what happened to doctors?
- Thread starter RaikuFA
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Privatized healthcare is better because competition between providers keeps cost down. That's why the United States pays, as a percentage of GDP, way less than any other industrialized nation.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/OECD042111.cfm
Er...
Well at least Obamacare (which is fucking horrible so long as you don't actually read the damn thing and discover the complete opposite) is forcing the creation of insurance exchanges in every state to facilitate that crucial, price-lowering competition.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Sto...world, right in the face and simply say "no".
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/OECD042111.cfm
Er...
Well at least Obamacare (which is fucking horrible so long as you don't actually read the damn thing and discover the complete opposite) is forcing the creation of insurance exchanges in every state to facilitate that crucial, price-lowering competition.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Sto...world, right in the face and simply say "no".
Universal Heath Care Universal Heath Care Universal Heath Care
Can we stop beating that drum already? I've seen what good universal health care does. My mom had cancer. Colon cancer, to be specific. It was ungodly expensive to treat but they did it and the cancer went into remission. Then it came back agressively and attacked her body on multiple fronts and she ended up dying, but that wasn't because the medical system fucked her over, that's because there was nothing that could be done!
Now my dad, after a period of time, found someone to have a relationship with. She lived in Canada, in Ontario to be more specific(I don't remember the town, I only went there once). She had health problems bad enough that she had trouble finding employment. It wasn't a heart attack or a stroke, it was a chronic health problem that was debilitating enough to make functioning difficult but not impossible. Because of that, she was perpetually put off for treatment because her condition was not severe enough to warrent immediate treatment and as such had to be put behind those that needed immediate treatment. So she sat for a good 3 years waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to treat her because Canada had no other options and finally we had to bring her down here(a 12 hour drive up into Ontario from Lower Michigan one way) so that we could get her treatment here, where we showed up, dropped a credit card, and got her the help she needed.
Nationalised/Socialised/Universal Health Care is NOT the be-all end-all health care that people seem to think it is. You're right, when suddenly everyone can see the doctor, they WILL see the doctor. That means you have less time to diagnose and treat, and less time to follow up, meaning that your treatment will be generic, rushed, or simply turned away because there are others needier than you. And no, that's not some right-wing, tea party propaganda I got off faux news, it's what I've seen with my OWN DAMN EYE(Singular because I only have ONE eye, and I had some of the best doctors in Michigan that tried to save the other one. Our medical system isn't perfect, but I saw an ocular surgeon in less that 12 hours!)
Can we stop beating that drum already? I've seen what good universal health care does. My mom had cancer. Colon cancer, to be specific. It was ungodly expensive to treat but they did it and the cancer went into remission. Then it came back agressively and attacked her body on multiple fronts and she ended up dying, but that wasn't because the medical system fucked her over, that's because there was nothing that could be done!
Now my dad, after a period of time, found someone to have a relationship with. She lived in Canada, in Ontario to be more specific(I don't remember the town, I only went there once). She had health problems bad enough that she had trouble finding employment. It wasn't a heart attack or a stroke, it was a chronic health problem that was debilitating enough to make functioning difficult but not impossible. Because of that, she was perpetually put off for treatment because her condition was not severe enough to warrent immediate treatment and as such had to be put behind those that needed immediate treatment. So she sat for a good 3 years waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to treat her because Canada had no other options and finally we had to bring her down here(a 12 hour drive up into Ontario from Lower Michigan one way) so that we could get her treatment here, where we showed up, dropped a credit card, and got her the help she needed.
Nationalised/Socialised/Universal Health Care is NOT the be-all end-all health care that people seem to think it is. You're right, when suddenly everyone can see the doctor, they WILL see the doctor. That means you have less time to diagnose and treat, and less time to follow up, meaning that your treatment will be generic, rushed, or simply turned away because there are others needier than you. And no, that's not some right-wing, tea party propaganda I got off faux news, it's what I've seen with my OWN DAMN EYE(Singular because I only have ONE eye, and I had some of the best doctors in Michigan that tried to save the other one. Our medical system isn't perfect, but I saw an ocular surgeon in less that 12 hours!)
Actually Germans have a hybrid system. We don't have one national System like the NHS. In Germany it is mandatory to be insured and the fees for your insurance are automatically taken from your paycheck. At the moment the fee is 15,5% of the income, 7,3% being payed by the employer, 8,2% being payed by the employee. That gets handled by a shitton of public insurance companies working on a non-profit basis. For people not getting a paycheck (civil servants, freelancers, artists etc.) or people with a high income demanding a premium service there are private insurances with varying services. That part of the system is much like the one in the USA but makes only about 15% of the German system.murphy7801 said:
...AndyFromMonday said:
is that an attempt at sounding "american" ?
just curious, because i know you were being sarcastic about the post anyways.
OT: I don't like our system nor agree with it, but unfortunately besides that i do love it here quite alot and there is no way i could survive without some of the food around here, it's my life force, so moving somewhere else is not an option.
There were some people who couldn't afford what they stole.DannyJBeckett said:
^ != People only stole what they couldn't afford.
On topic, though, the bottom line is that it's all about money. If money doesn't (or 'favours don't,' I guess) change hands, but a service is still provided, then somebody just got screwed. America is the bastion of capitalism.
Lol. Uh, I don't know about how America manages to claim first-world status, but 3rd world is most of africa, parts of south America, and parts of asia.Shadow flame master said:
Second world countries are probably the hardest to spot because almost nobody talks about them.
But on the whole I would guess it'd be countries like india and china, and probably a lot of eastern european countries, which have a lot of industry and resources, but still have a lot of people living in poverty and/or quite badly developed infrastructure overall.
So...
Roughly speaking, that means:
First world = Highly developed, wealthy countries with lots of well established infrastructure.
Second world = Countries currently developing rapidly, or possessing at least some moderate level of established resources. They still probably have large numbers of poor citizens, and areas with little to no infrastructure, or highly inadequate infrastructure, but they are usually growing quite quickly.
Third world = countries with little or no infrastructure or wealth. Most of the citizens are poor, there is almost no infrastructure of note, and whatever wealth there is is limited, and there doesn't seem to be much improvement to the situation.
Very fine and personal anecdote.ShadowKatt said:
Wanna hear three of mine that perfectly contradict yours?
Most everyone is going to get sick. Everyone is going to die. Healthcare is not a solution. It's a stall tactic. What we have to decide is how best to distribute that care.
America has decided to favor those with money while the ever-increasing number of poor suffer and ever-more greedy private enterprise takes a big fat cut. Mistakes are still made, and even the best-covered individuals still die.
More socialized nations have decided to do the best they can for everyone, and this occasionally necessitates less than optimal care for non-critical injury or illness. Mistakes are still made, and everyone still dies.
Which system sounds more like a democracy to you? Which system sounds like it has the "death panels"?
it's things like this that make me wish mankind never invented currency and just ran on a system of exchanging one good/service for another or just doing it because it's the right thing to do (e.g. what those doctors SHOULD have done)
I don't understand your meaning. Of course there were people who stole extremely expensive things that they couldn't afford, like TVs, laptops, phones, etc. But there were also people who were so thrilled by the thought that they could do whatever they liked with no consequences that they just stole whatever they could lay their hands on. Hell, one guy got prosecuted for stealing a pack of chewing-gum!dstryfe said:
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.
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?
Actually , that doesn't sound anecdotal, it sounds more like gross generalizations and veiled political attacks (especially that bit about the "Death Panels". How quaint.)FieryTrainwreck said:
I really don't care about your arguement. As I said I've seen it first hand and as such I will oppose the entire "Universal Health Care" deal until I see a more viable option. We have a model right now where the poor cannot afford non-critical medical care, or we can switch to the socialized health care that tries to treat everyone and winds up treating no one. Or we can look for a third option that actually works. For now, I'll stick with what has worked.
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.WolfThomas said:
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.
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.
I'm going to let everyone else argue about the rest of it, and just focus on this bit:
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 said:
