Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 21, 2010, 11:12:10 AM
-
Thursday, January 21, 2010
UCF Champion Compares Canadian Health Care to That of The Third World
by OneVike
________________________ ________________________ ______________________
Thinking he might need surgery to fix a bad case of diverticulitis, Brock Lesnar postponed a fight to defend his Ultimate Fighting Championship heavyweight title. If you know who Lesnar is you have one of two opinion of him probably. You either think he is an egotistical maniac, and you wish someone would come along and shut him up, or you thought he was maybe the greatest all around fighter to ever grace the sport of Ultimate fighting. Well, Brock was not just unable to train for the defense of his title, he was considering the reality that he may have to retire at the young age of 32.
A former champion the WWE, Lesnar used the same tactics he used as a wrestler to help draw fans to the UFC. They say that Lesnar is the best thing that ever happened the UFC, but after his medical problems, they were worried the 1.6 million pay per views they gained due to his attraction was in jeopardy. Well they can now rest assured that their money maker will return to the ring, because Lesnar has had a miraculous recovery. However, up until just this past Tuesday it was not so. You may be asking yourself, since when has Post Scripts cared about ultimate fighters and their future ability to beat each other up? Well the reason this is news is not because he is a fighter, but because of what happened after he ended up in a Canadian hospital.
See, Lesnar was beginning to suffer from depression due to the news he may have to retire from a new career he thought was going to allow him to fight maybe one or two times a year while spending the rest of the year at home with his family. When he was a wrestler he was not able to see his family much because he was on the road all year, fighting two maybe three times a week. Well he was now suffering from depression also, so he decided to get away and maybe defeat the depression he was feeling by going on a hunting trip in Canada.
While there he had such a painful diverticulitis attack, that he was hospitalized. While in a Canadian hospital you would think he was getting the best care in the world. After all, we are told by liberals in America that the Canadian health care system is almost as good as that of Cuba. That's why we are told Obama and the Democrats want to take over 1/7th of the American, they want to make it as good. Just one problem, Democrats can only tell lies about our health care system and that of the rest of the worlds. The lie is that the only way for us to improve the system in America is to make it like that of other countries who have Socialized health care.
So what does Lesnar have to say about that great Canadian health care he was getting? Brock was not impressed, matter of fact he said it reminded him of the kind of health care you would get in a third world country. It was so bad that his wife Rena, had to rescue him from the hospital. She loaded him into their car and drove sometimes as fast as 100 miles per hour to get her ailing husband back to America where she admitted him into the MedCenter One hospital in Bismarck, N.D. There doctors were patient, they didn’t immediately perform surgery and slowly nursed him back to some form of health. Brock's wife was so afraid her husband was going to die in the Canadian hospital she had no choice but to perform what was tantamount to a prison break to save his life.
So for you liberals who are angry that Scott Brown won the election and killed ObamaCare, I ask you. Are you sure you want what Canada has? Personally, I have yet to hear one person tell me that they had better care in Canada then they have ever received in America. Fact is, no one who knows the truth is surprised and I thank God that the people of liberal Massachusetts even know it. Come November, those who are still hoping that Obama and the Democrats can still change America into the Socialist utopia they want ,are going to be shocked.
The way I see it, there was a small earthquake in the Ocean on Tuesday, and that little ripple in the water you see is going to be such a huge tsunami come November that I would not be surprised if the Democrat party becomes insignificant and powerless to the political process for years to come.
Posted by OneVike at 10:00 AM
________________________ ________________________ ___________
Thank god ObamaCare was defeated. Crap & Tax next.
http://onevike.blogspot.com/2010/01/ucf-champion-compares-canadian-health.html
-
You do realize that he was ill at a hunting lodge in the middle of nowhere, 3 hours away from the nearest major medical facility. I could take you to plenty of locations in North Carolina, specifically the Appalachian region that you would be aghast at the medical facilities or lack thereof.
and then there is this:
Lesnar admitted his U.S. health-care adventure wasn't all perfect, telling reporters that he was initially thought to be suffering from a case of mononucleosis.
If he would have stuck with that initialUNITED STATES diagnosis, he would have died.
-
The third leading cause of all death in the United States is iatrogenesis which is Doctor misdiagnosis or the wrong medical advice from medical professionals.
Just so you know...
-
Exactly TA. One persons experience is hardly enough to damn a whole health care system. If 40,000 people in Canada were dying due to a lack of health care (like in the US) it would be a different story regarding universal care.
-
Exactly TA. One persons experience is hardly enough to damn a whole health care system. If 40,000 people in Canada were dying due to a lack of health care (like in the US) it would be a different story regarding universal care.
Lesnar is lucky he didn`t stick with the initial diagnosis he got in the United States. He would have died.
-
Lesnar is lucky he didn`t stick with the initial diagnosis he got in the United States. He would have died.
So a poor diagnosis by a doctor makes the US health care system bad.If Lesner had stayed in Canada he would have died.Perhaps if would allow doctors to treat patients without the fear of assanine lawsuits better diagnosis' may be had.
-
So a poor diagnosis by a doctor makes the US health care system bad.If Lesner had stayed in Canada he would have died.Perhaps if would allow doctors to treat patients without the fear of assanine lawsuits better diagnosis' may be had.
Wrong. Without Lawsuits, Doctors would run less tests resulting in more wrong diagnosis and patients would have no recourse whatsoever for something that is not their fault.
Could their be improvements in litigation and tort reform? Sure. Should no patient be allowed recourse for a wrong diagnosis or seek damages incurred? Of course not.
-
Wrong. Without Lawsuits, Doctors would run less tests resulting in more wrong diagnosis and patients would have no recourse whatsoever for something that is not their fault.
Could their be improvements in litigation and tort reform? Sure. Should no patient be allowed recourse for a wrong diagnosis or seek damages incurred? Of course not.
What do they do in your beloved Norway?
-
What do they do in your beloved Norway?
There are plenty of Malpractice Attorneys in Norway should you need one. They have better reform than the United States if thats what you are getting at.
-
Wrong. Without Lawsuits, Doctors would run less tests resulting in more wrong diagnosis and patients would have no recourse whatsoever for something that is not their fault.
Could their be improvements in litigation and tort reform? Sure. Should no patient be allowed recourse for a wrong diagnosis or seek damages incurred? Of course not.
Doctors are human.Its funny we can sue them for misdiagnosis,but we cant sue the government for the same thing.How many misdiagnosis' have they come up with.Obama should be sued for ,malpractice claiming his assanine stimulous bill would keep unemployment at 8%.He only helped kill the economy.
-
Doctors are human.Its funny we can sue them for misdiagnosis,but we cant sue the government for the same thing.How many misdiagnosis' have they come up with.Obama should be sued for ,malpractice claiming his assanine stimulous bill would keep unemployment at 8%.He only helped kill the economy.
You sure can sue the Government. MANY cases have been decided in the Supreme Court as well as in State Supreme Courts.
-
Doctors are human.Its funny we can sue them for misdiagnosis,but we cant sue the government for the same thing.How many misdiagnosis' have they come up with.Obama should be sued for ,malpractice claiming his assanine stimulous bill would keep unemployment at 8%.He only helped kill the economy.
Ha ha. Good one Bro!
-
I can not believe that the writer of this article would take the time to use this guys illness as an opportunity to TRASH the Canadian health care system. America suffers over 500,000 deaths every year due to medical MISDIAGNOSIS by its doctors. Does that mean that americas medical system is FOURTH WORLD???? That was a really cheap shot by this writer, who at any other time he would have been trashing Brock Lesnar to no end, talking about how he abuses steroids. Gimmie a break. Nonetheless Canada just like Europe is better off having the system they have as opposed to america having NO SYSTEM AT ALL...
-
I can not believe that the writer of this article would take the time to use this guys illness as an opportunity to TRASH the Canadian health care system. America suffers over 500,000 deaths every year due to medical MISDIAGNOSIS by its doctors. Does that mean that americas medical system is FOURTH WORLD???? That was a really cheap shot by this writer, who at any other time he would have been trashing Brock Lesnar to no end, talking about how he abuses steroids. Gimmie a break. Nonetheless Canada just like Europe is better off having the system they have as opposed to america having NO SYSTEM AT ALL...
HOW DO YOU KNOW IF HE USES STEROIDS?
-
HOW DO YOU KNOW IF HE USES STEROIDS?
This arrest ring a bell?
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/lesnar1.jpg)
-
HOW DO YOU KNOW IF HE USES STEROIDS?
Gee Billy you're more stupid than I originally thought...It is not like it is hard to see the steroids coursing through his veins. But maybe the arrest will help you know and believe
-
The third leading cause of all death in the United States is iatrogenesis which is Doctor misdiagnosis or the wrong medical advice from medical professionals.
Just so you know...
Source?
-
Source?
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120137990/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Confidential Clinician-reported Surveillance of Adverse Events Among Medical Inpatients
Saul N. Weingart, MD, PhD, Amy N. Ship, MD, Mark D. Aronson, MD
Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass
Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH
JAMA. 2000;284:483-485.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/284/4/483
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7453741
Iatrogenic illness on a general medical service at a university hospital.
Steel K, Gertman PM, Crescenzi C, Anderson J.
Deficiencies in US Medical Care
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/284/17/2184-a
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/15/1200
Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies
Jason Lazarou, Bruce H. Pomeranz, and Paul N. Corey
JAMA. 1998;279(15):1200-1205.
-
Source?
^ a b Starfield B (2000). "Is US health really the best in the world?". JAMA 284 (4): 483–5. doi:10.1001/jama.284.4.483. PMID 10904513.
^ Fisher-Hoch SP (2005). "Lessons from nosocomial viral haemorrhagic fever outbreaks". Br. Med. Bull. 73-74: 123–37. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldh054. PMID 16373655.
^ a b Spanos, Nicholas P. (1996). Multiple Identities & False Memories: A Sociocognitive Perspective. American Psychological Association (APA). ISBN 1-55798-340-2.
^ Pruett Jr, John R.; Luby, Joan L. (2004). "Recent Advances in Prepubertal Mood Disorders: Phenomenology and Treatment". Curr Opin Psychiatry 17 (1): 31–36. doi:10.1097/00001504-200401000-00006. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
^ Braun, B.G. (1989). Dissociation: Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 066-069: Iatrophilia and Iatrophobia in the diagnosis and treatment of MPD (Morose Parasitic Dynamism). Retrieved 2008-05-04.
^ Hadler, N.M. (1997). "Fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, and other iatrogenic diagnostic algorithms. Do some labels escalate illness in vulnerable patients?". Postgrad Med 102 (6): 43. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
^ a b Abbey, S.E. (1993). "Somatization, illness attribution and the sociocultural psychiatry of chronic fatigue syndrome". Ciba Found Symp 173: 238–52. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
^ Boscarino, JA (2004). Evaluation of the Iatrogenic Effects of Studying Persons Recently Exposed to a Mass Urban Disaster. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
^ Moos, R.H. (2005). "Iatrogenic effects of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders: prevalence , predictors, prevention" (abstract). Addiction 100 (5): 595–604. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01073.x. PMID 15847616.
^ Weiss, B.; Caron, A.; Ball, S.; Tapp, J.; Johnson, M.; Weisz, J.R. (2005). "Iatrogenic effects of group treatment for antisocial youths". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 73 (6): 1036–1044. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1036. PMID 16392977. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
^ Kouyanou, K; Pither, CE; Wessely, S (1 November 1997). "Iatrogenic factors and chronic pain" (abstract). Psychosomatic Medicine 59 (6): 597–604. PMID 9407578. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
^ Meessen,B., Zhenzhong,Z., Van Damme,W., Devadasan,N., Criel,B., Bloom,G. (2003). "Iatrogenic poverty.". Tropical Medicine & International Health 8 (7): 581–4. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3156.2003.01081.x.
^ Xu et al.; Evans, DB; Carrin, G; Aguilar-Rivera, AM; Musgrove, P; Evans, T (2007). "Protecting Households from Catastrophic Health Spending". Health Affairs 26 (4): 972–83. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.26.4.972. PMID 17630440.
^ Kruk et al.; Goldmann, E.; Galea, S. (2009). "Borrowing And Selling To Pay For Health Care In Low- And Middle-Income Countries". Health Affairs 28 (4): 10056–66. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.4.1056.
^ Steel K, Gertman PM, Crescenzi C, Anderson J (1981). "Iatrogenic illness on a general medical service at a university hospital". N. Engl. J. Med. 304 (11): 638–42. PMID 7453741.
^ Weingart SN, Ship AN, Aronson MD (2000). "Confidential clinician-reported surveillance of adverse events among medical inpatients". J Gen Intern Med 15 (7): 470–7. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.06269.x. PMID 10940133.
-
Medical Doctor, Climate Scientist, Engineer, Chemist, Chef, Bodybuilder, Stock Analyst, MY GOD TA -
IS THERE ANYTHYING YOU ARE NOT BRILLIANT AT?
-
Feel free to explore the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis
Doctor and medical error is still the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States. Some estimates have it nearly the 2nd leading cause of unnecessary death.
-
Incidence and importance
Iatrogenesis is a major phenomenon, and a severe risk to patients. A study carried out in 1981 more than one-third of illnesses of patients in a university hospital were iatrogenic, nearly one in ten were considered major, and in 2% of the patients, the iatrogenic disorder ended in death. Complications were most strongly associated with exposure to drugs and medications.[15] In another study, the main factors leading to problems were inadequate patient evaluation, lack of monitoring and follow-up, and failure to perform necessary tests.[16]
In the United State alone, recorded deaths per year (2000):
12,000—unnecessary surgery
7,000—medication errors in hospitals
20,000—other errors in hospitals
80,000—infections in hospitals
106,000—non-error, negative effects of drugs
Based on these figures, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Also, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).
This totals 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes. In interpreting these numbers, note the following:
most data were derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
the estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report. If higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.[1]
-
Feel free to explore the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis
Doctor and medical error is still the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States. Some estimates have it nearly the 2nd leading cause of unnecessary death.
Your sources are not substantiating your claim. The closest one indicates that it would be between the 4th and 6th leading cause out of the hospitals sampled. The wiki link only indicates some 125,000-225,000 as an estimate.
The CDC does not list this as a leading cause of death in the U.S.
There's a difference between it being a problem, which we can all agree with, versus it being a leading cause of death.
-
Incidence and importance
Iatrogenesis is a major phenomenon, and a severe risk to patients. A study carried out in 1981 more than one-third of illnesses of patients in a university hospital were iatrogenic, nearly one in ten were considered major, and in 2% of the patients, the iatrogenic disorder ended in death. Complications were most strongly associated with exposure to drugs and medications.[15] In another study, the main factors leading to problems were inadequate patient evaluation, lack of monitoring and follow-up, and failure to perform necessary tests.[16]
In the United State alone, recorded deaths per year (2000):
12,000—unnecessary surgery
7,000—medication errors in hospitals
20,000—other errors in hospitals
80,000—infections in hospitals
106,000—non-error, negative effects of drugs
Based on these figures, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Also, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).
This totals 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes. In interpreting these numbers, note the following:
most data were derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
the estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report. If higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.[1]
Alright, this clarifies things a bit.
-
Of course, that was back in '81 and I'd like to think that we've improved significantly in the last 30 or so years.
-
Of course, that was back in '81 and I'd like to think that we've improved significantly in the last 30 or so years.
No, the IOM was from 2000 and the trend has been constant.
There is a more recent study about to come out showing the conditions a bit worse. :-\
With over 200,000 unnecessary deaths PER YEAR, patients should have some rights with the ability to seek damages and recourse. Don`t you think?
-
Working with the most conservative figures from our statistics we project the following 10-year death rates.
Medical Intervention
Projected Ten-Year Death Rates
Condition 10-Year Deaths
Adverse Drug Reaction 1.06 million
Medical error 0.98 million
Bedsores 1.15 million
Nosocomial Infection 0.88 million
Malnutrition 1.09 million
Outpatients 1.99 million
Unnecessary Procedures 371,360
Surgery-related 320,000
TOTAL 7,841,360 (7.8 million)
-
Our projected statistic of 7.8 million iatrogenic deaths is more than all the casualties from wars that America has fought in its entire history.
Our projected figures for unnecessary medical events occurring over a 10-year period are also dramatic.
Unnecessary Intervention
Projected Ten-Year Statistics
Unnecessary Events 10-Year Number Iatrogenic Events
Hospitalization 89 million 17 million
Procedures 75 million 13 million
TOTAL 164 million 30 million
-
These projected figures show that a total of 164 million people, approximately 56 percent of the population of the United States, have been treated unnecessarily by the medical industry—in other words, nearly 50,000 people per day.
-
Having been misdiagnosed myself, yes I do think patients should have recourse. And I was in a lot of pain as a result of the misdiagnosis. I didn't sue though.
There should be a recourse for individuals, but these ridiculous punitive damages have to be balanced out. Even when they're reduced by an appeals court, they're far too large.
Fair and just recourse is one thing. Super inflated damages so some attorney can retire filthy rich is another.
-
Table Of Iatrogenic Deaths In The United States
(Deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures)
Condition Deaths Cost Author
Adverse Drug Reactions 106,000 $12 billion Lazarou (1) Suh (49)
Medical error 98,000 $2 billion IOM (6)
Bedsores 115,000 $55 billion Xakellis (7) Barczak (8)
Infection 88,000 $5 billion Weinstein (9) MMWR (10)
Malnutrition 108,800 — Nurses Coalition (11)
Outpatients 199,000 $77 billion Starfield ( 12) Weingart (1, 12)
Unnecessary Procedures 37,136 $122 billion HCUP(3, 13)
Surgery-Related 32,000 $9 billion AHRQ(85)
TOTAL 783,936 $282 billion
We could have an even higher death rate by using Dr. Lucien Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million. (14) Multiplied by the fatality rate of 14 percent (that Leape used in 1994 (16) we arrive at an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined. If we put this number in place of Lazorou's 106,000 drug errors and the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 98,000 medical errors, we could add another 216,000 deaths making a total of 999,936 deaths annually.
ADR/med error 420,000 $200 billion Leape 1997(14)
TOTAL 999,936
Annual Unnecessary Medical Events
Unnecessary Events People Affected Iatrogenic Events
Hospitalization 8.9 million(4) 1.78 million(16)
Procedures 7.5 million(3) 1.3 million(40)
TOTAL 16.4 million 3.08 million
The enumerating of unnecessary medical events is very important in our analysis. Any medical procedure that is invasive and not necessary must be considered as part of the larger iatrogenic picture. Unfortunately, cause and effect go unmonitored. The figures on unnecessary events represent people ("patients") who are thrust into a dangerous health care system. They are helpless victims. Each one of these 16.4 million lives is being affected in a way that could have a fatal consequence. Simply entering a hospital could result in the following (out of 16. 4 million people):
2.1 percent chance of a serious adverse drug reaction (186,000) (1)
5 percent to 6 percent chance of acquiring a nosocomial [hospital] infection (489,500) (9)
4 percent to 36 percent chance of having an iatrogenic injury in hospital (medical error and adverse drug reactions) (1.78 million) (16)
17 percent chance of a procedure error (1.3 million) (40)
Lazarou J, Pomeranz B, Corey P. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1998;279:1200-1205.
Suh DC, Woodall BS, Shin SK, Hermes-De Santis ER. Clinical and economic impact of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. Ann Pharmacother. 2000 Dec;34(12):1373-9.
Thomas et al., 2000; Thomas et al., 1999. Institute of Medicine.
Xakellis, G.C., R. Frantz and A. Lewis, Cost of Pressure Ulcer Prevention in Long Term Care, JAGS, 43 - 5, May 1995.
Barczak, C.A., R.I. Barnett, E.J. Childs, L.M. Bosley, "Fourth National Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey", Advances in Wound Care, 10- 4, Jul/Aug 1997
Weinstein RA. Nosocomial Infection Update. Special Issue. Emerging Infectious Diseases. Vol 4 No. 3, July Sept 1998.
Forth Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare-Associated Infections, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), February 25, 2000, Vol. 49, No. 7, p. 138
Greene Burger S, Kayser-Jones J, Prince Bell J. Malnutrition and Dehydration in Nursing Homes:Key Issues in Prevention and Treatment. National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform. June 2000. http://www.cmwf.org/programs/elders/burger_mal_386.asp
Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA. 2000 Jul 26;284(4):483-5. Starfield B. Deficiencies in US medical care. JAMA. 2000 Nov 1;284(17):2184-5.
HCUPnet, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/hcupnet.htm,
http://hcup.ahrq.gov/HCUPnet.asp,
http://hcup.ahrq.gov/HCUPnet.asp
Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA. 1994 Dec 21;272(23):1851-7.
Leape L. National Patient Safety Foundation Press Release. Nationwide Poll on Patient Safety Oct 9, 1997 New York. http://www.npsf.org/html/pressrel/finalgen.html
Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 4;138(3):161-7.
Weinstein RA. Nosocomial Infection Update. Special Issue. Emerging Infectious Diseases. Vol 4 No. 3, July Sept 1998.
-
Having been misdiagnosed myself, yes I do think patients should have recourse. And I was in a lot of pain as a result of the misdiagnosis. I didn't sue though.
There should be a recourse for individuals, but these ridiculous punitive damages have to be balanced out. Even when they're reduced by an appeals court, they're far too large.
Fair and just recourse is one thing. Super inflated damages so some attorney can retire filthy rich is another.
Sorry to hear about the medical problem. Can you tell me what happened. I am really interested in hearing about your experience. How it happened, why it happened and how could it have been prevented and what was the final result?
-
Sorry to hear about the medical problem. Can you tell me what happened. I am really interested in hearing about your experience. How it happened, why it happened and how could it have been prevented and what was the final result?
Eh, not big on going too much into it. It wasn't life threatening, just very painful.
Went to the doctor, he evaluated me in about all of 3 minutes, said I had "X" and gave me a prescription. About 2 weeks later (and tons pain), I said fuck it, and decided to go to a specialist. Had to wait 30 days to get in with the specialist, so that just prolonged the pain, lol.
Anyway, the specialist spent more time with me, correctly diagnosed the problem, got me into surgery, and all has been well ever since.
I never bothered to pursue it with the general practitioner.
The real issue is what's the solution? These punitive damages have a ripple effect and make healthcare more expensive for everybody. So we need to ensure that physicians are justly held accountable for their actions, but at the same time, not drive up costs for everybody else.
While we've been posting, I've been reading this stuff on the net. Very intriguing and your argument is convincing.
-
Doctors are human.Its funny we can sue them for misdiagnosis,but we cant sue the government for the same thing.How many misdiagnosis' have they come up with.Obama should be sued for ,malpractice claiming his assanine stimulous bill would keep unemployment at 8%.He only helped kill the economy.
well muthafuckin bush should have been sued for his misdiagnosis of iraq and the wmds....how about that?
-
Ok... i would like to chime in a bit...and some of the docs on board can attest...Im just gonna say. The one doc in the US that messed up the DX is getting a bad rap in this. There isnt some easy check list that goes along with dxing Gastro. Symptoms blend and cover a wide range. Coupled with the urgency of the illness, without being Freaking Dr House...you sometines are hasty and maybe the initial dx was most consistant with the symptoms and tests...
I sounds like im defending, and if i wasnt in school i would agree with TA maybe...but its not as cut and dry as you think. Its not like radiology of upper extremity to show a broken humorous..its a bit more tricky
-
Eh, not big on going too much into it. It wasn't life threatening, just very painful.
Went to the doctor, he evaluated me in about all of 3 minutes, said I had "X" and gave me a prescription. About 2 weeks later (and tons pain), I said fuck it, and decided to go to a specialist. Had to wait 30 days to get in with the specialist, so that just prolonged the pain, lol.
Anyway, the specialist spent more time with me, correctly diagnosed the problem, got me into surgery, and all has been well ever since.
I never bothered to pursue it with the general practitioner.
The real issue is what's the solution? These punitive damages have a ripple effect and make healthcare more expensive for everybody. So we need to ensure that physicians are justly held accountable for their actions, but at the same time, not drive up costs for everybody else.
While we've been posting, I've been reading this stuff on the net. Very intriguing and your argument is convincing.
That 30 day waiting period must have been brutal.
A lot of physicians just consult the PDR for a few minutes and then "diagnose". Worse than a a WebMD search. lol
-
That 30 day waiting period must have been brutal.
A lot of physicians just consult the PDR for a few minutes and then "diagnose". Worse than a a WebMD search. lol
LOL....I wont deny that might happen...but its not as cut and dry as you think bro.
Bu i wouldnt doubt that they look at the desk reference and just match up the symptoms...but when your group of symptoms yeild a wide range of possible dx's...it gets tricky...but i know some docs might rush.
-
Brock Lesnar can suck by big Canadian cock!
The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems
Rank Country
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
-
During the health-care debate, one damning statistic keeps popping up in newspaper columns and letters, on cable television and in politicians' statements: The U.S. ranks 37th in the world in health care.
The trouble is, the ranking is dated and flawed, and has contributed to misconceptions about the quality of the U.S. medical system.
Among all the numbers bandied about in the health-care debate, this ranking stands out as particularly misleading. It is based on a report released nearly a decade ago by the World Health Organization and relies on statistics that are even older and incomplete.
Few people who cite the ranking are aware that some public-health officials were skeptical of the report from the outset. The ranking was faulted because it judges health-care systems for problems -- cultural, behavioral, economic -- that aren't controlled by health care.
"It's a very notorious ranking," says Mark Pearson, head of health for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 30-member, Paris-based organization of the world's largest economies. "Health analysts don't like to talk about it in polite company. It's one of those things that we wish would go away."
“ The study is both flawed and dated, but that does not necessarily mean that we are doing better on health care than the study indicates. ” — David Beemer
More recent efforts to rank national health systems have been inconclusive. On measures such as child mortality and life expectancy, the U.S. has slipped since the 2000 rankings. But some researchers say that factors beyond the control of the health-care system are to blame, such as dietary habits. Studies that have attempted to exclude these factors from the equation don't agree on whether the U.S. system looks better or worse.
The WHO ranking was ambitious in its scope, grading each nation's health care on five factors. Two of these were relatively uncontroversial: health level, which is roughly the average healthy lifespan of a nation's residents; and responsiveness, which is a sort of customer-service rating encompassing factors such as the system's speed, choice and quality of amenities. The other three measure inequality in health-care outcomes; responsiveness; and individual spending.
These last three measures struck some analysts as problematic, because a country with unhealthy people could rank above a healthier one where there was a bigger gap between healthy and unhealthy people. It is certainly possible that spreading health care as evenly as possible makes a society healthier, but the rankings struck some health-care researchers as assuming that, rather than demonstrating it.
An even bigger problem was shared by all five of these factors: The underlying data about each nation generally weren't available. So WHO researchers calculated the relationship between those factors and other, available numbers, such as literacy rates and income inequality. Such measures, they argued, were linked closely to health in those countries where fuller health data were available. Even though there was no way to be sure that link held in other countries, they used these literacy and income data to estimate health performance.
Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied the rankings, calls the figures that resulted from this step "so many made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking." Dr. Musgrove, an economist who is now deputy editor of the journal Health Affairs, says he was hired to edit the report's text but didn't fully understand the methodology until after the report was released. After he left the WHO, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical journal Lancet criticizing the rankings as "meaningless."
The objects of his criticism, including Christopher Murray, who oversaw the ranking for the WHO, responded in a letter to the Lancet arguing that WHO "has an obligation to provide the best available evidence in a timely manner to Member States and the scientific community." It also credited the report with achieving its "original intent" of stimulating debate and focus on health systems.
Prof. Murray, now director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, says that "the biggest problem was just data" -- or the lack thereof, in many cases. He says the rankings are now "very old," and acknowledges they contained a lot of uncertainty. His institute is seeking to produce its own rankings in the next three years. The data limitations hampering earlier work "are why groups like ours are so focused on trying to get rankings better."
A WHO spokesman says the organization has no plans to update the rankings, and adds, "We would not consider it current."
And yet many people apparently do. The 37th place ranking is often cited in today's overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S. actually ranked a lot higher. Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the five criteria. But for the most widely publicized form of its rankings, the WHO took the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per capita, to calculate each country's health-care bang for its bucks. Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its ranking down to 37th. Dominica, Costa Rica and Morocco ranked 42nd, 45th and 94th before adjusting for spending levels, compared to the U.S.'s No. 15 ranking. After adjustment, all three countries ranked higher than the U.S.
Still, people often claim that the 37th-place ranking refers to quality or outcomes. High spending rates pushed the ranking down but didn't degrade the quality of care. Among those who have recently failed to make that distinction in published comments are Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette; Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin; and Margaret E. O'Kane, president of the National Committee for Quality Assurance, an advocacy group.
Representatives for Ms. DeGette and Mr. Harkin didn't respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for the National Committee for Quality Assurance said, "WHO is a respected organization. ...We have no reason to believe it is inaccurate, and we would never knowingly misrepresent or misuse another organization's data."
The flawed WHO report shouldn't obscure that the U.S. is lagging its peers in some major barometers of public health. For instance, the U.S. slipped from 18th to 24th in male life expectancy from 2000 to 2009, according to the United Nations, and from 28th to 35th in female life expectancy. Its rankings in preventing male and female under-5 mortality also fell, and placed in the 30s.
But even such analyses, more limited in scope than the WHO's effort, face similar problems: How to differentiate between the quality of the medical system and other factors, such as diet, exercise and violent-crime rates.
Some think that if the U.S. health-care system isn't responsible for troubling outcomes, trying to fix it doesn't provide the best return on investment.
"We might get more bang for the buck by setting aside some of our health-care money to support novel approaches to improve nutrition, education, exercise or public safety," says Alan Garber, an economist and professor of medicine at Stanford University. "Not every health problem has a medical solution."
Nor can everything be ranked -- especially health-care systems. "I think it's a fool's errand," says Dr. Musgrove.
(http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BB351A_NUMBG_NS_20091020222040.gif)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html
-
Dude, who cares? Socialized health care is worthless. I get ticked off everyday with my money going to help other people. What about me, I work hard and see money going to people who don't deserve it. Fact of the matter is, it works fine now, so leave it. Obama will not be re elected and his healthcare bill will go down with him.
-
(http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BB351A_NUMBG_NS_20091020222040.gif)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html
...every single other country on that list has universal socialised (free access) healthcare.
Considering 1 in 6 Americans have NO access to healthcare, and even of those who DO, another 1 in 6 will be denied coverage for catastrophic illness (making healthcare bills the leading cause of bankruptcy)... perhaps that graph is a little overly optimistic.
I suppose it would be accurate if it was a graph of those who do receive care.
Just remember to subtract:
-the 50 million with no coverage
-the 13ish million illegals (insurers deny them routinely, as they have no legal recourse)
-the 2-3 million homeless (some of these might already be included in the 50 million uninsured)
-the proportion of the 1 in 8 Americans receiving food stamps, who DO have coverage but can't meet ANY deductible, or whose health insurance will run out (recently lost a covered job)
It's also not really fair to cite an article from the Wall Street Journal, a bought-and-paid-for propaganda mouthpiece working on behalf of the very same corporations (and corpocracy) who benefit from the injustice of the status quo.
Seriously, dude, do you really think the figures for the American healthcare system have IMPROVED since 1999? What would you base that on?
You don't think that Iceland (now bankrupt and undergoing a populist revolution) is still ranking 5th?
The Luke
-
...every single other country on that list has universal socialised (free access) healthcare.
Considering 1 in 6 Americans have NO access to healthcare, and even of those who DO, another 1 in 6 will be denied coverage for catastrophic illness (making healthcare bills the leading cause of bankruptcy)... perhaps that graph is a little overly optimistic.
I suppose it would be accurate if it was a graph of those who do receive care.
Just remember to subtract:
-the 50 million with no coverage
-the 13ish million illegals (insurers deny them routinely, as they have no legal recourse)
-the 2-3 million homeless (some of these might already be included in the 50 million uninsured)
-the proportion of the 1 in 8 Americans receiving food stamps, who DO have coverage but can't meet ANY deductible, or whose health insurance will run out (recently lost a covered job)
It's also not really fair to cite an article from the Wall Street Journal, a bought-and-paid-for propaganda mouthpiece working on behalf of the very same corporations (and corpocracy) who benefit from the injustice of the status quo.
Seriously, dude, do you really think the figures for the American healthcare system have IMPROVED since 1999? What would you base that on?
You don't think that Iceland (now bankrupt and undergoing a populist revolution) is still ranking 5th?
The Luke
There is no such thing as free healthcare.
-
I respect the debate about socialized medicine but if you look at # of total lawsuits in countries with socialized medicine, they are a fraction of the cases here in the U.S. and for good reasons (mainly cost control). Of course patients should have recourse when there is gross neglegence, but that is not the case in many trials.
Our system encourages lawyers to sue and to push for outlandish damages. The costs are passed down to the people, including: costs of defensive medicine, legal defense costs, malpractice costs for all providers, settlements, awarded damages, ect. There is no current penalty for bad lawsuits and every time a doctor is named in a suit, their insurance goes up. Makes no sense. Many lawyers take a borderline case and sue hospitals and multiple docs because they know they someone will settle. Also, they sue as many people as possible, which places more financial burden on the system and incurs more legal cost for all.
We need real overall malpractice reform.
-
You do realize that he was ill at a hunting lodge in the middle of nowhere, 3 hours away from the nearest major medical facility. I could take you to plenty of locations in North Carolina, specifically the Appalachian region that you would be aghast at the medical facilities or lack thereof.and then there is this:
Lesnar admitted his U.S. health-care adventure wasn't all perfect, telling reporters that he was initially thought to be suffering from a case of mononucleosis.
If he would have stuck with that initialUNITED STATES diagnosis, he would have died.
Not true. I grew up in WNC and the facilites were fine.....in-fact the hospital in Asheville is very good......so name me one town in WNC that has these facilities that I would be "aghast at" or "lack thereof." And don't try to bullshit, as I've at least visited almost every town west of Asheville.....
In fact the worst facility BY FAR is on the Cherokee reservation, and guess who runs that one? It's so bad, many of the indians leave the res and pay out of pocket to avoid it.
-
There is no such thing as free healthcare.
Agreed. But why do you conservatives insist upon paying retail... the rest of the civilized world pays wholesale.
The Luke
-
Not true. I grew up in WNC and the facilites were fine.....in-fact the hospital in Asheville is very good......so name me one town in WNC that has these facilities that I would be "aghast at" or "lack thereof." And don't try to bullshit, as I've at least visited almost every town west of Asheville.....
In fact the worst facility BY FAR is on the Cherokee reservation, and guess who runs that one? It's so bad, many of the indians leave the res and pay out of pocket to avoid it.
Try getting surgery in Hiddenite. That place is a shithole.
-
Not true. I grew up in WNC and the facilites were fine.....in-fact the hospital in Asheville is very good......so name me one town in WNC that has these facilities that I would be "aghast at" or "lack thereof." And don't try to bullshit, as I've at least visited almost every town west of Asheville.....
In fact the worst facility BY FAR is on the Cherokee reservation, and guess who runs that one? It's so bad, many of the indians leave the res and pay out of pocket to avoid it.
Why are you bringing Asheville into this. Asheville has a lot of wealth and is a wonderful center for the arts. The gay population is enormous and is very well off.
-
Not true. I grew up in WNC and the facilites were fine.....in-fact the hospital in Asheville is very good......so name me one town in WNC that has these facilities that I would be "aghast at" or "lack thereof." And don't try to bullshit, as I've at least visited almost every town west of Asheville.....
In fact the worst facility BY FAR is on the Cherokee reservation, and guess who runs that one? It's so bad, many of the indians leave the res and pay out of pocket to avoid it.
Or you can try your luck in Robbinsville, North Carolina. You would most likely just die if you had any kind of serious illness and remained there. Methinks you haven`t traveled North Carolina as much as you say you have. There are VERY Wealthy parts and there are VERY Poor parts with no access to medical care whatsoever.
The median income for a household in the town was $14,688, and the median income for a family was $21,705. Males had a median income of $16,912 versus $14,886 for females. The per capita income for the town was $10,275. 34.5% of the population and 26.5% of families were below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 46.6% of those under the age of 18 and 37.8% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.
-
Once you get to Cedar Mountain, it is doubtful that you will even find anything other than a shack.
-
Or you can try your luck in Robbinsville, North Carolina. You would most likely just die if you had any kind of serious illness and remained there. Methinks you haven`t traveled North Carolina as much as you say you have. There are VERY Wealthy parts and there are VERY Poor parts with no access to medical care whatsoever.
The median income for a household in the town was $14,688, and the median income for a family was $21,705. Males had a median income of $16,912 versus $14,886 for females. The per capita income for the town was $10,275. 34.5% of the population and 26.5% of families were below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 46.6% of those under the age of 18 and 37.8% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.
I told you not to try to bring up shit you know nothing about.....I have been to Robbinsville many times.....the actual town of Robbinsville doesn't have a hospital, but there are 3 within 20 miles.....Murphy, Bryson City and Andrews....not to mention Sylva and Franklin...."no access to medical care" is total bullshit. And using the "remained there" is idiotic....you could say the same thing about many suburbs of big cities that don't have their own hospital and people have to commute 30 minutes to a hospital.
As for Hiddenite you have Alexander, Iredell and Caldwell within a half hour drive.
And all of these towns have plenty of physicians and access to adequate medical care.
And I notice you didn't have anything to say about the hospital on the Cherokee reservation, that the govt runs, and is so bad the people in the tribe travel to Bryson City, Sylva and Waynesville to get care......and pay for it, even though your lovely govt care would be free.
-
I told you not to try to bring up shit you know nothing about.....I have been to Robbinsville many times.....the actual town of Robbinsville doesn't have a hospital, but there are 3 within 20 miles.....Murphy, Bryson City and Andrews....not to mention Sylva and Franklin...."no access to medical care" is total bullshit. And using the "remained there" is idiotic....you could say the same thing about many suburbs of big cities that don't have their own hospital and people have to commute 30 minutes to a hospital.
As for Hiddenite you have Alexander, Iredell and Caldwell within a half hour drive.
And all of these towns have plenty of physicians and access to adequate medical care.
And I notice you didn't have anything to say about the hospital on the Cherokee reservation, that the govt runs, and is so bad the people in the tribe travel to Bryson City, Sylva and Waynesville to get care......and pay for it, even though your lovely govt care would be free.
Uh, the distances were about the same for Brock Lesnar in Canada. So you did nothing to validate your position at all.
If you had what Brock Lesnar had and remained in Hiddenite or Robbinsville, you would die. You even confirmed what I already knew in that neither city had a hospital nor are they equipped for any type of emergency service.
-
Uh, the distances were about the same for Brock Lesnar in Canada. So you did nothing to validate your position at all.
If you had what Brock Lesnar had and remained in Hiddenite or Robbinsville, you would die. You even confirmed what I already knew in that neither city had a hospital nor are they equipped for any type of emergency service.
I don't care about Lesnar.....what I was saying is that you can expect to travel 20 or 30 minutes to hospital for surgery, and even in very serious cases, such as being airlifted. MANY hospitals, including larger ones aren't capable of handling every situation that arises. And besides, the whole point is that the situation would not be made better by Obama's proposed plan.....like I've mentioned a couple of times, the govt run hospital in Cherokee is one of the worst in WNC. There is no reason to think a govt run healthcare system would be any better.
-
.....like I've mentioned a couple of times, the govt run hospital in Cherokee is one of the worst in WNC. There is no reason to think a govt run healthcare system would be any better.
The real question would be whether there are any shockingly sub-par hospitals in Canada... whether on Native American reservations or not?
The Luke
-
The real question would be whether there are any shockingly sub-par hospitals in Canada... whether on Native American reservations or not?
The Luke
I don't know....do you? And what people throughout the world fail to realize is that just because a govt run program works in one country, does not mean it will work in the US. I think here we need to look at how well, or badly, out own govt programs operate and decide if we think they are capable of handling it....I personally do not.
-
I don't know....do you? And what people throughout the world fail to realize is that just because a govt run program works in one country, does not mean it will work in the US. I think here we need to look at how well, or badly, out own govt programs operate and decide if we think they are capable of handling it....I personally do not.
Is the current corporation-run system working?
There are 300 million Americans. Fifty million have no insurance cover. Another 50 million can't afford their deductibles/medications if they do get sick.
Of the 200 million with full coverage who seemingly can afford to get sick... approximately half of them are on Medicare (or similar government run system)... of the approx 100 million with private full coverage, about 17 million (one in six) of them will be denied coverage when faced with catastrophic illness (insurers have to make those exorbitant profits right?).
So...
-one third of Americans are unhappy because they can't afford proper coverage
-one third of Americans are unhappy because they are being ripped off for proper coverage
-one third have access to some sort of subsidised socialised government-run plan, and are happy with it
...don't get me wrong, I don't like Obama's blow-job to the insurance companies plan.
But Showstoppa... are you sure you won't be one of the one in six denied coverage?
Are there more than six people in your immediate family? 'Cause chances are...
Rather than attack Obama because he's black/socialist/liberal... maybe Weiner's plan of simply opening up Medicare to everyone would be a better first step?
The Luke
-
I don't care about Lesnar.....what I was saying is that you can expect to travel 20 or 30 minutes to hospital for surgery, and even in very serious cases, such as being airlifted. MANY hospitals, including larger ones aren't capable of handling every situation that arises. And besides, the whole point is that the situation would not be made better by Obama's proposed plan.....like I've mentioned a couple of times, the govt run hospital in Cherokee is one of the worst in WNC. There is no reason to think a govt run healthcare system would be any better.
The Indian Reservations are not under Federal Law. They are merely permitted under Federal Law and governed by Tribal Law. They are separate from the United States Government.
-
Is the current corporation-run system working?
There are 300 million Americans. Fifty million have no insurance cover. Another 50 million can't afford their deductibles/medications if they do get sick.
Of the 200 million with full coverage who seemingly can afford to get sick... approximately half of them are on Medicare (or similar government run system)... of the approx 100 million with private full coverage, about 17 million (one in six) of them will be denied coverage when faced with catastrophic illness (insurers have to make those exorbitant profits right?).
So...
-one third of Americans are unhappy because they can't afford proper coverage
-one third of Americans are unhappy because they are being ripped off for proper coverage
-one third have access to some sort of subsidised socialised government-run plan, and are happy with it
...don't get me wrong, I don't like Obama's blow-job to the insurance companies plan.
But Showstoppa... are you sure you won't be one of the one in six denied coverage?
Are there more than six people in your immediate family? 'Cause chances are...
Rather than attack Obama because he's black/socialist/liberal... maybe Weiner's plan of simply opening up Medicare to everyone would be a better first step?
The Luke
Where did I attack anyone? And not everybody who disagrees with Obama is a racist.... I would like to see medicare ramped up, but thats not what he is proposing. Also, the issues with the pharma companies, hospitals and insurance companies all need to be agressively addressed. Many of the problems could be fixed with stricter oversight, but not by "blowing up" the current system and turning it into a govt run clusterfuck like almost everything else the US govt attempts to do.
-
The Indian Reservations are not under Federal Law. They are merely permitted under Federal Law and governed by Tribal Law. They are separate from the United States Government.
The Cherokee Indian hospital is a federally owned hospital...
http://www.healthgrades.com/hospital-directory/north-carolina-nc/cherokee-indian-hospital-authority-hgstd2797b36340156
-
Many of the problems could be fixed with stricter oversight, but not by "blowing up" the current system and turning it into a govt run clusterfuck like almost everything else the US govt attempts to do.
...this point really piqued my interest.
The idea that corporations would allow or tolerate any oversight that would essentially divest them of obscene amounts of easy profit seems somewhat niave. After so many years of suckling at the teet of their monopoly such corporations now have the money and clout to directly dictate policy. They must be removed before effective reform is possible.
Why do you ASSUME goverment fails when running big social programs?
Maybe we disagree, but I've noticed that government failing is usually the deliberate end result of corporate lobbying/bribery efforts... perhaps this is why so many Americans express this oddly unquestioned assertion that the private sector is intrinsicly more efficient than the state.
This has never been demonstrated objectively.
Besides, America could very easily adopt an exact copy of one of the functioning universal systems working so well in countries such as France (purportedly the best system in the world).
Just hire the guys running the French system as consultants and do exactly what they tell you. Easy.
The Luke
-
The Cherokee Indian hospital is a federally owned hospital...
http://www.healthgrades.com/hospital-directory/north-carolina-nc/cherokee-indian-hospital-authority-hgstd2797b36340156
Indian Reservations are not under Federal Law.
-
...this point really piqued my interest.
The idea that corporations would allow or tolerate any oversight that would essentially divest them of obscene amounts of easy profit seems somewhat niave. After so many years of suckling at the teet of their monopoly such corporations now have the money and clout to directly dictate policy. They must be removed before effective reform is possible.
Why do you ASSUME goverment fails when running big social programs?
Maybe we disagree, but I've noticed that government failing is usually the deliberate end result of corporate lobbying/bribery efforts... perhaps this is why so many Americans express this oddly unquestioned assertion that the private sector is intrinsicly more efficient than the state.
This has never been demonstrated objectively.
Besides, America could very easily adopt an exact copy of one of the functioning universal systems working so well in countries such as France (purportedly the best system in the world).
Just hire the guys running the French system as consultants and do exactly what they tell you. Easy.
The Luke
We can adopt all the foreign systems we want, but that is going under the assumption that everything is on equal ground. That will not occur unless the private sector is completly cut out, which the current proposal does not do.....not even close. The insurance companies are still going to shaft the public, so why would anyone want to pass something that doesn't really fix the problem? That is the main point. Its seems that a certain sector just wants change for the sake of change, not being realistic if it's going to be better in the long run. Does that make sense?
As for the US govt running social programs.....not sure how much you know about them, but just a few examples of horrible failure are the social security system (won't exist in a few decades because of the govt "borrowing" against it), welfare (abused on a very regular basis) and medicare and medicaid which have been very mismanaged and abused over the years.
Another issue isn't just govt mismanagement, but the abuse/corruption by the very people it would be intended to help out. Many are the same ones on welfare, etc.... who abuse that system, so why would we think they are going to do anything different?
-
Interesting, but very misguided opinion you seem to have...
We can adopt all the foreign systems we want, but that is going under the assumption that everything is on equal ground. That will not occur unless the private sector is completly cut out, which the current proposal does not do.....not even close. The insurance companies are still going to shaft the public, so why would anyone want to pass something that doesn't really fix the problem? That is the main point. Its seems that a certain sector just wants change for the sake of change, not being realistic if it's going to be better in the long run. Does that make sense?
I think you hit the nail on the head right there... private healthcare for profit should be outlawed. It's simply immoral.
As for the US govt running social programs.....not sure how much you know about them, but just a few examples of horrible failure are the social security system (won't exist in a few decades because of the govt "borrowing" against it), welfare (abused on a very regular basis) and medicare and medicaid which have been very mismanaged and abused over the years.
The American Food Stamp program is wildly out of control: one eighth of all Americans (one in four American children) are currently on Food Stamps... JP Morgan run that, for profit.
The American prison system is packed with non-violent drug possession offenders (70ish%) who pose very little threat to society; poor black defendants go to jail much more often and for much longer than white offenders accused of the very same crimes under the same circumstances... that's because private prison corporations have so powerful a lobby that they effectively set judicial policy, for profit.
The American war machine is out of control... Halliburton and Blackwater run that, for profit.
Americans live in a toxic food environment... Big Agri-business (Corn lobby) runs that, for profit... with no consideration of the long term health costs involved.
Medicare and Medicaid are faltering because HMO's lobby for such inefficiency... it keeps them in business.
Even if government was as inexplicably wasteful and disorganised as you Americans like to believe it is (despite a chronic lack of evidence)... even if this was all true... government run programs would STILL be preferable to corporation run systems.
Another issue isn't just govt mismanagement, but the abuse/corruption by the very people it would be intended to help out. Many are the same ones on welfare, etc.... who abuse that system, so why would we think they are going to do anything different?
...all the welfare/Medicare/Medicaid fraud suffered by the American taxpayer in a hundred years PALES in comparison to the yearly cost of the current cleptocratic corpocracy.
Get that shit in perspective... it's in the interest of the private corporations bleeding the American taxpayer for hundreds of billions, to convince the populace that minorities grifting the occasional shady dollar is the problem.
Besides... how exactly do these greedy lower classes abuse a free socialised healthcare system?
Do they get TOO healthy?
The Luke
-
Interesting, but very misguided opinion you seem to have...
I think you hit the nail on the head right there... private healthcare for profit should be outlawed. It's simply immoral.
The American Food Stamp program is wildly out of control: one eighth of all Americans (one in four American children) are currently on Food Stamps... JP Morgan run that, for profit.
The American prison system is packed with non-violent drug possession offenders (70ish%) who pose very little threat to society; poor black defendants go to jail much more often and for much longer than white offenders accused of the very same crimes under the same circumstances... that's because private prison corporations have so powerful a lobby that they effectively set judicial policy, for profit.
The American war machine is out of control... Halliburton and Blackwater run that, for profit.
Americans live in a toxic food environment... Big Agri-business (Corn lobby) runs that, for profit... with no consideration of the long term health costs involved.
Medicare and Medicaid are faltering because HMO's lobby for such inefficiency... it keeps them in business.
Even if government was as inexplicably wasteful and disorganised as you Americans like to believe it is (despite a chronic lack of evidence)... even if this was all true... government run programs would STILL be preferable to corporation run systems.
...all the welfare/Medicare/Medicaid fraud suffered by the American taxpayer in a hundred years PALES in comparison to the yearly cost of the current cleptocratic corpocracy.
Get that shit in perspective... it's in the interest of the private corporations bleeding the American taxpayer for hundreds of billions, to convince the populace that minorities grifting the occasional shady dollar is the problem.
Besides... how exactly do these greedy lower classes abuse a free socialised healthcare system?
Do they get TOO healthy?
The Luke
Stick with physics bro.
-
Stick with physics bro.
Yeah... I'm wrong.
I must be, because the Palin-voters "feel" my point of view is faulty... they don't have any numbers to back up their delusional worldview. But they're honest, highly educated people who are immune to corporate media influence... so they must be right. Right?
The Luke
-
Interesting, but very misguided opinion you seem to have...
I think you hit the nail on the head right there... private healthcare for profit should be outlawed. It's simply immoral.
The American Food Stamp program is wildly out of control: one eighth of all Americans (one in four American children) are currently on Food Stamps... JP Morgan run that, for profit.
The American prison system is packed with non-violent drug possession offenders (70ish%) who pose very little threat to society; poor black defendants go to jail much more often and for much longer than white offenders accused of the very same crimes under the same circumstances... that's because private prison corporations have so powerful a lobby that they effectively set judicial policy, for profit.
The American war machine is out of control... Halliburton and Blackwater run that, for profit.
Americans live in a toxic food environment... Big Agri-business (Corn lobby) runs that, for profit... with no consideration of the long term health costs involved.
Medicare and Medicaid are faltering because HMO's lobby for such inefficiency... it keeps them in business.
Even if government was as inexplicably wasteful and disorganised as you Americans like to believe it is (despite a chronic lack of evidence)... even if this was all true... government run programs would STILL be preferable to corporation run systems.
...all the welfare/Medicare/Medicaid fraud suffered by the American taxpayer in a hundred years PALES in comparison to the yearly cost of the current cleptocratic corpocracy.
Get that shit in perspective... it's in the interest of the private corporations bleeding the American taxpayer for hundreds of billions, to convince the populace that minorities grifting the occasional shady dollar is the problem.
Besides... how exactly do these greedy lower classes abuse a free socialised healthcare system?
Do they get TOO healthy?
The Luke
You mention all these programs and how its all the fault of the evil corporate America, as if the govt has no roll in it.....wake up.....the American govt/greedy politicians are at least as much to blame (moreso in my opinion) than the private sector. The private sector is only allowed to do what the govt regulates them to be able to do. So to think suddenly the US govt is going to clean itself up and run some utopian version of healthcare is naive.
And as for how the lower classes will abuse the healthcare system. Have you ever been to an American hospitals emergency room on a Monday morning, or the day after a holiday? Packed with these "lower classes" who are abusing the system by a) putting a huge burden on the staffs time b) most are on medicare or medicaid so not paying for it and c) causing long waits for those who have legit reasons for being there. The vast majority of them just want the day off or some prescription meds. Ask anybody who works in a hospital and the will tell you the same thing.
Also, visit an American "health dept facility." Same thing. Parents with too many dependents that they can't pay for, yet the US taxpayer has to cover them.....complete bullshit and it's exactly what the proposed healthcare system would be like. It would be those willing to work and pay into it paying for those who don't.....I don't believe the bs line that everybody is going to share the cost. Middle-class will get screwed as always.
I just think you are putting a lot of trust in the US govt on this one topic, yet you point out numerous situations (blackwater, haliburton, etc..." where the govt is allowing the private sector to screw the american taxpayer. Explain to me why you think that healthcare will suddenly "be different" Because Obama says so? ::)
-
You mention all these programs and how its all the fault of the evil corporate America, as if the govt has no roll in it.....wake up.....the American govt/greedy politicians are at least as much to blame (moreso in my opinion) than the private sector. The private sector is only allowed to do what the govt regulates them to be able to do. So to think suddenly the US govt is going to clean itself up and run some utopian version of healthcare is naive.
And as for how the lower classes will abuse the healthcare system. Have you ever been to an American hospitals emergency room on a Monday morning, or the day after a holiday? Packed with these "lower classes" who are abusing the system by a) putting a huge burden on the staffs time b) most are on medicare or medicaid so not paying for it and c) causing long waits for those who have legit reasons for being there. The vast majority of them just want the day off or some prescription meds. Ask anybody who works in a hospital and the will tell you the same thing.
Also, visit an American "health dept facility." Same thing. Parents with too many dependents that they can't pay for, yet the US taxpayer has to cover them.....complete bullshit and it's exactly what the proposed healthcare system would be like. It would be those willing to work and pay into it paying for those who don't.....I don't believe the bs line that everybody is going to share the cost. Middle-class will get screwed as always.
I just think you are putting a lot of trust in the US govt on this one topic, yet you point out numerous situations (blackwater, haliburton, etc..." where the govt is allowing the private sector to screw the american taxpayer. Explain to me why you think that healthcare will suddenly "be different" Because Obama says so? ::)
I have a buddy who works for a Drug Company and he was telling me how the welfare queens scam the medicaide system for prescription drugs to sell on the street and how they teach their kids to fake certain illnesses to get the partcular "scrip".
Luke may know physics, but he don't know jack shit about much else, especially what goes on with out corrupt incompetent govt.
-
You mention all these programs and how its all the fault of the evil corporate America, as if the govt has no roll in it.....wake up.....the American govt/greedy politicians are at least as much to blame (moreso in my opinion) than the private sector. The private sector is only allowed to do what the govt regulates them to be able to do. So to think suddenly the US govt is going to clean itself up and run some utopian version of healthcare is naive.
And as for how the lower classes will abuse the healthcare system. Have you ever been to an American hospitals emergency room on a Monday morning, or the day after a holiday? Packed with these "lower classes" who are abusing the system by a) putting a huge burden on the staffs time b) most are on medicare or medicaid so not paying for it and c) causing long waits for those who have legit reasons for being there. The vast majority of them just want the day off or some prescription meds. Ask anybody who works in a hospital and the will tell you the same thing.
Also, visit an American "health dept facility." Same thing. Parents with too many dependents that they can't pay for, yet the US taxpayer has to cover them.....complete bullshit and it's exactly what the proposed healthcare system would be like. It would be those willing to work and pay into it paying for those who don't.....I don't believe the bs line that everybody is going to share the cost. Middle-class will get screwed as always.
I just think you are putting a lot of trust in the US govt on this one topic, yet you point out numerous situations (blackwater, haliburton, etc..." where the govt is allowing the private sector to screw the american taxpayer. Explain to me why you think that healthcare will suddenly "be different" Because Obama says so? ::)
I have a buddy who works for a Drug Company and he was telling me how the welfare queens scam the medicaide system for prescription drugs to sell on the street and how they teach their kids to fake certain illnesses to get the partcular "scrip".
Luke may know physics, but he don't know jack shit about much else, especially what goes on with out corrupt incompetent govt.
-
I have a buddy who works for a Drug Company and he was telling me how the welfare queens scam the medicaide system for prescription drugs to sell on the street and how they teach their kids to fake certain illnesses to get the partcular "scrip".
Luke may know physics, but he don't know jack shit about much else, especially what goes on with out corrupt incompetent govt.
For sure. There are all types of abuse of the system. I just find it ironic that so many people who bash Blackwater, Halliburton, etc.... act like those companies are not being allowed to do what they do by the US govt......yet they trust the govt to "do the right thing" in regards to healthcare? C'mon.....
-
I have a buddy who works for a Drug Company and he was telling me how the welfare queens scam the medicaide system for prescription drugs to sell on the street and how they teach their kids to fake certain illnesses to get the partcular "scrip".
...we have that here in Europe too.
But in the US, the entire healthcare system is paying over the odds for prescription drugs (monopoly pricing by Big Pharma as opposed to monopsony pricing by a single payer). So Big Pharma lobbies government to reduce services to emergency rooms and free clinics (the poor) because they know overworked healthcare services end up fobbing off the malingerers with the same exorbitantly expensive pills (which Big Pharma produces).
If I was running an immoral pharmaceutical company selling a flu vaccine (for example); I'd plant millenarian apocalyptic swine-flu scare stories in the propaganda news media... didn't this happen in America?
If I was running an immoral privatised prison company (for example); I'd plant sensationalist scare-tactic crime stories in the propaganda news media while simultaneously lobbying for Draconian prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders and the underfunding of public schools... didn't this happen in America?
If I was running an immoral military industrial war machine (for example); I'd scare the shit out of reactionary simple-minded Americans by creating some phantom terrorist network against whom a never-ending yet highly profitable crusade must be fought... didn't this happen in America?
You guys make out that I'm somehow niave... yet you insist upon the believing and unthinkingly defending the very same propaganda arguments proffered by your own corporate media: that somehow the system that has worked in every other industrialised country in the world won't work in America because the US has minorities; a lower class; greedy immigrants; dysgenic population growth...
...as if the other industrialised nations are miraculously devoid of such problems.
If you can't comprehend that:
-poor public schooling
-racial tension
-poorly funded public healthcare
-inefficient social programs
-chronic wealth disparity
-government incompetence etc etc
...DON'T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT, I just don't know what to tell you.
They happen because it benefits the kleptocratic corpocracy that funds the political system.
Cui bene? Cui bene? Cui bene?
The Luke
-
And whose fault is that Luke?
The only reason these corps have so much power is because the govt has so much power. Its mutual relationship benefiting both parties.
Just look at how our alleged HCR bill was worked by these companies? Why? Because Fedzilla was the gatekeeper.
-
And whose fault is that Luke?
The only reason these corps have so much power is because the govt has so much power. Its mutual relationship benefiting both parties.
Just look at how our alleged HCR bill was worked by these companies? Why? Because Fedzilla was the gatekeeper.
You don't get it, do you?
You can't blame your government for letting the corporations run amok... the corporations ARE your government.
The Luke
-
You don't get it, do you?
You can't blame your government for letting the corporations run amok... the corporations ARE your government.
The Luke
Stick with physics. At least there you dont humiliate yourself.
HCR was a fight over as to how the govt was going to spend and divert tax revenue. We should not give this Leviathon our money in the first place and let the corps really compete for our cash rather than have that thief Obama and his bith Pelosi mandate we pay the corps he made deal with.
-
HCR was a fight over as to how the govt was going to spend and divert tax revenue. We should not give this Leviathon our money in the first place and let the corps really compete for our cash rather than have that thief Obama and his bith Pelosi mandate we pay the corps he made deal with.
Why don't Americans support a simple amendment to Medicare? Just remove the "over 65" requirement.
HMOs and health insurance companies would go out of business because they can't compete with Medicare... Medicare uses it's massive single payer monopsony (a buyer's monopoly) to hammer Big Pharma down on prescription drug prices... Medicare's huge unfunded liability problem disappears as the demographics of it's client base (now everyone) improves... the government, now footing the bill, finally has the incentive to invest in proper preventative care (new food standards; screening; end of abstinence only education etc etc).
After a few years, seeing as Medicare is now the only game in town... simply transfer the funding from a premium based system to a progressive tax; so no one can game the system by not paying in.
Seems like the thing to do to me. Pretty simple really.
The Luke
-
Why don't Americans support a simple amendment to Medicare? Just remove the "over 65" requirement.
HMOs and health insurance companies would go out of business because they can't compete with Medicare... Medicare uses it's massive single payer monopsony (a buyer's monopoly) to hammer Big Pharma down on prescription drug prices... Medicare's huge unfunded liability problem disappears as the demographics of it's client base (now everyone) improves... the government, now footing the bill, finally has the incentive to invest in proper preventative care (new food standards; screening; end of abstinence only education etc etc).
After a few years, seeing as Medicare is now the only game in town... simply transfer the funding from a premium based system to a progressive tax; so no one can game the system by not paying in.
Seems like the thing to do to me. Pretty simple really.
The Luke
Maybe because Medicare has 74 TRILLION Dollars in unfunded liabilities with no way to pay for it?
www.usdebtclock.org
Check that site out if you want a look.
-
Maybe because Medicare has 74 TRILLION Dollars in unfunded liabilities with no way to pay for it?
...the reason Medicare has unfunded liabilities is pretty simple: demographics.
Corporate healthcare gets all the healthy people under 65; enjoys the privilege of enforcing a random 17% denial rate for catastrophic illness; doesn't cover pre-existing conditions; runs with a 30% overhead and is government subsidised with billions in dirty cash each year.
Medicare has a 3% overhead, and a 90% approval rating from customers.
What's the approval rating of private corporate coverage?
Give Medicare access to the whole market and every single corporate health insurer out there would be out of business instantly... meanwhile Medicare would suddenly be flush with premiums and could build up a proper fund once more (provided it was protected from corporate raiding this time). Also, the corporate healthcare lobby would no longer be interfering with proper government function and the billions it siphons off would then be available for other projects.
Strange to say 333386, but I think we agree... universal Medicare is the only sensible way to go.
The Luke
-
...the reason Medicare has unfunded liabilities is pretty simple: demographics.
Corporate healthcare gets all the healthy people under 65; enjoys the privilege of enforcing a random 17% denial rate for catastrophic illness; doesn't cover pre-existing conditions; runs with a 30% overhead and is government subsidised with billions in dirty cash each year.
Medicare has a 3% overhead, and a 90% approval rating from customers.
What's the approval rating of private corporate coverage?
Give Medicare access to the whole market and every single corporate health insurer out there would be out of business instantly... meanwhile Medicare would suddenly be flush with premiums and could build up a proper fund once more (provided it was protected from corporate raiding this time). Also, the corporate healthcare lobby would no longer be interfering with proper government function and the billions it siphons off would then be available for other projects.
Strange to say 333386, but I think we agree... universal Medicare is the only sensible way to go.
The Luke
Other than the fact that many doctors wont even take medicare patients anymore I guess it would work.
-
Other than the fact that many doctors wont even take medicare patients anymore I guess it would work.
...you seem to have a poor grasp of extrapolation.
In that scenario doctors wouldn't have any choice... if they don't take Medicare patients, they wouldn't have any patients.
But, it's nice that we agree.
The Luke
-
...you seem to have a poor grasp of extrapolation.
In that scenario doctors wouldn't have any choice... if they don't take Medicare patients, they wouldn't have any patients.
But, it's nice that we agree.
The Luke
You dont understand that under your scenario, no one in their right mind would take on 250k in debt to be what is essentially a govt employee.
-
You dont understand that under your scenario, no one in their right mind would take on 250k in debt to be what is essentially a govt employee.
Here in Ireland the government pays for most of the university places based on a merit system (how you do in your highschool final exams), so med students generally qualify with little or no debt. (Same thing in most European countries).
So we get the best students, and it doesn't cost the taxpayer much (about $10,000 per student per year), because the taxpayer uses it's monopsony position (single payer) to keep college costs down. We also don't have the crazy malpractice insurance scenario which is raising costs for American healthcare consumers and lining the pockets of superfluous non-contributory non-productive tollbooth insurance companies.
So that's how we solve the problem... more big government.
Watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" for a nice example of this: he talks to British NHS doctors who seem to be doing quite well.
The Luke