Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: Why healthcare needs to be fixed...

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2635006]is that your picture?[/QUOTE]

    Bronko Nagurski.

  2. #22
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,280
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2635088]Do you actually work in healthcare? Or are you the usual fool who has nothing to compare against and actually believes that whatever he gets is the best of all possible worlds?[/QUOTE]is that your picture?

  3. #23
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,280
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2635089]Bronko Nagurski.[/QUOTE]ah....i like it....

  4. #24
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,280
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2635089]Bronko Nagurski.[/QUOTE]i was in the hospital last week for a few days.the doctors were a bit much but everything else was fine.had no complants.insurance took care of practically everything other than the co-pays.

  5. #25
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    First of all France has one of the highest tax rates in the free world and illegal immigrants aren't covered. Tell that to Obama and friends.

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,871
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2634242]How's the health care in Canada?[/QUOTE]

    Just fine thanks.....all 37 million of us are covered!

  7. #27
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't believe most of what the article states.

    First, It's from the Commonwealth Fund, which is a left-wing biased organization with an axe to grind.

    Second, comparing health care statistics across countries with disimilar health care systems is specious at best, and in most cases statistically irrelvant. For example, the article points out that it is more difficult to get care 'after hours' and on holidays in the US without going to the ER....but makes no mention of the fact that if you want/need a specialist consultation/proceedure you will wait orders of magnitude of time longer in non-US markets (that are largely state-run). Personally, I'd rather go to the ER at night if necessary, but not wait 6 months for my coronary bypass operation, total knee replacement or brain tumor removal. State-run healthcare is rife with primary care, but access to specialists is very much more limited.

    Comparing statistics about morbidity and mortality also only makes sense within a system that operates within the same parameters; there are a LOT of people here in the US that get advanced care that in a state-run system would be treated differently. For example, if a 65 y.o potential bypass patient can survive a 6 onth wait for their surgery, they were obviously healthier to begin with...the higher risk patient might die waiting. Elderly patients are denied dialysis in the UK. My neighbors 92 y.o. mother is going to have surgery for an esophogeal cancer next week (not wise IMO, not that that matters), but I would bet that in most state-run system, that care would not be offered. Premature infants born in this country are afforded every advance known to medicine to survive, though some succumb...but that doesn't happen everywhere. Then, there are distinct differences in how and what statistics are collected...you cannot compare statistics if the method of determination and collection are dissimilar.

    These are just a few examples of why articles like this are usually BS.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Bethel, CT
    Posts
    11,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Greenwave81;2635257]I don't believe most of what the article states.

    First, It's from the Commonwealth Fund, which is a left-wing biased organization with an axe to grind.

    Second, comparing health care statistics across countries with disimilar health care systems is specious at best, and in most cases statistically irrelvant. For example, the article points out that it is more difficult to get care 'after hours' and on holidays in the US without going to the ER....but makes no mention of the fact that if you want/need a specialist consultation/proceedure you will wait orders of magnitude of time longer in non-US markets (that are largely state-run). Personally, I'd rather go to the ER at night if necessary, but not wait 6 months for my coronary bypass operation, total knee replacement or brain tumor removal. State-run healthcare is rife with primary care, but access to specialists is very much more limited.

    Comparing statistics about morbidity and mortality also only makes sense within a system that operates within the same parameters; there are a LOT of people here in the US that get advanced care that in a state-run system would be treated differently. For example, if a 65 y.o potential bypass patient can survive a 6 onth wait for their surgery, they were obviously healthier to begin with...the higher risk patient might die waiting. Elderly patients are denied dialysis in the UK. My neighbors 92 y.o. mother is going to have surgery for an esophogeal cancer next week (not wise IMO, not that that matters), but I would bet that in most state-run system, that care would not be offered. Premature infants born in this country are afforded every advance known to medicine to survive, though some succumb...but that doesn't happen everywhere. Then, there are distinct differences in how and what statistics are collected...you cannot compare statistics if the method of determination and collection are dissimilar.

    These are just a few examples of why articles like this are usually BS.[/QUOTE]

    I was hoping you would post !

    I will say this though, our system is based on your employment status, which is insanity. If you work for IBM or a deli, your contributions via premiums to the system are dramatically different, even though your withdraws from the system are the same

    I'd love to see it go to a car insurance model, totally private, based on your own risk and with the freedom to choose what you want

    the big carriers will never do it though, because people would only buy what they need. The big carriers need healthy peoples premium to offset the sick peoples claims

    it seems like such an obvious answer some of the problems, but I bet the big carriers lobby will make sure it never happens

  9. #29
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Greenwave81;2635257]I don't believe most of what the article states.

    First, It's from the Commonwealth Fund, which is a left-wing biased organization with an axe to grind.

    Second, comparing health care statistics across countries with disimilar health care systems is specious at best, and in most cases statistically irrelvant. For example, the article points out that it is more difficult to get care 'after hours' and on holidays in the US without going to the ER....but makes no mention of the fact that if you want/need a specialist consultation/proceedure you will wait orders of magnitude of time longer in non-US markets (that are largely state-run). Personally, I'd rather go to the ER at night if necessary, but not wait 6 months for my coronary bypass operation, total knee replacement or brain tumor removal. State-run healthcare is rife with primary care, but access to specialists is very much more limited.

    Comparing statistics about morbidity and mortality also only makes sense within a system that operates within the same parameters; there are a LOT of people here in the US that get advanced care that in a state-run system would be treated differently. For example, if a 65 y.o potential bypass patient can survive a 6 onth wait for their surgery, they were obviously healthier to begin with...the higher risk patient might die waiting. Elderly patients are denied dialysis in the UK. My neighbors 92 y.o. mother is going to have surgery for an esophogeal cancer next week (not wise IMO, not that that matters), but I would bet that in most state-run system, that care would not be offered. Premature infants born in this country are afforded every advance known to medicine to survive, though some succumb...but that doesn't happen everywhere. Then, there are distinct differences in how and what statistics are collected...you cannot compare statistics if the method of determination and collection are dissimilar.

    These are just a few examples of why articles like this are usually BS.[/QUOTE]

    It's always a good idea to look at a study and its metrics before dismissing it.

    First of all, the study does not only compare against an international benchmark, it compares healthcare variability within the US. And the results are pretty chilling. Not to mention that according to the report 75 million people are either uninsured or underinsured. I'm always amused when physicians use the example of the fully insured to tout how extensive and sophisticated the healthcare is for that person. They don't mention that many Americans don't have access to any care, much less high quality care, and that decisions about the range and extent of that care are driven by reimbursement potential far more than clinical necessity. How many patients do we all know who are magically cured on the day when their insurance runs out and discharged as stable to the community? How many patients receive unnecessary surgeries for conditions that research shows would do just as well with rehabilitation? And of course the driving force is reimbursement. Surgeons love to cut because they pay their bills by cutting. (see your friend's esophogeal example, which you say doesn't matter!) In addition, as the study is pointing out, healthcare in America is incredibly fragmented, not to mention redundant. If New York City, for example, had a rational, centralized healthcare system, how many beds, much less hospitals would remain open? How many hospitals buy expensive machines, then figure out every way imaginable to make the machine profitable. That's not a clinical decision, it's a business decision. My own private physician bought some equipment to test cardiac stress. Then he spent 15 minutes trying to convince me that because my father died of a HA that I needed the test, despite my health being excellent, my cholesterol great, my BP excellent, my BMI in excellent range and my regular EKG perfectly normal.... I declined the test. It was simply about making money and we both knew it.

    Re the second point, the issue is not that US healthcare can't provide the best cutting-edge treatment. It can, of course. The problem is that it is usually over-indulged for those who can pay, and not available at all to those who can't. That's a broken system, except for the rich and the fully insured. We won't even get into the role of insurance companies and their meddling in clinical decisions....

    To say this is all BS is frankly nonsense itself. Our system is a mess and needs serious repair.

  10. #30
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2635371]It's always a good idea to look at a study and its metrics before dismissing it.

    First of all, the study does not only compare against an international benchmark, it compares healthcare variability within the US. And the results are pretty chilling. Not to mention that according to the report 75 million people are either uninsured or underinsured. I'm always amused when physicians use the example of the fully insured to tout how extensive and sophisticated the healthcare is for that person. They don't mention that many Americans don't have access to any care, much less high quality care, and that decisions about the range and extent of that care are driven by reimbursement potential far more than clinical necessity. How many patients do we all know who are magically cured on the day when their insurance runs out and discharged as stable to the community? How many patients receive unnecessary surgeries for conditions that research shows would do just as well with rehabilitation? And of course the driving force is reimbursement. Surgeons love to cut because they pay their bills by cutting. (see your friend's esophogeal example, which you say doesn't matter!) In addition, as the study is pointing out, healthcare in America is incredibly fragmented, not to mention redundant. If New York City, for example, had a rational, centralized healthcare system, how many beds, much less hospitals would remain open? How many hospitals buy expensive machines, then figure out every way imaginable to make the machine profitable. That's not a clinical decision, it's a business decision. My own private physician bought some equipment to test cardiac stress. Then he spent 15 minutes trying to convince me that because my father died of a HA that I needed the test, despite my health being excellent, my cholesterol great, my BP excellent, my BMI in excellent range and my regular EKG perfectly normal.... I declined the test. It was simply about making money and we both knew it.

    Re the second point, the issue is not that US healthcare can't provide the best cutting-edge treatment. It can, of course. The problem is that it is usually over-indulged for those who can pay, and not available at all to those who can't. That's a broken system, except for the rich and the fully insured. We won't even get into the role of insurance companies and their meddling in clinical decisions....

    To say this is all BS is frankly nonsense itself. Our system is a mess and needs serious repair.[/QUOTE]

    You obviously believe in a socialized medical system, and I do not. I believe in individual choice, freedom and market based solutions. If you want someone else (i.e. the government or other agency) making decisions on what care is to be provided within certain parameters, so be it.

    My points were given only to say that the article you posted doesn't justify or prove your opinion...you are entitled to it, but the article 'uses' statistics in an improper and intentionally misleading manner. What I said was BS was the article...and I still stand by that.

  11. #31
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote=CanadaSteve;2635237]Just fine thanks.....all 37 million of us are covered![/quote]

    I have relatives in Canada and they tell me the system is a nightmare and their taxes are unbearable and skyrocketing (they are middle class too).

    Bet your as healthy as a horse and don't need much medical care. When you or a loved one is in need of serious medical care, come back and share with us your experiences with your "great, free" system.

    [URL]http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15524[/URL]
    [URL]http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001977834_cihak13.html[/URL]

    You get what you pay for and nothing in life is free.

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb;2635551]I have relatives in Canada and they tell me the system is a nightmare and their taxes are unbearable and skyrocketing (they are middle class too).

    Bet your as healthy as a horse and don't need much medical care. When you or a loved one is in need of serious medical care, come back and share with us your experiences with your "great, free" system.

    [URL]http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15524[/URL]
    [URL]http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001977834_cihak13.html[/URL]

    You get what you pay for and nothing in life is free.[/QUOTE]

    Exactly Weeb, The Canadian Govt knows the system is broke and wants to go
    a US form of Health Care. The US system needs updades not a total demolition!

  13. #33
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Greenwave81;2635510]You obviously believe in a socialized medical system, and I do not. I believe in individual choice, freedom and market based solutions. If you want someone else (i.e. the government or other agency) making decisions on what care is to be provided within certain parameters, so be it.

    My points were given only to say that the article you posted doesn't justify or prove your opinion...you are entitled to it, but the article 'uses' statistics in an improper and intentionally misleading manner. What I said was BS was the article...and I still stand by that.[/QUOTE]

    The truth is that medicine is not equivalent to any commodity in the market. It's a specialized case, where decision-making should (based on your own training as a physician) be based on what makes sense clinically. Our system is so distorted by market forces at every turn that the clinical function of medicine is prostituted to the all-mighty dollar, whether through doctors trying to figure out how to maximize their investments, hospitals working the reimbursement system, pharmaceuticals pricing medications according to their leverage in negiotiating with purchasers, and insurance companies gaming their statistics to deny coverage to outliers and capitate for the patients who have "well" profiles and will turn a profit. The system is completely a mess. The article doesn't mislead; rather it is looking at variables that have to do with our overall healthcare delivery from the perspective of access, efficiency, prevention, and recidivism. Those are all relevant variables to explore, especially when looking at how different regions of the country do in comparison to each other. The only reason a physician should want to keep the current system is because he's an entrepreneur and knows how to maximize his financial gain. It certainly won't be because he/she believes he is offering the best care for the dollar spent.

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,740
    Post Thanks / Like
    Great post.

    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2635900]The truth is that medicine is not equivalent to any commodity in the market. It's a specialized case, where decision-making should (based on your own training as a physician) be based on what makes sense clinically. Our system is so distorted by market forces at every turn that the clinical function of medicine is prostituted to the all-mighty dollar, whether through doctors trying to figure out how to maximize their investments, hospitals working the reimbursement system, pharmaceuticals pricing medications according to their leverage in negiotiating with purchasers, and insurance companies gaming their statistics to deny coverage to outliers and capitate for the patients who have "well" profiles and will turn a profit. The system is completely a mess. The article doesn't mislead; rather it is looking at variables that have to do with our overall healthcare delivery from the perspective of access, efficiency, prevention, and recidivism. Those are all relevant variables to explore, especially when looking at how different regions of the country do in comparison to each other. The only reason a physician should want to keep the current system is because he's an entrepreneur and knows how to maximize his financial gain. It certainly won't be because he/she believes he is offering the best care for the dollar spent.[/QUOTE]

  15. #35
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb;2635002]The US healthcare system is THE best in the world. Nothing in life is perfect and NOTHING is free.[/QUOTE]

    As someone who has worked his way through the system...its FUBAR.

  16. #36
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2635900]The truth is that medicine is not equivalent to any commodity in the market. It's a specialized case, where decision-making should (based on your own training as a physician) be based on what makes sense clinically. Our system is so distorted by market forces at every turn that the clinical function of medicine is prostituted to the all-mighty dollar, whether through doctors trying to figure out how to maximize their investments, hospitals working the reimbursement system, pharmaceuticals pricing medications according to their leverage in negiotiating with purchasers, and insurance companies gaming their statistics to deny coverage to outliers and capitate for the patients who have "well" profiles and will turn a profit. The system is completely a mess. The article doesn't mislead; rather it is looking at variables that have to do with our overall healthcare delivery from the perspective of access, efficiency, prevention, and recidivism. Those are all relevant variables to explore, especially when looking at how different regions of the country do in comparison to each other. The only reason a physician should want to keep the current system is because he's an entrepreneur and knows how to maximize his financial gain. It certainly won't be because he/she believes he is offering the best care for the dollar spent.[/QUOTE]


    Great...another guy/gal that for whatever reason thinks that since Doctor's get paid for their services, there must be an inherent conflict of interest in their decision making....every Doctor is just a shill ordering tests and lopping off body parts for cash.

    What is truly pathetic is statements such as this:

    [quote]The only reason a physician should want to keep the current system is because he's an entrepreneur and knows how to maximize his financial gain. It certainly won't be because he/she believes he is offering the best care for the dollar spent.[/quote]

    I really have a hard time believing that there are some people that are actually that cynical and distrusting of others in their daily life without reason to be so. Yes, Doctors get paid for their services...so what? Yes, Doctors get paid well for thier services...but it costs a lot to get the training and credentials required by the government to even get a license to work in the field, and we can potentially be sued for every decision/action we take. We work hours when most people are either drunk or sleeping.

    Some priests are molesters...do you want to do away with organized religion? There are shyster lawyers that act in their own interest rather than the interest of their clients...want to control them too? What about stockbrokers recommending investments because the kickbacks are more enticing? Mortgage brokers? What about car dealers that charge different people different amounts for the same car? Are their dishonest people you are going to come across during your life? Sure, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some honest ones too.

    What is really ironic is that liberals such as yourself, who are so distrusting of other individuals that you need to provide you with potentially life-extending care, are so quick to trust the government to provide it to you instead.... a faceless entity composed of other individuals that you do not even know, but for some reason you trust them to act in your best interest rather than the professional who you are looking in the eye across the table and hopefully have a trusting relationship with.

    I can't argue with you if you truly believe that Doctor's make medical decisions purely or largely based on profit motives...it won't make any difference. Believe it or not, I make decisions based on what is medically right for each individual, and treat them the same regardless of whether they can pay me or not.

  17. #37
    All League
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Bronx, USA
    Posts
    4,251
    Post Thanks / Like
    All I know, if i get sick, i want to get treated in the U. S. of A..... screw that..... the rest of you can hit Cuba

  18. #38
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here in Mn. have the best health care system in the world. I wouldn't trade it
    for France, Canada or any other health care!

  19. #39
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,370
    Post Thanks / Like
    Keep the current system...

    It's hilarious when doctors get screwed out of money. Let's keep the system so a big part of this country can't afford insurance, so they can keep going to the doctor and not paying him...

  20. #40
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,740
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is amazing the only person who really gets screwed with healthcare is the middle class. If you are rich you don't care what it costs and if you are poor you never know what it will cost.

    The middle class who have insurance have to hope they don't get dropped when they get sick.

    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2636212]Keep the current system...

    It's hilarious when doctors get screwed out of money. Let's keep the system so a big part of this country can't afford insurance, so they can keep going to the doctor and not paying him...[/QUOTE]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us