majority of health insurance policies are tied to employment?

40

[quote]tedro wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
Only 52% of adults are insured all year long
and
Schlenkatank wrote:
in our country, one of the richest in the world, 50% of Americans cannot afford to receive access to healthcare all year long.

So, are you claiming the sole reason that 50% of Americans (if your uncited sources are correct) do not have health insurance year-round is because they can’t afford it? You don’t think maybe it has something to do with the fact that the vast majority of health insurance policies are tied to employment? [/quote]

All of my statistics come from “Healthcare delivery in the United States” by Jonas and Kovner.

No I’m not claiming that. But without a certain level of income it becomes increasingly more likely that people will be uninsured.