What hell is wrong with health care in the States!?!

[DBR]

well i think if it were to ever work in the US, we would have to cut some major crud out of our budget.

Also, in Ontario, is medical care as good as it is here? I have heard stories from those who have lived in other countries of sub par or at least not as good as US care, despite its cost.

I still hear stories too of rich europeans coming here for their care, and never any aboutAmericans leaving to go to other countries for medical care. But that is just anecdotal.

In Alberta, at least, "the system" (amount of doctors, amount of beds, amount of nurses, lack of money, etc., etc.) just can't handle the amount of users.

Treatment for acute medical care, however, is fabulous: you are very well taken care of if you are in an emergency situation--or, I should say, if you need help immediately.

Everything else? It is like being put on hold and transfered around to different departments until you finally reach someone who can and is willing to help you. You have a pain in your leg that isn't really serious or life threatening, then you are at the bottom of the pile, and the pile only gets higher. Ok, that analogy two sentances ago sounded better in my head, but basically you are not a priority and although that is probably the way it should be, it is out of control and gets frustrating for people. I think this is a sign that the system is on its way to becoming broken. But, again, I feel I must stress: if you are really sick, you get help.

 

[RoJoHen]

^Is it possible that because it's free people are going to the doctor for every little thing when they really don't need to? Thus the backlog of patients.

 

[pookha]

well i think if it were to ever work in the US, we would have to cut some major crud out of our budget.

Also, in Ontario, is medical care as good as it is here? I have heard stories from those who have lived in other countries of sub par or at least not as good as US care, despite its cost.

I still hear stories too of rich europeans coming here for their care, and never any aboutAmericans leaving to go to other countries for medical care. But that is just anecdotal.

actually a lot of people are now going to india and other countries for surgery.
some of it is out of date but some of it still holds true.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
The Truth About the Drug Companies

 

[DBR]

^Is it possible that because it's free people are going to the doctor for every little thing when they really don't need to? Thus the backlog of patients.

Maybe. But I don't know.

To use myself as an example, I have been going to the doctor since about 2002 for sweating. Yes, sweating, a seemingly retarded thing to complain about, but life-crippling in my view. At first my family doc did a bunch of blood tests, and gave me anti-anxiety pills. Wrong. More anti crazy pills, wrong. Sent me to a psychiatrist, who didn't think I had anxiety which caused sweating, but sweating which caused anxiety. Tried some medications for a few years, wrong, wrong, wrong. Finally he sent me to a dermatologist who corrected the problem almost overnight--5-6 years after I first sought treatment.

I still feel that if my family doctor hadn't blown me off, prescribed and forgotten about me--but rather took me more seriously, or dedicated more time to my plight, then I wouldn't have had to see several doctors, thus freeing up doctors' time, and saving the system money.

Edit: Oh yeah! I don't know how it is in other provinces/countries, but you can't just go see a specialist in Alberta, you have to be referred by another doctor, usually your family doctor.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

^Is it possible that because it's free people are going to the doctor for every little thing when they really don't need to? Thus the backlog of patients.

Studies have shown that when it's not free, people avoid going to the doctor unless they are extremely ill. Diseases are more advanced, they are in worse shape, and it is more expensive to treat them anyway.

Our (Canadian) system is underfunded, not by a huge amount, just enough to cause trouble.

The problem is easy to understand, hard to fix: You have to have enough caregivers (Doctors, Nurses, Medical Technicians, Labs, Orderlies, Janitors, whatever) and rooms in hospitals available for peak needs.

We don't always have peak needs.

Sometimes we need more heart surgury, sometimes more brain surgery, sometimes more psychiatrists, etc.

You can't just move personnel and resourses instantly from one discipline to another.

We either have to average it out, which means there are going to be waiting lists in high demand areas at times, or we have excess across the board to cover surges.

If you have enough to cover a temporary surge, it gets called "waste".

"Waste" is, of course, a waste of our tax dollars, and primarily right-wing newspapers, think tanks and political parties end up targeting health care as a prime area to cut costs.

There is an underlying motivation to make privatization appear more attractive, so that the door can be opened to more private service as well.

The difference/appeal of privatization is that we can invest in a business, own it, or own shares, and make a profit. Privatizing health, especially when our existing health care is primarily publicly run, represents a huge opportunity for investment and profit.

When I say "investment" I don't mean expanding existing services and facilities. "Investment" just means buying out or replacing public facilities with private ones, and earning new profit.

Profit is not a bad thing, but it is not cheap. It is certainly not cheaper than public.

Problems with public health care are basicly the result of fights between those who support and promote public care and those who support and promote private care. Often too many compromises get made.

 

[RoJoHen]

So basically, they'd rather keep the country understaffed to save money than keep it overstaffed just in case it gets busy.

Business is business, I suppose, even when it's not supposed to be a "business."

 

[kimc]

The problem is insurance companies are motivated by profit just like any other business. Their goal obviously is to collect more in premiums than they pay out in claims. This is why they're not motivated to spend on the relatively lower-cost maintenance items. After all, even if you have unhealthy habits hopefully your condition won't become acute until you're old enough to go onto Medicare and then it's the taxpayer's dime to do that triple bypass.

Consequently, it's up to us as consumers to make every effort to maintain our health and avoid HAVING to go to the doctor. At least - that's my personal goal.

 

[RoJoHen]

Consequently, it's up to us as consumers to make every effort to maintain our health and avoid HAVING to go to the doctor. At least - that's my personal goal.

I recommend that every citizen get a tonsillectomy. It has done wonders for me. I got mine removed 5 years ago, and in that time I have only been sick once with a case of bronchitis.

Prior to getting my tonsils removed, I was sick at least twice a year.

 

[RyanKCR]

Actually one of the biggest problems in the US is that we are sue happy. The cost to keep one's self covered with insurance is astronomical. That itself is a large part of the high cost.

 

[Mallory]

^ True enough. Although I believe that medical insurers should pay for whatever care a person needs to rectify an error (or live with it) I also believe that there should be a reasonable cap on "pain and suffering" and punitive damages.

 

[bigdaddy]

My sister had surgery to remove that useless organ, and she stayed in for two weeks and it cost well over $100,000.

I live in MA, and I don't have health insurance, I'm going to jail, and the law is a joke. If you make about $5 an hour you can't get free health care, but you can, but you can't! Try figuring out the Mass law, now that's a joke.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Consequently, it's up to us as consumers to make every effort to maintain our health and avoid HAVING to go to the doctor. At least - that's my personal goal.

What if going to the doctor is the only way to maintain our health? It's not fucking fault that I got stuck with a crappy body that continually breaks down because my mother didn't take care of me and I came out all weird and missing things and having no records.

I maintain my health but I get weird things that continually crop up now and then that we have no idea where the hell it came from.

I mean seriously, they think I'm already going deaf in my right ear? WTF?

Plus insurance companies hate the fact I have probably a couple pre-existing conditions that I continually get checked up on.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

All I can say is that I'm very glad of the NHS. Recently I had to have an appendectomy, which was complicated by my pre-existing heart and lung condition, I was rushed to another hospital to have doctors who were more experienced in operating on people with conditions similar to mine, spent almost 2 weeks in hospital (in total) after the incision bled out and had to be opened up. I have had home visits from nurses to clean and dress the wound every day for the last 5-6 weeks, and expect they'll still be coming for another month or more.
With prescriptions for the dressings, anti-biotics, etc. I dread to think how much that would have cost. This is all without the ongoing cost of treating my existing condition. I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't be around now if it wasn't for universal healthcare.

 

[Captain Intrepid]

But I think the point he's trying to make, is that whether one is paying for the services/medications at the time they are needed or when your taxes are taken out... they are still being paid for at one point or another. I could be totally confused, but it seems that those services are paid for by the consumer, just not necessarily at the time when they have the medical need for them. Or are those taxes paid for more by businesses as opposed to the individual taxpayer? (honest question there)

One thing that initially shocked me, is that the US government spends roughly the same amount of money per capita on healthcare as the Canadian government, and then the populace spends an equal amount of money. Your government already has the money it needs, it's just horribly inefficient due to how weak it is federally.

 

[the_wildcard]

Yeah I went into the emergency room a couple of months ago here in the Bay Area for which turned out just to be a bad case of the flu. They drew some blood and took an X-ray of my chest and ended up writing me a prescription for higher strength Motrin, lol. When I got the bill from the hospital I found out they were charging my health insurance about $5,000 for that, lol. I ended up just paying a small co-payment.

$5,000 for drawing blood and an x-ray with perhaps at most, combined 1 hour of interaction (don't count wait times when I am just by myself) with 2 nurses and a doctor.

Wow.

 

[Amaris]

Yeah I went into the emergency room a couple of months ago here in the Bay Area for which turned out just to be a bad case of the flu. They drew some blood and took an X-ray of my chest and ended up writing me a prescription for higher strength Motrin, lol. When I got the bill from the hospital I found out they were charging my health insurance about $5,000 for that, lol. I ended up just paying a small co-payment.

$5,000 for drawing blood and an x-ray with perhaps at most, combined 1 hour of interaction (don't count wait times when I am just by myself) with 2 nurses and a doctor.

Wow.

Yep. It makes me want to go to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College.

J.

 

[pookha]

j allen
something you might want to do is write to the drug companies themselves.
some of them have programs to help off set the cost of some of their drugs.
something they do keep some of the heat of themselves.

one thing i am going to do is research in case i am given certain drugs.
some non generic drugs are now going to be 75 co pay.
yep 75 co pay.

i need to see if an earlier drug will work just as well if one of my drugs is on that list.

 

[Amaris]

j allen
something you might want to do is write to the drug companies themselves.
some of them have programs to help off set the cost of some of their drugs.
something they do keep some of the heat of themselves.

one thing i am going to do is research in case i am given certain drugs.
some non generic drugs are now going to be 75 co pay.
yep 75 co pay.

i need to see if an earlier drug will work just as well if one of my drugs is on that list.

Thanks pookha. I'm working on that right now.
One of these medications they've already said I can get in 4 weeks. That's the earliest. The others I'm working on hoping they get through.

*crosses fingers, toes and other anatomical parts*

J.

 

[Ghel]

While the US system is flawed, I am a proponent of fixing the current system rather than attempting to start from scratch with an entirely new system for a few reasons.

1. In the US, we already know what is wrong with our system. HMO's have too much power and can deny medical coverage without any real evidence regarding why. Drugs cost too much not because of the touted R&D costs, but because drug reps give doctors countless free perks ranging from free pens, to drugs, to dinners, to full vacations (if you don't believe me and live in the US, the next time a Dr. prescribes something, ask for a free sample, chances are they will give you a handful for free!!!)

I tend to believe that the government needs to set firm regulations for the health care industry rather than merely socializing the whole system.

2. Socialized systems come with their own range of problems as well. Living just across the Peace Bridge from Canada and having worked at a hospital hospitality house, I know first-hand a significant number of Canadians (and people from many other nations) who have made the trip to Buffalo for cancer treatment at Roswell Cancer Institute. They did so because Roswell could help them faster and more effectively than their own medical facilities could.
This isn't to imply that other systems are bad, but rather that there are some distinct advantages to a privatized health-care model (no matter what Michael Moore implies!)

3. Nothing is free. Guess what other countries, you ARE paying for medical care. It just in included in your taxes. By imposing cost limits on HMOs and mandating insurance coverage (perhaps with a sliding fee based on income), the US health care could be just as effective if not more effective than socialized health care.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

While the US system is flawed, I am a proponent of fixing the current system rather than attempting to start from scratch with an entirely new system for a few reasons.

1. In the US, we already know what is wrong with our system. HMO's have too much power and can deny medical coverage without any real evidence regarding why. Drugs cost too much not because of the touted R&D costs, but because drug reps give doctors countless free perks ranging from free pens, to drugs, to dinners, to full vacations (if you don't believe me and live in the US, the next time a Dr. prescribes something, ask for a free sample, chances are they will give you a handful for free!!!)

I tend to believe that the government needs to set firm regulations for the health care industry rather than merely socializing the whole system.

2. Socialized systems come with their own range of problems as well. Living just across the Peace Bridge from Canada and having worked at a hospital hospitality house, I know first-hand a significant number of Canadians (and people from many other nations) who have made the trip to Buffalo for cancer treatment at Roswell Cancer Institute. They did so because Roswell could help them faster and more effectively than their own medical facilities could.
This isn't to imply that other systems are bad, but rather that there are some distinct advantages to a privatized health-care model (no matter what Michael Moore implies!)

3. Nothing is free. Guess what other countries, you ARE paying for medical care. It just in included in your taxes. By imposing cost limits on HMOs and mandating insurance coverage (perhaps with a sliding fee based on income), the US health care could be just as effective if not more effective than socialized health care.

1. You would be fixing the current system. You already have public health insurance. Canada and other nations already have private health care components. What you would be doing is changing the mix to something that reduces waste, exploitation, and provides coverage to the people who slip through the cracks, who are generally the working class with modest incomes and lousy jobs who don't get coverage.

What you don't grasp, or have been lied to about, is that in Canada medical care is still almost 100% private. A doctor is a self-employed small businessman. The only "socialist" component is insurance. We have one insurer (in each provice) which is government run. We all pay premiums to that insurer through taxes. We are all covered equally.

2. This is bull. The very wealthy with $50,000 to spend will cross the bridge to get treatment in 2-3 weeks instead of 8 or 10. Yes, they would like to have it over with so they can get on with their lives.

My father-in-law is a factory owner who is a very right-wing, anti-socialist, anti-tax, anti-goverment individual. He needed heart surgery. He had an appoint in his local hospital for examination and testing within a week of his GP identifying the symptoms. He could have paid to have the surgery across the border immediately, or waited 6 weeks for surgery in a local Canadian hospital. He chose to wait, which gave him time to clear up his desk at work and delegate tasks to his middle mangers, arrange for a housekeeper to come in while he was recovering, etc etc etc. He said the wait was actually better, and it was not at all threatening.


3. No one is claiming it is free, although some Canadian posters may have expressed it poorly (ie "I didn't pay anything"). Of course we know we pay for it through taxes.

The US spends the same amount per person in taxes to not cover every citizen. You also pay more in private fees and co-payments beyond taxes. You pay more and get less. This has been shown time and time again.

The US system is based on one fundamental principal: Slip the doorman a $100 and get first in line.

The US does not have shorter waiting lists, it has the opportunity to pay more to jump to the front of the list. That is why your system is more expensive. If you add up the wait for all citizens, the total waiting times are no better than any other country.