Basic Useful Healthcare Facts...

[TheMightyAngus]

and who decides whether a patient receives treatment or not. maybe their socioeconomic status prevents them from having the proper resources to improve their life, then what?

Treatment should be administered only to patients with good prognoses. Patients on life-support have very little hope of ever leaving the hospital. If quality of life cannot be improved, treatment should be withdrawn. It may sound harsh, but the US prolongs death in far too many patients compared with other countries. At some point, spirituality can offer a patient more than biomedicine. When that point is reached, there's no reason to drain the health care system.

As far as preventing disease. Individuals need to be accountable for their own health, especially when health education is taught in schools and advertised on television.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

the only problem with increasing co-pays for patients is that they're just gonna not go to the doctor ever until their health problems culminate into a stroke/heart attack. going to the doctor will be like going to the dentist and the problem could get a lot worse.
-mota

Good point. But remember that most patients dont go to the hospital until they have a stroke/heart attack anyway. Copays at least will give patients more options once they're admitted.

 

[thegenius]

yeah, i would like to see a link for the $200-300 billion paperwork fact... it is hard to believe that ~20% of money goes to paperwork. there are many other things that cost more than paperwork, like drugs, lab tests, doctor's salaries, etc. maybe $200-300 million i can believe.

I have read the book critical condition and the authors cite one stude clamining that 1 out of 3 dollars goes towards bureaucracy. I do believe it considering there are hundreds of different companies all with their own billing codes, paperwork forms, and accounts payable/receiveable systems.

Competition may have worked for a few systems in health care (although I really can't think of any) but in this case it has been a collosial waste of money.

 

[thegenius]

America is a capitalist society, the health care industry needs to operate like a free market not a government-run subsidy.

People need to take responsibility for their health. Pump more funding into preventive medicine. Only provide care for patients who have a chance to improve their quality of life. Don't waste resources in order to prolong death.

The health care industry should not operate in the free market the way other goods do. Free markets are efficient because companies leverage volume to increase efficiencies and lower prices. We want none of that in our health care system.

I think the goal of any health care system (as a national policy) is to increase longetivity and minimize illness and disease. From that statement, a healthier population consuming less health care product is a better system than a less healthy population consuming more health care product.

Our health care system is not like purchasing hair product or buying a car. We should not want every citizen to take Lipitor or Zoloft, but that is exactly what our pharmaceutical companies (Pfizer) would want us to do.

Free markets #1 concern are the shareholders. The #1 concern of a health care policy must be it's constitutients.

 

[thegenius]

As far as preventing disease. Individuals need to be accountable for their own health, especially when health education is taught in schools and advertised on television.

Advertising is a battle the NIH and other health organization will always lose.

I'll look up the statistics in a minute, but if you combine the marketing budgets of the top 20 CPG companies (consumer product group) like Coca-Cola, Kraft, Pepsi-Co, General Mills, etc, it exceeds the government marketing budget by a factor of 100. We are inundated with advertising on all sorts of levels that makes it extremely difficult for parents to do a good job raising and teaching good eating habits. Parents can win but it's an uphill battle and every day that slope gets steeper and steeper.

Capitalism is great for some things but we are force fed processed, sugerized foods in this country. The only way McDonalds and Kraft can satisfy their shareholders is by increasing profits (and volume.)

(I will probably start a war here.)

 

[Shredder]

I think the goal of any health care system (as a national policy) is to increase longetivity and minimize illness and disease.

i think the goal of a health care system should be providing ppl with the opportunity to receive the best health care possible. thats not the case in places like canada. it depends on whether you think about it from a public or private perspective. but when has the govt ever done a better job of solving problems than private enterprise. even in the hurricanes the private sector crushed the govt in preparation and recovery, as expected

 

[Chrissy]

we could very very easily have the best and most efficient healthcare system in the world.....we have all the tools to provide quality healthcare and it cannot be rivaled by any other country...HOWEVER, the most dangerous and serious problem we have here in the US is disparities in ACCESS to healthcare....there is nothing wrong with the healthcare itself, the root of the problem(s) is in access....improving access would have a cyclic and snowball effect on tons and tons of economic and social issues as well....

 

[sunnyjohn]

I was thinking we could start a basic useful healthcare facts list for use in interviews... I am throwing in the first fact.

-the number of uninsured americans is 45 million (2004)

Our society knows too little about good nutrition and exercise and too much about dieting.

The number one killer of American women is heart disease

 

[medhacker]

Advertising is a battle the NIH and other health organization will always lose.

I'll look up the statistics in a minute, but if you combine the marketing budgets of the top 20 CPG companies (consumer product group) like Coca-Cola, Kraft, Pepsi-Co, General Mills, etc, it exceeds the government marketing budget by a factor of 100. We are inundated with advertising on all sorts of levels that makes it extremely difficult for parents to do a good job raising and teaching good eating habits. Parents can win but it's an uphill battle and every day that slope gets steeper and steeper.

Capitalism is great for some things but we are force fed processed, sugerized foods in this country. The only way McDonalds and Kraft can satisfy their shareholders is by increasing profits (and volume.)

(I will probably start a war here.)

Thank you!

 

[CuddlyKumquat]

Hmm, but I don't want to end up w/ the vegetarian Big Brother watching from the walls to make sure I don't injest a cow...

hahahahahahahaha

 

[thegenius]

i think the goal of a health care system should be providing ppl with the opportunity to receive the best health care possible. thats not the case in places like canada. it depends on whether you think about it from a public or private perspective. but when has the govt ever done a better job of solving problems than private enterprise. even in the hurricanes the private sector crushed the govt in preparation and recovery, as expected

I understand your argument. I suppose we have different views on the role of government in health care for a society. I believe that governments top priorities are to protect us from attackers and protect the health of our population. Because the whole point of a government is to protect their citizenery so they can grow and live in a stable, peaceful society. If 1/3 of the population succumbs to a virus, I don't think it's good enough for the government to simply say "OK, we put in place an economic environment to promote research to find a vaccine." Government in this case must take a more active role.

Another way to look at this. Suppose a country is attacked and they lose 1/2 of their population from war. You could argue that the government didn't do a good enough job to protect it's people (not that people didn't do a good enough job protecting themselves). If another country's population
becomes infected and they lose 1/2, I believe the government is also at fault for not trying to protect their citizens.

The private sector is great for just about all facets of our economic life. I want competition when I buy a box of cereal. Or when I purchase life insurance for my family. But I don't want to adopt the view from pharmaceuticals that we all need to take their products to live a happier and longer life.

I'm sure like all of us on this forum I take my health and our societies health very seriously. More so than I do buying a box of cereal from a market. Many of us believe that preventitive medicine is a great way to lower health care costs and raise our quality of health in our society. But I think that goal is antithetical to a free market health care industry where companies have to satisfy their shareholders before their patients. How can public health care companies thrive if everybody is healthy?

Oh yea, the private sector is awesome...but who here believes the private sector can take care of all the victims in the hurricane disasters? The private sector is not equiped to handle such a disaster. Only local, state, and federal governments can solve this job. (that does suck because there will be billions of dollars wasted and unaccounted for.) The private insurance companies are going to be bailed out by the government so people can get their homes back. Plus, the private sector loves to ignore the poor and homeless and unfortunately those are the ones who need the help most.

 

[thegenius]

we could very very easily have the best and most efficient healthcare system in the world.....we have all the tools to provide quality healthcare and it cannot be rivaled by any other country...HOWEVER, the most dangerous and serious problem we have here in the US is disparities in ACCESS to healthcare....there is nothing wrong with the healthcare itself, the root of the problem(s) is in access....improving access would have a cyclic and snowball effect on tons and tons of economic and social issues as well....

Yea, not a bad point. We spend twice as much as other countries on health care and we do have, without question, the best secondary and tertiary health care (I think that is right...) and if we are somehow willing to accept that level of funding but have more equitable access to health care, we would have an awesome system.

But there are too many corporate interests in health care now to change our model, in my opinion. Health care is GIGANTIC business.

 

[MiesVanDerMom]

US ranks down in the 30's for maternal and newborn mortality rates, below europe/japan/etc.

possible reasons: interventionist approach by OBs (our C-section rate is 25% while the WHO recommends no country should be going over 10-15%, we over-use pitocin etc.), epidural rate in europe/japan is MUCH lower, homebirth/midwife rates are much higher

possible reason 2: we have the largest disparity between rich and poor. We have a significant number of poor women not getting pre-natal care, poor nutrition, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.

possible reaosn 3: ??

 

[Chrissy]

Yea, not a bad point. We spend twice as much as other countries on health care and we do have, without question, the best secondary and tertiary health care (I think that is right...) and if we are somehow willing to accept that level of funding but have more equitable access to health care, we would have an awesome system.

But there are too many corporate interests in health care now to change our model, in my opinion. Health care is GIGANTIC business.

it's no doubt a catch 22 though.....as easy as it is to criticize the business and bureaucracy of healthcare, it's the private interests that have catipulted the US to the forefront of cutting edge practice and research...i think the true answer is found by a happy balance....socializing healthcare might increase access but the expense of sacrificng quality is arguably not worth it. Sad but true...corporate interests are essential to our quality of healthcare in this type of society/economy....it's unlikely to ever change (i.e. the US becoming anything but a capitalist society) so we should be focusing on realistic equality and access for all WHILE not sacrificing quality. my thought not that i know how to crack that code...

 

[Chrissy]

US ranks down in the 30's for maternal and newborn mortality rates, below europe/japan/etc.

possible reasons: interventionist approach by OBs (our C-section rate is 25% while the WHO recommends no country should be going over 10-15%, we over-use pitocin etc.), epidural rate in europe/japan is MUCH lower, homebirth/midwife rates are much higher

possible reason 2: we have the largest disparity between rich and poor. We have a significant number of poor women not getting pre-natal care, poor nutrition, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.

possible reaosn 3: ??

i think reason number two.....but again, i urge you not to "blame" the rich....this is more of a philosophical opinion but i do not believe that this country will ever tolerate essentially taking from the wealthy to balance out what the poor doesn't have....we need to access the poor. The reason that infant mortality rate is what it is has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare in the US but it has everything to do with national poverty and unequal access to healthcare and eduaction.

 

[drgoodlove]

yeah, i would like to see a link for the $200-300 billion paperwork fact... it is hard to believe that ~20% of money goes to paperwork. there are many other things that cost more than paperwork, like drugs, lab tests, doctor's salaries, etc. maybe $200-300 million i can believe.

Good summary of all the issues being discussed with references:

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf

I used it to prepare for interviews.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

Many of us believe that preventitive medicine is a great way to lower health care costs and raise our quality of health in our society. But I think that goal is antithetical to a free market health care industry where companies have to satisfy their shareholders before their patients. How can public health care companies thrive if everybody is healthy?

A free market system will promote consumer participation. In a highly regulated or centralized system, consumers become dependent on big brother to provide them everything they need. If big brother is paying, why they hell should I care about what services and procedures I ask for? But if I'm stuck copaying for everything, then I'm going to be more careful in where my money goes.

Preventive medicine requires consumer participation. The best way to increase participation is by deregulating the system.

Also, free market economies favor consumers. Competition drives down prices and improves product quality. If Congress relaxed laws regarding drug patents, drugs would be more affordable and more patients would have access to them since much cheaper generic versions could be made.