what happened to doctors?

[ShadowKatt]

Yay, healthcare debates. But really the thing that gets overlooked in this debate is that in countries that have universal health care, you can still obtain private insurance and faster/better treatment if you can afford it.

Which is fine until you get one side clamoring about their taxes being jumped to pay for it all and the other side whining that they're not getting equal treatment of the people that bought insurance, which drags you right back to this thread all over again.

 

[fulano]

Here in Mexico we are fucked up. For analysis we have to wait for like two hours on a people-made-line until the hospital opens the turn tally so that waiting lists can start. Then we wait for like an hour or so until we are treated.

For coughs and other minimal stuff we go and take a turn and wait for about one to four hours.

For surgery we go through all that hoopla of getting analyses mutiple times and then we are told to wait like a month or two months or so, maybe four or six. And the system is so screwed and it has been thinned so bad that there's a lot of coverage that is just not given.

And guess what? It still beats being in debt and without care; one of the saddest parts is that drugs I can get for free over here to treat whatever minor ailment I may have, are over priced over there.

Taking into account all the shit we go through in our socialized medical care, I'm amazed that Americans feel that they are so inept that they think they cannot do better than we, a third world nation with an incredibly corrupt government, do, something that has been shown to be very possible in Europe.

What truly scares me is that our healthcare system is being thinned so bad as we speak that we may end up with one very much like yours.

 

[BrassButtons]

I'm going to let everyone else argue about the rest of it, and just focus on this bit:

i know doctors have mouths to feed, but wouldnt you want to bring more people in than turn them away, thus bringing in more patients and money, instead of a bad reputation?

How does taking patients without insurance lead to more money? If the patient can pay what an insurance company would, then sure. But if not, the doctor is operating at a loss. And the more such patients the doctor takes, the greater that loss will be.

 

[RaikuFA]

I'm going to let everyone else argue about the rest of it, and just focus on this bit:

i know doctors have mouths to feed, but wouldnt you want to bring more people in than turn them away, thus bringing in more patients and money, instead of a bad reputation?

How does taking patients without insurance lead to more money? If the patient can pay what an insurance company would, then sure. But if not, the doctor is operating at a loss. And the more such patients the doctor takes, the greater that loss will be.

that part was more focused on declining someone based insurance and lawsuits

 

[Stall]

The American health care system is fucked. It's no fault of the doctors. It's very rude to blame them... they are just following laws and protocols.

 

[wilsontheterrible]

Why did the aamericans get all angry over obama wanting a more NHS like system (I am from the UK and just want to know)

Well there?s a couple of fronts to that one. First it's likely that any form of genuine NHS would be in violation of the constitution. Additionally while the U.S has a number of uninsured those who do have insurance get their services on demand. Except for organ transplants there are few waiting lists and the U.S boasts the highest surgery recovery rate and cancer survival rates in the world according to the CDC and NCPA. End result, an NHS is better at low risk chronic problems but the U.S system is vastly superior at high risk procedures such as invasive surgery and cancer treatment.

Personally I'd just as soon never have to deal with NHS. On two occasions they've almost killed me when I needed prescriptions filled, once in Canada and once in the UK. In both instances the doctors gave me anti-inflammatory that had a really violent reaction with my hypertension medication because they lacked modern drug relational databases and apparently the standards for becoming a Doctor in some countries don't include learning what drug combinations will throw somebody into Cardiogenic shock which, by the way, really really sucks.

My insurance may be a little pricy but I've never been nearly killed by my doctor in the U.S.

To any Americans who think a privatized system gives better care (to those who can afford it) answer me this. What makes more money? Curing a disease or making someone pay for drugs for the rest of their life?

Curing the disease makes more money for an insurance company in both the long and short run. Curing a disease makes more money for a drug company in the long run. Your logic is flawed on two accounts.

First. Private insurance companies would much prefer a cure to the disease. If you have private insurance you pay a certain premium every month and if you're smart you negotiated a good monthly rate with a rate change cap. Every month you don't need a prescription filled is another month the insurance company gets to keep the whole premium. However if the client needs a prescription filled every month that means the insurance company has to use part of that premium to pay for it which means the insurance company gets less money overall. Contrary to popular belief insurance companies want their clients to be healthy, thats why they offer discounts for non-smokers and people with healthy family histories.

Second. NHS systems don't give a rip how healthy you are. Because they are not for profit they will pay for thos perscriptions for as long as you need them. Because there is no incentive for you to be healthy there is less incentive to find a cure. And point of fact, the U.S leads the world in medical research because there is a profit incentive. The U.S is the only place where you can find help if you have a rare or complex disease because there is actually an incentive to cure you.

Additionally. If a drug company cures a disease that means that those clients will live longer, likely get sick from some other ailment, and need another cure. The longer you live the more money the company makes. Profit =/= evil, in fact the desire for profit has lead to some of the greatest innovations in human history.

 

[BrassButtons]

I'm going to let everyone else argue about the rest of it, and just focus on this bit:

i know doctors have mouths to feed, but wouldnt you want to bring more people in than turn them away, thus bringing in more patients and money, instead of a bad reputation?

How does taking patients without insurance lead to more money? If the patient can pay what an insurance company would, then sure. But if not, the doctor is operating at a loss. And the more such patients the doctor takes, the greater that loss will be.

that part was more focused on declining someone based insurance and lawsuits

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying the money doctors would lose treating them is less than what they would lose as a result of being sued by the patient? Because clearly that's not the case the majority of the time or else doctors would opt to treat the patients.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

and espesially that hippocratic oath? it seems that in the last few years its been added in "as long as the patient can afford it".

i ask this for two occurances that happened around me

the first was my brothers girlfriends mothers boyfriend(confusing right?) was coughing up blood, the doctor turned him away because they dont accept his insurance, didnt even look at him, just asked him what insurance he had, he told them and they told him to get out. he was dead later that day.

a few years earlier my mom had heart problems, she couldnt breathe so they called an amulance at her work. both my mom and my dad said take her to her doctor. turns out the ambulance works for another hospital and took her there instead. they took care of her but then they told her that her insurance wasnt welcome there, so they kicked her out then sued our family for the bill and service. luckily the judge threw it out due to the fact that the ambulance didnt follow her directions and therefore endangered her life(or something along those lines).

where are the leorios? the tony tony choppers? the derek stiles?* i know doctors have mouths to feed, but wouldnt you want to bring more people in than turn them away, thus bringing in more patients and money, instead of a bad reputation? and i dont think free clinics cover heart problems and coughing up blood

*cookie if you can name all 3 series these people are from

This is more and more common then people think, but because the majority have insurance they think it only happens to the poor and will never happen to them. However, with hospitals now privatized, if you don't have the right 'permit to live' then you will get screwed over just as much. It is one of the largest loopholes insurance companies use to get out of paying for medical care: "You went to the wrong doctor, we did not approve this and will not pay for your medical care."

This can happen to anyone, a minor infraction is all the companies need to deny you coverage... oh, which they only tell you when you need said coverage and not while they are taking your money with no intent to provide.

Yet the majority, who believe they are safe by some miracle that it will never happen to them. Either never falling ill, so not needing insurance, or the fact they are covered with insurance it does not matter. These same people who might end up dead are the ones up in arms if you try and change the system that clearly fails them.

They are wrongfully told and blindly believe that it will cost them more if they move away from the system, both in heath care quality and money out of their pocket. Evidence exists around the world that socialized medicine is better, why else would Canada and UK would burn politicians at the stake if they suggested taking on the US's system and getting rid of subsidized care? Yet, the moment you breath word of socialized medicine in the US your some sort of commie which is all they will say before ignoring any evidence that your way might be better.

Blind and willful ignorance is a human trait sadly... well right up till they die of something that should of been covered by their insurance.

The most ironic part: People with insurance think nothing of paying the monthly premiums, I can't remember how much but it is probably tens to hundreds of dollars easily. Yet are the loudest voice when you suggest getting rid of insurance and instead putting that same amount of money into a system that will cover everyone. Honestly, it probably would cost far less then what they willingly pay monthly.

The saddest part: No empathy for fellow beings. Not just from doctors that turn people away because they want a paycheck, but from the public at large. Even people with a invincibility complex recognize that bad heath may fall on another. Their response? "screw them! It won't happen to me so I don't have to worry.' It is the worse facet about the heath care system in the US, the inability to care for another person is bred into the mentality of the whole.

P.S. File a lawsuit for negligence leading to death. Doctors can NOT turn away a patent in critical condition. Coughing up blood is a usually sign that you are going to die and they can not ignore a symptom like that. To do so is negligence and if it causes death... bye bye millions in a wrongful death suit and bye bye license.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

It's ridiculous that a first world country exists without a national health system, but I suppose that's what happens when corporations have such a huge influence.

It's ridiculous to consider a country without a national health system first world.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I'm going to let everyone else argue about the rest of it, and just focus on this bit:

i know doctors have mouths to feed, but wouldnt you want to bring more people in than turn them away, thus bringing in more patients and money, instead of a bad reputation?

How does taking patients without insurance lead to more money? If the patient can pay what an insurance company would, then sure. But if not, the doctor is operating at a loss. And the more such patients the doctor takes, the greater that loss will be.

that part was more focused on declining someone based insurance and lawsuits

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying the money doctors would lose treating them is less than what they would lose as a result of being sued by the patient? Because clearly that's not the case the majority of the time or else doctors would opt to treat the patients.

I believe he was pointing out that turning someone away who has insurance would lead to less money.

I can argue against it, the insurance company who has not authorized the treatment is never going to pay. This means the doctor either has to pay for it out of their own pocket or go through a lengthy and expensive lawsuit that likely won't lead to any payout anyway. The original insurance company just laughs and screws over both patience and doctor.

And that wrongful death lawsuits are very easy to win, which leads to massive loss to doctors accused.

That I can not argue against because the law is clear. Refusing to give treatment, for any reason, that leads to a death is grounds for a lawsuit. Doctors will lose licenses over this, so good-bye years of medical school and your livelihood completely. The company they work for, and most likely the doctor themselves, can find payouts in the millions common.


Turning away a patent can only be done when you know it is not life threatening. Refusing to treat outright, followed by death, is very costly a mistake.

caption: rtandsc exception

No exceptions for rtandsc, though I would never go to a doctor with that name.

 

[KeyMaster45]

and espesially that hippocratic oath? it seems that in the last few years its been added in "as long as the patient can afford it".

i ask this for two occurances that happened around me

the first was my brothers girlfriends mothers boyfriend(confusing right?) was coughing up blood, the doctor turned him away because they dont accept his insurance, didnt even look at him, just asked him what insurance he had, he told them and they told him to get out. he was dead later that day.

If you were at an emergency room it's illegal for them to turn away someone based on insurance coverage, if you took him to a private practice doctor then there's not much you can do.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Thank god the system in Australia is different, over here its patients above $ as its government funded (private health cover is avaliable, but not required).

Sadly, one of the reasons I am leaving Australia for good has been the slow take over of capitalism in all aspects of our government. Things have changed a lot since Whitlam was overthrown via coop, and for those who don't know he was a 'commie' that got us out of Vietnam, brought more civil rights to the masses, ended conscription, nationalized education and made it free and nationalized heath and made it free... completely free. Balanced the balance all the while too, at least up to the coop when the opposition simply refused to sign said budget till he removed all this 'communistic crap' that their US allies didn't like the sounds of.

Some of his legacy survived still, people loved the idea of free education and heath care, but it has been weakened slowly over time. This is done by mostly underfunding what they want to privatize, leading to situations where heath care and education are slipping further and further down the ladder. The overall plan has been to make it easier to argue that the system 'does not work and privatization is needed to save it.'

Of course, I have not been in the country much since Howard was voted out of office but I have always seen the two party system the same as the US has where both sides are clones of each other but with differently dyed hair. I won't rant on that here, trust me... it could keep me up all night as it is that bad.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

/snip.

Won't argue, the problem for me has always been the insurance companies and the laws they have bought into position. Doctors are never part of the problem, sure you have some greedy, over-paid, god-complexed bastards out there but they are a tiny minority. The majority are normal people, struggling to survive, in a industry that is run by lawyers and accountants as you said.

And these lawyers and accountants tell them not only who they can and can not assist but that they will lose the ability to practice medicine and put food on their family if they don't obey.

The real problem is the insurance companies are calling the shots.

 

[RicoADF]

Thank god the system in Australia is different, over here its patients above $ as its government funded (private health cover is avaliable, but not required).

Sadly, one of the reasons I am leaving Australia for good has been the slow take over of capitalism in all aspects of our government. Things have changed a lot since Whitlam was overthrown via coop, and for those who don't know he was a 'commie' that got us out of Vietnam, brought more civil rights to the masses, ended conscription, nationalized education and made it free and nationalized heath and made it free... completely free. Balanced the balance all the while too, at least up to the coop when the opposition simply refused to sign said budget till he removed all this 'communistic crap' that their US allies didn't like the sounds of.

Some of his legacy survived still, people loved the idea of free education and heath care, but it has been weakened slowly over time. This is done by mostly underfunding what they want to privatize, leading to situations where heath care and education are slipping further and further down the ladder. The overall plan has been to make it easier to argue that the system 'does not work and privatization is needed to save it.'

Of course, I have not been in the country much since Howard was voted out of office but I have always seen the two party system the same as the US has where both sides are clones of each other but with differently dyed hair. I won't rant on that here, trust me... it could keep me up all night as it is that bad.

Oh I agree completly, too much Americanism coming in, I'm sick of that culture invading our country and screwing it up, especially when you can clearly see it doesn't work in the states either. Whitlam was the best thing to have happened to Australia, we have him to thank for Medicare, Centrelink and oh so much more

 

[FalloutJack]

and espesially that hypocritical oath? it seems that in the last few years its been added in "as long as the patient can afford it".

I fixed it for you. There is no charge.

Doctors have become the kind of people that patients fear now because they believe they'll get worse.

 

[Coraxian]

I was going to reply to the fact that medical studies are so expensive in the states with a mention that over here it costs about ?1000 per year and doesn't require any loans and if we can do it, it should be possible in the states as well.

Then I thought to myself: "This would make it a broader issue in the States of 'socialism' versus individualism, communal duties versus personal freedom, high taxation versus low taxation", but I've done that before. The situation in the states seems to remain the same, with two factions forming on the matter. Just how big each faction is, I don't know.

I'll keep it at this: I'm sure that in the countries with a form of universal health care there may be some individuals who would rather move to a completely privatised system, but I have yet to meet one of those. To sum it up: I've seen posts like this on several fora every other month or so, but I have never seen a single thread talking about moving away from universal health care.

This is something for the people of the U.S.. They should decide what they want as a community. I'm afraid though, that a culture of greed (people talking about having their organs sold after they die, people sueing each other for vast amounts of money,...) creates an atmosphere in which a universal health care system is simply not viable.

P.S.: A friend of mine, a professor at two universities, told me once: "Over here you shouldn't study to become a rich man. You have to study something you're interested in so that you'll be able to make a decent living doing something you like to do.".

 

[WolfThomas]

Yay, healthcare debates. But really the thing that gets overlooked in this debate is that in countries that have universal health care, you can still obtain private insurance and faster/better treatment if you can afford it.

Which is fine until you get one side clamoring about their taxes being jumped to pay for it all and the other side whining that they're not getting equal treatment of the people that bought insurance, which drags you right back to this thread all over again.

In Australia there are tax incentives for having private insurance if you earn over a certain amount (though some people might consider them more punishments for not having it) and there usually isn't complaining from people using the public services as urgent cases are dealt with equally. There are also steps to make sure private and publics lists are balanced, so to make the big private money, specialists have to do so much public work. Though our medicare isn't exactly totally free, it's more like the government limits what people have to pay for certain medications and rebates 75-85% of medical visits, though ED and hospital admissions are mostly free.