2009-06-04, 11:13 | Link #21 | ||||||||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. Doctors don't run 1 man clinics. There is something called take a triage test, questionnaire and queue number if the illness is not obvious like multiple lacerations or hemorrhage signs. 2. The last line should be : Take a number and wait. Unless that doctor is a real asshole, he wouldn't turn away someone who needs a treatment. And it is in the International Quote Of Medical Ethics under Duties Of Physicians To Patients, Line 3 : A PHYSICIAN SHALL owe his/her patients complete loyalty and all the scientific resources available to him/her. Idealistically, he should treat the patient. Pragmatically, he should handle the more important cases first, followed by a first-come-first-served basis (usually conditions are aggravated or relieved by periods of time, so theoretically this shouldn't exist) to maintain fairness because under the same quote, same section, line 5 : A PHYSICIAN SHALL give emergency care as a humanitarian duty unless he/she is assured that others are willing and able to give such care. and under Duties of Physicians In General, Line 1 : A PHYSICIAN SHALL always exercise his/her independent professional judgment and maintain the highest standards of professional conduct. In that case it is a stomachache so here is a quick-treat attempt : 1. Ask the patient - to sit down, squat, or lie down to see if he feels any better. - for previous activity and how long has he been feeling the pain. - sharp and acute or chronic pain 2. Administer water at closest possible moment. It slightly decreases the chance of having serious effects of poisoning. 3. Look out for the following - slurred speech - facial expression - marks of harm - sensitivity to surrounding and level of conciousness - obvious signs of illnesses (pale face indicating low blood pressure, sour breath indicating recent vomiting, etc) All of these should not take more than 5 minutes. I was trained before to aid in large scale CBR emergencies, and this is pretty much I can remember. Quote:
Check this list to see if your country is in it. If so, prior to be officially granted a license, they have to dictate an oath similar to this. Once you take that, you will be BOUNDED not just by your local law, but by international law to adhere to the guidelines as stated. One step out, and you risk losing your license, freedom or even your life. Quote:
__________________
|
||||||||
2009-06-04, 11:38 | Link #22 | ||||||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Edit: I just remembered a quote I saw someone mention on another forum that sums up the difference betwene the two systems. Don't remember the exact quote so I'm paraphrasing here. "The difference between socialized medicine and private insurance? Under socalized medicine treatment is rationed by who needs it the most. Under private health care it's rationed by who can pay the most."
__________________
Last edited by Kamui4356; 2009-06-04 at 12:19. |
||||||
2009-06-04, 13:03 | Link #23 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
Here's a real problem with a shared healthcare system: in the Japanese system, they have a shortage of gynecologists which has led to several deaths because the hospital claimed to have no room for them. Also, Japan apparently doesn't have a "You MUST take and render first aid" mandate that American hospital emergency rooms have. Those factors make it unwise to assert "that could happen here". Meanwhile, the vast majority of Japanese get good healthcare and quite a long life expectancy. Anecdotes are worthless except as edge indicators that some investigation is needed -- what is the overall situation for most people? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=89626309 (positive) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Japan (neutral) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/331/7518/648 (addresses the current problems with it) Again, the current system in the US is seriously broken: 1) over 40 million Americans go without basic healthcare. 2) Those Americans with insurance are often left financially destroyed after a medical illness because of all the caveats in for-profit health insurance. 3) The insurance industry IS ALREADY standing between you and your doctor - it tells him what drugs he can prescribe you based on their "cheapest formulary of the month" rather than "most effective formulary". It tells her what treatments she can use based on maximization of their profits, not what is most effective for your health. It is maximizing profits by extracting from you, your employer, the doctor, and the hospital -- that money leaves the healthcare system. 4) Few insurance plans encourage preventative care ... they'd rather drive the car without an oil change and just pay for massive meltdowns "later" (or better yet, abandon the car after the small lifetime cap is reached). So the question isn't "Should it be reformed?" but "HOW to reform it?" I'd be fine with requiring all health insurance be non-profit as a minimum -- that alone would keep billions of dollars *in* the system. However, it doesn't address healthcare for the many who are locked out of the system (though more of them might be able to afford it since money isn't being drained away).
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2009-06-04 at 14:14. |
|
2009-06-04, 15:55 | Link #24 | ||
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-06-04, 16:03 | Link #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Obscene scenarios, how? Because you just can't believe our holy people would do such?
First off, prevention vs immediate treatment: of course, idiots would see that the former is much cheaper. That is, if you know what to prevent. Let me ask you this simple question: how the heck would you know? By what tools? Do you ever know of people who are perfectly healthy from the outside suddenly drop dead? To diagnose a problem to much more than just seeing a consultant. And let me add this, some people think they are healthy enough because it will cost them something to see a doctor otherwise. And no, I don't oppose people doing such; I oppose them doing it for free. Secondly: over 40 millions people without health insurance! WoW, that's bad. But please tell me what else happen to those 40 millions. Mr. A got a cancer without insurance. That's sad, very sad. So.... 1/40,000,000. And? Have you ever wonder before there were insurance how people paid for their health care? And yes, I agree with you: this system should be reformed. And I never said otherwise. The one difference between you and I is that while I am for an affordable system, that is, even immediate treatments are affordable, you are for a system that everyone should be covered by some godly means while the cost for health care remains the same. We are talking about treating, say several hundred thousands people, versus preventing for 300,000,000 people. Even if the cost of the latter is 1/10 of the former, the latter will cost much, much more. And I am not talking about the monetary cost but the capital cost. Surely, we don't want America to be one big hospital right? If you look at it through a good old supply-demand model, it'll make much more sense. If the supply (health care services) remains the same, how can we lower the cost? By proposing universal health care, you are basically saying "by increasing the demand." Sure that'll work somehow because yes it can! The obvious answer is to decrease the demand. Demand here not only include "real" demand- that is, treatment and prevention when it really matters- but also include "false" demand. We are currently provide leeway for a certain portion of the population who happens to vote a lot more and are more susceptible to those "falsehood," to use the services for free. I don't dare suggesting anything else. But just by looking at the economic model, it's the most reasonable thing to do. PS: for those who brings up what a doctor is supposed to do, my reply to you is that I don't trust humanity. In Casablanca, some guys said something like "The only way those two can escape is by a miracle, and the Germans has outlawed miracles." In the end, the couple escaped! Restriction by the laws doesn't mean anything if there is no bidding hedonistic means. |
2009-06-04, 17:22 | Link #26 | |||||||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also your numbers are seriously wrong there. Do you honestly believe only a few hundred thousand people in the US get sick each year? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||||
2009-06-04, 18:53 | Link #27 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear there. What I meant were seriously sick, say cancer or something like that. Quote:
Quote:
B must pay 500$ for a check up. Thus, he may go to a doctor once per 2 months. What I'd like to see is both A and B pay ~75$ for a check up. It's their lives, they decide. Right now, B is seriously bound by the absurd cost because some venerable morons are using the service for free. Quote:
|
||||||
2009-06-04, 19:17 | Link #28 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
You do know that "free checkups" are a standard part of most dental plans? But you can only go at specified intervals? And that most HMOs have schedules for general exams based on your medical health and age?
You keep pulling these scenarios up that just don't match either the existing system or any other system.
__________________
|
2009-06-04, 19:44 | Link #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
When they say it's free, it doesn't mean it's free. Free dental check up is to scare the living out of a patient to milk him later. Or would you suggest that such check up costs no water, no electricity, no labor, no time, no nothing?!
Again, cost = capital cost. Monetary cost means little. "How much does this cost?" "20 bucks." <load 20$$.pdf and press "enter">. "Here your 20." And those scenarios are from our glorious ...Care, ...Aid system. |
2009-06-04, 20:00 | Link #31 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
@iLney: I shouldn't have called them "free checkups" but many packages encourage regular preventative "no problems just checking" checkups. They do this by not charging the patient a co-payment. Are you not aware of this?
You seem to be fairly unaware of the medical system and how it works as it exists right now. So unaware I'm wondering how old you are and whether you've actually worked for a business/corporation with benefits. I'd rather not pull the age card but you seem just totally unfamiliar with how the current system works.
__________________
|
2009-06-04, 23:39 | Link #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
I'm perfectly aware of that. Like I said, it is just a marketing gimmick. They will make it "free" as long as they can gain something back. Now, if they can't, it'll gonna "cost" something. Imagine instead of 10 patients a day, there are now 1,000 patients, 990 of whom just come for kick. Surely, the check up will also be free.
Let me state this again: if the current supply of health care remains the same, how can we lower the cost- in terms of capital across the whole system? |
2009-06-05, 00:32 | Link #33 | |||||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Very good. You've proven you can spell. Now can you address my point too? Regular check ups will save money in the long run by catching more conditions early. Cost will come down because more people have access to healthcare.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
According to the CDC, cancer along has more new cases per year than you accounted for in total. Quote:
As for paying $75, that's the whole reason a lot of people don't go to the doctor to begin with. A lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck and simply can't afford that. Whether you realize it or not, you're basicly saying healthcare shouldn't be affordable. Rationing treatment by who can afford to pay is not an effective system. Quote:
__________________
|
|||||
2009-06-05, 01:15 | Link #34 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Edit: well, an immoral system.... maybe just maybe (30%) but ineffective? =>Giving free treatments to those who's gonna abuse them is a stupid system. |
||||||||
2009-06-10, 17:11 | Link #35 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-06-10, 17:32 | Link #36 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
The level of denial of the healthcare issues from the status quo advocates seems to depend on whether they've known someone who was bankrupted that was the "right sort of person" (middle/uppermiddle, had insurance, etc) or not.
They ignore the statistics, they ignore the facts on the ground - they cling to ideological platitudes that ignore the buffaloes in the room -> that much of the money spent on healthcare leaves the system; that insurance cherry-picks their customers and culls; that most insurance companies do not want to pay for preventative care; that most policies have small lifetime caps and are tailored to minimize *their* cost while maximizing *their* profit (ya know... how corporations work) rather than a patient-centered optimization of cost/benefit; that the siphoning is crushing the patient, their employer, their doctors, the hospitals, the rest of the medical team; and that we *already* have non-medical bureaucrats who decide whether you get the healthcare the doctor recommends... ones who get paid more the less they spend on you rather than someone who reports to someone you elect. (see link in News Stories concerning ballooning number of bankruptcies of Americans who were salaried middle class with health insurance - who were gamed into insolvency with one major illness by the insurance industry; cross quoted below ) Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2009-06-10 at 18:12. |
|
2009-06-11, 13:32 | Link #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
The two things that perplex me the most about the mess of this debate in the US is twofold:
__________________
|
2009-06-11, 15:48 | Link #38 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
The problem with this system is, that the pharma lobby has a very easy play and can dictate prices like they want. Because once a drug is allowed to be subscribed by the doctors, everyone has a right to get it (when needed). And if it is the only one of its or one of a few then prices suddenly explode for the drug. The point is, the patient doesn't know how much the drug costs and he/she doesn't care because the insurer pays it. But that is exactly the reason why there is no real competition in that market. The pharma industry knows too well that they can dictate the prices. And if one corporation raises the price for their drug, other corporations willingly raise prices for their equivalent drugs too. That is the reason why the model was changed a little bit. Now patients have to pay for certain drugs themselves. Suddenly there was a real market with generics and all the stuff that makes those drugs cheaper. Another meassure was that there were white lists handed out to the medics/docs. And if medic/doc doesn't have a good reason to subscribe the expensive drug he is forced to subscribe the white list drug (which is similar). This meassure was neccessary because the pharma industry had bribed doctors to subscribe their expensive drugs instead of the cheaper drug from a competitor. Even with all these meassures taken the german health care system is rather expensive. Just 30% cheaper then the US american system but still quite expensive.
__________________
|
|
2009-06-11, 17:10 | Link #39 | ||
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
I should point out the A.M.A. doesn't speak for all doctors and actually hasn't in decades. They just pretend to - the majority of doctors don't even belong to it anymore. Quote:
Basically, the opposition is simply shouting scary myths loud enough that the simple fact that we spend more per capita and get less results, that we don't even cover a quarter of the population, that the rate of well-to-do people being bankrupted from the loopholes of coverage... ahh... pbffffft. After a while you're not sure whether to be more appalled at the manipulators or the manipulated.
__________________
|
||
2009-06-11, 22:57 | Link #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
health, healthcare |
|
|