• SDN Site Updates

    Hey everyone! The site will be down for approximately 2 hours on Thursday, August 5th for site updates.

  • How To ACE Your Medical School Interview

    In this webinar hosted by SDN with experts from BeMo Academic Consulting, you will learn a simple five-step process to help you translate your interview invitation into an acceptance.

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
So while I hung with peter rosen on friday he basically is against NHC (national health care and the single payer system) but what I cant understand is how some of my colleagues are so into this stupid idea. Look I have explored this subject but this is one that just annoys me. The government does NOTHING well except waste money. What makes people think that doing this would be a good idea? It is just insanity to me.

My only satisfaction is knowing that this wont be a reality anytime soon and thank god for that.

(steps off pedestal)......:D
 
About the Ads

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Gonna depend on my inservice score. Im not expecting it. maybe by 3rd yr..
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
06_02_15SocializedMedicine.gif
 

GeneralVeers

Socially Distanced
15+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
7,523
6,960
Las Vegas
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I'm from Canada originally, and experienced first-hand their healthcare system. While it does have it's advantages, it's inferior to the U.S. system in many ways, such as timely specialty care, elective surgeries, and state-of-the-art procedures.

The fact remains, that while socialized medicine in the U.S. might raise the quality of healthcare for the 20% who are uninsured, the other 80% would experience a decrease in quality.

Every single Democrat running for office supports a universal healthcare sytem. While I think they are right on probably > 50% of issues, this singular issue will prevent me from ever voting for them, so long as they advocate a single payer healthcare system.
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
People keep telling me how great it would be if we had a nice, organized system of nationalized healthcare here in the US, but I've always been skeptical. I keep hearing horror stories of people dying while waiting for basic operations or even not being able to get simple tests in Canada or Germany. All of this anecdotal evidence has made me leery of the concept. Clearly I'm not alone given the extremely negative reaction to Hillary Clinton's attempt to socialize our healthcare system in the 90s. Yet people keep telling me how great it would be and how so many Americans are uninsured and don't get adequate healthcare.

It turns out that people in Europe are thinking about this issue too, but apparently they're trying to figure out why their nice, efficient socialized medical systems are killing them while our chaotic mess of a system is keeping us alive longer and getting the typical patient enormously better care much faster. I ran into a fascinating article on this subject by James Bartholomew in the current issue of Britains The Spectator. To read the whole article you have to register, but there's no cost and it's well worth the few minutes to sign up.

The genesis of the article is that Bartholomew noticed statistics showing that the death rates for the most common forms of cancer were shockingly higher in Britain than in the United States. For example, women with breast cancer in Britain have a 46% death rate as opposed to 25% in the US. Men with prostate cancer in Britain have a 57% mortality rate while in the US only 19% die and the death rate is declining rapidly because of early detection. It's the same with colon cancer. In Britain there's a 40% survival rate and in the US there's a 60% survival rate. With cancer of the esophagus only 7% survive while in the US 12% survive, although it's still one of the most deadly forms of cancer.

This pattern seems to hold true across the board. For virtually every form of cancer your chance of living is 50-100% better if you live in the US than if you live in Britain. I did some research of my own on the topic to see if Britain just had particularly bad healthcare and discovered that the statistics are similar for the socialized medical systems in the rest of Europe. While there were some variations for individual forms of cancer, the overall pattern in Germany, France and the other major European nations was that the death rate for most cancers is close to double what it is in the United States. Britain actually has some of the best survival rates in Europe for breast cancer. Get breast cancer in other European countries and you might as well just dig a hole and jomp in. The same is true for colon cancer where the survival rate in most of europe is less than 1/7 of the survival rate in the US.

Bartholomew lays this problem at the feet of diagnostic practices in Britain. He points to the fact that they have half as many MRI and Catscan machines per capita as the US has, and that even their x-ray equipment is 20 years out of date in most hospitals and in many cases past the recommended use-life suggested by the manufacturer. In Britain if you go in to the doctor you're lucky to get an x-ray when in the US a much more detailed test like an MRI would be likely. The is vital because x-rays just aren't effective in detecting many forms of cancer. They're find for broken bones, but for anything in the soft-tissue they're really not the right kind of test. The shortage of more advanced testing equipment results in long waits - as much as six months in many cases - and in doctors just not choosing to prescribe more advanced testing at all. With many forms of cancer early detection makes all the difference in survival. Six months can be the difference between life and death, or as demonstrated by the statistics the difference between a 50% survival rate and a 20% survival rate.

Bartholomew points out a related problem with treatment of heart disease. There is an apparent reluctance to prescribe surgery for common heart conditions, with long delays to see a surgeon and reliance on pharmaceutical treatment when surgery would be more effective. In the US almost anyone with blocked arteries around the heart gets almost immediate bypass surgery. I can't count all the people I've known who go into the hospital with minor chest pain and find themselves getting a multiple bypass that afternoon. In Britain there's more of a wait and see attitude, which means giving medication and waiting for six months, or usually until the patient has a full-out heart attack and dies. The rate of heart bypass treatment in the US is almost triple what it is in Britain with a correspondingly higher survival rate for heart disease.

In my my further research on this subject I ran into another fascinating article by Rebecca Goldsmith of Newhouse News which gives some good evidence to suggest that faced with such a high probability of unnecessary death in countries with socialized medicine the public is forcing those systems to go through radical changes. Alarming numbers of patients are looking for solutions outside of the European healthcare system, even travelling to the US or Eastern Europe for treatment. In Britain there's even been a remarkable growth in private supplemental health insurance which is now a 7.7 billion dollar industry there. In response, Britain, Germany and the Scandinavian countries are apparently introducing more and more privatization into their systems, finding ways to sub-contract healthcare to private institutions and borrowing ideas from the system we have here in the US. Germany and Britain are even selling off publicly owned hospitals to private management firms to increase efficiency. These changes have already shown some results, reducing wait times for non-critical operations (joint replacements and the like) by half - from 18 months to 9 months in Britain - and already showing a few percentage points reduction in death rates for some cancers.

So while we consider what to do about the problems in our healthcare system here in America - and there are some genuine problems - remember that patients in the countries with socialized medicine which some of us seem to envy are looking at us and wishing they were as well off as we are. The fact that their governments are moving away from socialized medicine after being so devoted to it for so long is a very telling sign that we should move with extreme caution before trying to implement any kind of government managed healthcare here in the US.

The main shortcomings of the US system appear to be the high cost of insurance and the portion of the population which is too well off to be covered by Medicaire and too poor to afford insurance - or more typically younger Americans who choose not to make paying for health insurance a priority. To solve these problems through socializing a remarkably successful private system is like trying to fix a chipped plate by hitting it with a hammer. The solution is to find a way to get health coverage to these people under the current system and bring overall costs down, not to ruin everyone's healthcare so that we can bring equally inadequate care to those not handled well by the current system. Raising the income limits on medicaire is not a good solution, because medicaire is expensive, inefficiently run and already abused by unscrupulous doctors and hospitals. A more practical answer might be to find ways to bring costs down with more effective regulation - if we could avoid the problem of overregulation. Another alternative might be a system of health care insurance vouchers, similar to the idea of school vouchers, or healthcare savings accounts funded off of a payroll tax like Social Security and then used to either pay insurance or cover catastrophic costs. None of these solutions is terribly attractive, but they are solutions that work within the current system.

Or there might be a simpler solution that just never occurs to many people. Find a way to reduce the cost of your health insurance. By raising the deductible and taking a plan with some limitations on it health insurance can be lowered to a relatively reasonable level. You can get perfectly adequate, functional health insurance for under $100 a month if you're willing to pay $50 for each doctor visit or a reasonable co-payment or have a yearly deductible of $1500 or more or a combination of some of these elements. Try going to ehealthinsurance.com and getting a quote or two. You might be surprised at what a reasonable price you can get for perfectly adequate health insurance if you're willing to cut a few frills. Maybe our system isn't in as much trouble as we all think, because if you're not poor enough for Medicaire, you ought to be able to afford $1000 a year for health insurance unless you just choose not to.

Not super well written but some good points anyhow
 

ERMudPhud

Back for a visit
15+ Year Member
Feb 24, 2003
1,085
24
Status (Visible)
Not super well written but some good points anyhow

I'm a little suspicious of some of the statistics and would want to see the original sources. I think in some cases he may be comparing 5 year survival rates and in others mean survival times, a number that can be influenced by both early detection and aggressive treatment without a meaningful difference in quality of life. If your lethal tumor is found on average 6 months earlier in the US your reported survival from date of diagnosis will be 6 months longer but your actual date of death won't be any different.

In anycase I'm not sure survival rates for cancer is a great way to compare national health care systems. The health care system is there for a lot more than just cancer. Neonatal mortality and morbidity has a much greater effect on overall lifespan and ongoing costs of health care (all those toaster headed little ex premies with their PEGs and Trachs get real expensive). In that regard our much vaunted free market system blows

1: Thompson LA, Goodman DC, Little GA.
Is more neonatal intensive care always better? Insights from a cross-national
comparison of reproductive care.
Pediatrics. 2002 Jun;109(6):1036-43.
PMID: 12042540 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Everyone knows we have way more severely underweight babies because of poor prenatal care and a variety of other societal ills. But did you know that even with twice as many neonatalogists and NICU's the same 1kg kid doesnt really do any better in our system.

I don't know for sure what the answer is but if we keep our heads buried in the sand my only hope is to be retired (and healthy) before the whole system collapses from health care representing an unsupportable percentage of GDP
 

qjj

Full Member
Feb 25, 2007
14
0
Status (Visible)
I guess I'll have to be the voice of reason here. I'll start, by popular demand, with a picture of sorts.
20060323img2.gif
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The problem with the above stats are....

For cost, we take care of old and sick people that in other systems wouldnt get the care in other countries they do here.

For life expectancy we are more sedentary, more obese etc, than other countries, we also have more trauma than other places.

Infant mortality is one of the most interesting because of how this is measured. Many of the babies that count in that study would count as miscarriages in other places. not too places attempt to keep 24 weekers alive like we do here.

Physicians per 1k, well we have an imbalance between PCPs and specialists and thats a big prob but people have expectations in this country which are unreasonable. People want their simple rash to be treated by a dermatologist when their PCP might be just fine.

And Nurses and beds per 1k are actually a function of the fact that people dont sit in the hospital quite as long as other countries.

Discuss..
 

Tiger26

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
Mar 14, 2004
1,459
147
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
That cartoon is great. Pretty much sums up military medicine which is basically the finest example of government wasting as much money as possible while degrading care (socialized medicine).

Case in point: Me at Basic Training in GA--Ummm. . . I'm pretty sure my fever's really high even in light of the 95 degree heat, I've been shaking with chills, spitting up mucous, and am constantly exhausted. Their response: This excedrin should help you--take that till it gets better. Me: But aren't you going to evaluate me some more? They: No--Next person in line

Me in the ED a week after finishing basic: Repeated same story to experienced attending. Experienced attending: Yeah . . . ummm. . . this is probably the worst case of pneumonia I've seen in someone in your age/fitness level. That fever hovering over 105 should have been a red flag down there. Good thing for you that you weren't down there another week.
 
About the Ads

ERMudPhud

Back for a visit
15+ Year Member
Feb 24, 2003
1,085
24
Status (Visible)
I guess I'll have to be the voice of reason here. I'll start, by popular demand, with a picture of sorts.
20060323img2.gif

EXACTLY!

From Ectopic's quote of unknown origin
"You can get perfectly adequate, functional health insurance for under $100 a month if you're willing to pay $50 for each doctor visit or a reasonable co-payment or have a yearly deductible of $1500 or more or a combination of some of these elements. Try going to ehealthinsurance.com and getting a quote or two. "

That policy is only available if you are 25, male, with no medical problems. Just ask DocB about his experience trying to get disability insurance with HTN. Now imagine being 50 with high cholesterol, HTN, and lupus for example. You might not be able to get individual coverage at any price and if you could the policy will in all likelihood only cover 80% or less of expenses. The other 20% could be 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars a year with just a one or two hospitalizations.

Just for fun you should go to your hospital billing office and ask to look at some bills for the uninsured working lower middle class. What do you think an uncomplicated appy, a hit-and-run femur fracture, or an RSV hospitalization for an ex-premie costs? I have a family member who got appendicitis while between jobs and had a bill nearing 30K
 

ERMudPhud

Back for a visit
15+ Year Member
Feb 24, 2003
1,085
24
Status (Visible)
Infant mortality is one of the most interesting because of how this is measured. Many of the babies that count in that study would count as miscarriages in other places. not too places attempt to keep 24 weekers alive like we do here.

I believe you are wrong here, most of the stats I've seen are for PERInatal mortality and include any loss, miscarriage, stillbirth, NICU death beyond 24 weeks gestation.
 

GeneralVeers

Socially Distanced
15+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
7,523
6,960
Las Vegas
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I guess I'll have to be the voice of reason here. I'll start, by popular demand, with a picture of sorts.
20060323img2.gif

As has been mentioned, these stats aren't comparable, as the United States has a number of other serious social problems, like smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and violence that some of the other countries lack.

The best way to compare the success of different healthcare systems is to look at morbidity/mortality of comparable disease processes.
 

qjj

Full Member
Feb 25, 2007
14
0
Status (Visible)
From ectopicfetus: "For cost, we take care of old and sick people that in other systems wouldnt get the care in other countries they do here. "

Give me some evidence to support that the US spends so much more because they overtreat the sick and elderly. Convince me of this and you have an argument. Certainly the US disadvantage in average life expectancy, though, doesn't make it seem like we're taking better care of the old and sick. In fact, it seems just the opposite.
 

qjj

Full Member
Feb 25, 2007
14
0
Status (Visible)
"As has been mentioned, these stats aren't comparable, as the United States has a number of other serious social problems, like smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and violence that some of the other countries lack."

If we have a sicker population, and we're assuming that our healthcare system has no responsibilty for the population being sicker, then shouldn't we have more beds per 1K than other countries instead of fewer?
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I believe you are wrong here, most of the stats I've seen are for PERInatal mortality and include any loss, miscarriage, stillbirth, NICU death beyond 24 weeks gestation.

I dont recall the exact place but I am pretty sure (isnt that like a large RCT in terms of evidence?).. In most countries they just count them like miscarriages. Or at least thats what I recall.
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
EXACTLY!

From Ectopic's quote of unknown origin
"You can get perfectly adequate, functional health insurance for under $100 a month if you're willing to pay $50 for each doctor visit or a reasonable co-payment or have a yearly deductible of $1500 or more or a combination of some of these elements. Try going to ehealthinsurance.com and getting a quote or two. "

That policy is only available if you are 25, male, with no medical problems. Just ask DocB about his experience trying to get disability insurance with HTN. Now imagine being 50 with high cholesterol, HTN, and lupus for example. You might not be able to get individual coverage at any price and if you could the policy will in all likelihood only cover 80% or less of expenses. The other 20% could be 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars a year with just a one or two hospitalizations.

Just for fun you should go to your hospital billing office and ask to look at some bills for the uninsured working lower middle class. What do you think an uncomplicated appy, a hit-and-run femur fracture, or an RSV hospitalization for an ex-premie costs? I have a family member who got appendicitis while between jobs and had a bill nearing 30K

DocBs disability insurance is different than health insurance.

I recommended this site to my mother in law and my wife rec'd it to her students. ehealthinsurance.com

For a 57 yr old male non smoker in Arizona $157 per month with a $3000 deductible, and 25% coinsurance, office visit falls in this coinsurance and deductible. And you get Rx coverage but I didnt look at the details. Keep in mind for an uncomplicated appy or any surgery, you need OR techs, nurses, and 2 docs, on top of that you need meds etc. Im not saying 30K isnt insane but the costs add up really quick!
 

la gringa

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Oct 14, 2004
847
14
esse quam videri
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
we obviously had lectures on economic stuff in med school, and one figure stood out to me - that we spend 50% of health care dollars on care of pts in their last year of their life. if that's not taking care of the old and the sick, i don't know what is... some of what our health care system and public needs is a good lesson in palliative care... at my hospital for example (a public hosp where a lot of ca is diagnosed very, very late), the onc folks will throw $12k/dose chemo at anyone with a pulse. but try to schedule a f/u ulcers EGD, and it takes 18 months. geez...
 
About the Ads

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
From ectopicfetus: "For cost, we take care of old and sick people that in other systems wouldnt get the care in other countries they do here. "

Give me some evidence to support that the US spends so much more because they overtreat the sick and elderly. Convince me of this and you have an argument. Certainly the US disadvantage in average life expectancy, though, doesn't make it seem like we're taking better care of the old and sick. In fact, it seems just the opposite.

Do you think 80 yr olds are getting cathed in the UK or Canada? Keep in mind avg life expectancy also means that we have 20 yr olds who die in drunk driving accidents as well as other trauamas including accidents etc.

once you hit 70 or 80 the chances of you living another yr are pretty good.
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
If we are gonna give everyone something for free, shouldnt we start with a roof over their heads? Shouldnt we require something in return? Just a few thoughts..
 

ERMudPhud

Back for a visit
15+ Year Member
Feb 24, 2003
1,085
24
Status (Visible)
I dont recall the exact place but I am pretty sure (isnt that like a large RCT in terms of evidence?).. In most countries they just count them like miscarriages. Or at least thats what I recall.



The WHO describes Perinatal mortality as anything from 22 weeks gestation to 1 week post partum. By that logic keeping the 26 week'r alive for >1 week actually improves your numbers. If you combine perinatal with neonatal (up to 4 weeks) we come up about equal to UK and worse than Canada, France, Germany and all sorts of other weepy western european social democracies. Keeping that 26 week'r alive for >4weeks still makes us look better than we deserve here even if he ultimately dies at 5 weeks post partum

http://www.who.int/making_pregnancy_safer/publications/neonatal.pdf
 

Ceez

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
Apr 1, 2002
389
7
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
So while I hung with peter rosen on friday he basically is against NHC (national health care and the single payer system) but what I cant understand is how some of my colleagues are so into this stupid idea. Look I have explored this subject but this is one that just annoys me. The government does NOTHING well except waste money. What makes people think that doing this would be a good idea? It is just insanity to me.

My only satisfaction is knowing that this wont be a reality anytime soon and thank god for that.

(steps off pedestal)......:D


So how would you fix the US healthcare system?
 

ERMudPhud

Back for a visit
15+ Year Member
Feb 24, 2003
1,085
24
Status (Visible)
DocBs disability insurance is different than health insurance.

I recommended this site to my mother in law and my wife rec'd it to her students. ehealthinsurance.com

For a 57 yr old male non smoker in Arizona $157 per month with a $3000 deductible, and 25% coinsurance, office visit falls in this coinsurance and deductible. And you get Rx coverage but I didnt look at the details. Keep in mind for an uncomplicated appy or any surgery, you need OR techs, nurses, and 2 docs, on top of that you need meds etc. Im not saying 30K isnt insane but the costs add up really quick!


I know the site. It doesn't let you put in any medical history. Try applying for a policy and then tell them you have HTN. Or even worse something like RA, lupus, or any other significant chronic disease.

I realize disability is different from health insurance but the insurance industry's reluctance to touch someone with chronic health conditions isn't.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-reject31dec31,0,6033834.story?coll=la-home-local

I know why the appy costs so much. Shoot I get paid well because the ER bill for that appy is a few thousand. But when the bill is more than the patient's net worth it doesn't really matter why it costs so much all they know is that they will be either bankrupt or paying on it for the rest of their life.
 

ERMudPhud

Back for a visit
15+ Year Member
Feb 24, 2003
1,085
24
Status (Visible)
Have any of you people been to the UK.

Some numbers

Obesity rates world wide
http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/E...x55.aspx?ComponentId=12741&SourcePageId=15277
We aren't much of an outlier

Smoking rates world wide

http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas5.pdf
http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas6.pdf

We're lower than UK, Germany, France, etc...

Violence world wide

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/summary_en.pdf

Higher than most but still only accounts for an extra 3 or so deaths per 100,000 people
 

MirrorTodd

It's a gas.
15+ Year Member
Apr 23, 2006
17,115
8,877
Nowhere
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
That cartoon is great. Pretty much sums up military medicine which is basically the finest example of government wasting as much money as possible while degrading care (socialized medicine).

Case in point: Me at Basic Training in GA--Ummm. . . I'm pretty sure my fever's really high even in light of the 95 degree heat, I've been shaking with chills, spitting up mucous, and am constantly exhausted. Their response: This excedrin should help you--take that till it gets better. Me: But aren't you going to evaluate me some more? They: No--Next person in line

Me in the ED a week after finishing basic: Repeated same story to experienced attending. Experienced attending: Yeah . . . ummm. . . this is probably the worst case of pneumonia I've seen in someone in your age/fitness level. That fever hovering over 105 should have been a red flag down there. Good thing for you that you weren't down there another week.

:laugh: That sounds eerily similar to my experience.
*medic after listening to my lungs*
"It sounds like you have some fluid in your lungs. We'll get you some Cepacol."
*After seeing doctor in AIT*
"You have pneumonia. Here's some Erythromycin and a shot of Penicillin in the ass."

Sorry for the hijack.
 

leorl

Full Member
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 2, 2001
5,561
17
messymedic.blogspot.com
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I just don't understand how politicians think socialized medicine would work in the US. Way smaller countries (UK/Ireland) can't really handle it (although truth be told, some others can). There aren't enough resources, not enough doctors in rural populations. There's so much bureaucracy that interns spend most of the time being glorified secretaries and nurses rather than doing any real medicine. People running for office really should come and get sick on this side of the pond...then they'll see how far a 1.5 yr. wait for an MRI will get them and have their operation cancelled 3 times. Socialized medicine will never work in the US...we're just too big.
 

dlung

Postprelim intern oranges
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jun 10, 2004
352
1
Status (Visible)
  1. Fellow [Any Field]
I just don't understand how politicians think socialized medicine would work in the US. Way smaller countries (UK/Ireland) can't really handle it (although truth be told, some others can). There aren't enough resources, not enough doctors in rural populations. There's so much bureaucracy that interns spend most of the time being glorified secretaries and nurses rather than doing any real medicine. People running for office really should come and get sick on this side of the pond...then they'll see how far a 1.5 yr. wait for an MRI will get them and have their operation cancelled 3 times. Socialized medicine will never work in the US...we're just too big.

The pragmatics of any decision should be less important than the moral implications. Any right-wingers should agree with that. Any supporters of the 80-hour workweek should agree with that!

Miscellaneous thoughts in no particular order...

It should be made clear that when we talk about 'universal healthcare' in the United States, it does not equal 'single-payer.' It hasn't for quite some time. The idea of single-payer was kicked around in the early '90s and quickly removed by left-wingers as a solution. Clinton's plan back then, although providing for universal coverage, was not single-payer. All proposed univeral health care plans since produce (for lack of a better description) a 'mixed' healthcare environment.

Clearly, any health care system makes sacrifices. In developed countries, the potential resources available in health care outstrip our ability to provide it to every single person. It's similar to a triage decision. What do you want to sacrifice? If you want universal healthcare, are you (as a country) willing to sacrifice the high quality that the upper-tier of society enjoys in order to provide a reduced standard of health care equally accessible to all of society?

Just 'cause it's so much fun to make more people irrate, I would change that last sentence to: "Socialized medicine will never work in the US...we're just too spoiled." :laugh:
 
About the Ads

Hawk22

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jun 26, 2004
318
0
North Carolina
Status (Visible)
I've read/studied alot about this issue and honestly don't have time to post much right now, but I wanted to make a few quick points.

La gringa is dead on point on the comments about end of life care. We spend a huge amount of money on patients in the last 6 months of life and many question whether we spend too much on patients who are basically "unsaveable." That debate opens up a huge number of ethical questions for another topic, but worth noting.

It is also true that "universal health care" could mean alot of things, which may or may not mean a single payer system for the US. It is our system and we could chose whatever method we want.

But before this thread goes any further, I have a few question for everyone:

1. Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

2. Should everyone receive quality healthcare when they need it or should it only be reserved for those who have the means to pay for it?

I think the answers to those questions for everyone are good starting points.
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
So how would you fix the US healthcare system?

Hell keeping it the way it is, is better than changing it to a national system. How I would change it would obviously be a super long answer as there are a ton of problems. I would start by not having universal coverage. Health care is NOT a right in this country and should not be one. I would also group health insurance more by age than by company. One of the reasons why insurance is so expensive for people is that while the old folks are sicker the young workers are generally healthier but in companies they all get grouped together leading to higher premiums which young people dont want to pay since they are generally healthy. This is like playing the insurance lotto.

I would advocate for health spending accounts with insurance to cover disasters for people, say anything over 5k or 10k. This would greatly reduce costs, this is similar to the insurance provided on the website I discussed previously, and would limit the number of visits for stupid reasons because people would pay out of pocket right then and there. The issue is that when someone sees their doc it is only $10 to see them so why not?

That would be where I would start. I could outline an answer to every issue but I have the in service coming up and I dont have hours to provide my OPINIONS.

I would also penalize people who smoke, have a history of violence and who otherwise increase the costs of healthcare through their own stupidity or actions. Oh, I would also penalize the obese and before anyone attacks me, I am not a marathoner and am overweight.
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I know the site. It doesn't let you put in any medical history. Try applying for a policy and then tell them you have HTN. Or even worse something like RA, lupus, or any other significant chronic disease.

I realize disability is different from health insurance but the insurance industry's reluctance to touch someone with chronic health conditions isn't.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-reject31dec31,0,6033834.story?coll=la-home-local

I know why the appy costs so much. Shoot I get paid well because the ER bill for that appy is a few thousand. But when the bill is more than the patient's net worth it doesn't really matter why it costs so much all they know is that they will be either bankrupt or paying on it for the rest of their life.

There are insurers out there who might make it more expensive but the reality is that that poses a risk to the insurer, would you invest your money for the same rate of return where you have a 30% chance of losing your money like in a junk bond compared to a 0% chance in a savings account? They have to manage their risk as well. My mother in law has a history of severe allergies, HTN and she is in her late 50s and got insurance for like $200 a month thru this company. Thats my only personal experience.
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Some numbers

Obesity rates world wide
http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/E...x55.aspx?ComponentId=12741&SourcePageId=15277
We aren't much of an outlier

Smoking rates world wide

http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas5.pdf
http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas6.pdf

We're lower than UK, Germany, France, etc...

Violence world wide

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/summary_en.pdf

Higher than most but still only accounts for an extra 3 or so deaths per 100,000 people

Obesity is more complicated. Lets look at Diabetes, according to the ADA http://www.diabetes.org/uedocuments/worlddiabetesday.pr.pdf
http://www.diabetes.org/uedocuments/1.DOCTORSFAILINGTOINTENSIFY.06.10.pdf

20.8 million people have diabetes, 54 million are "pre-diabetic" this is almost 7% of our population with DM.

http://www.countrydoctor.co.uk/precis/precis - Diabetes UK.htm
New statistics revealed today show that there are now 1.8 million people with diabetes in the UK representing three per cent of the population.

Canada
http://www.diabetes.ca/files/CostofDiabetesJohnsonJun04.pdf
1.4 million diabetics (to be fair stats from WHO are different)
their population http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/clock/population.htm
32,839,000

Or about 4.3% of their population


http://www.who.int/diabetes/facts/world_figures/en/index4.html

France
Diabetics 1,710,000 / Population 60,496,000
2.8%

Germany 2,627,000 / population 82,689,000
3.2%

So as a summary US Diabetes 6.9%, Canada 4.3%, Germany 3.2%, UK 3%, France 2.8%, We all know how expensive this is to treat, dialysis, meds, doctors visits, BKAs etc etc.

Lets look at HIV and Hep C rates in this country compared to the UK, Canada, France, and Germany.

https://cia.gov/cia//publications/factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html
US 0.6%
UK 0.2%
Canada 0.3%
France 0.4%
Germany 0.1%

These meds run what 20K a yr plus numerous office visits etc?

Hep C
http://www.epidemic.org/theFacts/theEpidemic/worldPrevalence.html

The prevalence of hepatitis C is lowest in Northern European countries, including Great Britain, Germany and France. According to one survey, the prevalence of HCV antibodies in blood donors averages less than 1% for the region. (However, other studies have suggested that rates of infection may be much higher, comparable to rates in the U.S. - approximately 2.5%).
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
MudPhud, while the death rate may only be slightly higher 3/100K how about the ones who dont die? I would argue that paralysis and other chronic issues are way more costly. Death doesnt financially burden the system especially if it is quick. On the other hand a 2 month ICU stay is quite expensive.

We all know about the "vent farms" they are much more costly than if those people just died.
 

qjj

Full Member
Feb 25, 2007
14
0
Status (Visible)
20060323img2.gif



I don't think we gain that much by arguing about which country has more unhealthy people. Even if we all came to an agreement, surely the system of healthcare has an impact on on the underlying health of the population. For instance, how well a system leads to treatment for pre-diabetes will affect how many people in the country are diabetics or pre-diabetic. Similarly, we can't look at treatments for specific diseases to really gain any knowledge. For instance, it not only matters what the survival rate after a first MI is, but also how many people are prevented from getting MIs by having their risk factors managed before pathology develops.

Instead, I'd like to go back to my chart, at least for a minute, and point out that there is a lot of juggling going on to explain why the infant mortality and life expectancy are better than in other countries despite looking worse with the numbers. But, we're ignoring the top line of the chart. The United States is paying about twice as much for healthcare as other nations. Even if you think the quality data are misleading and the US actually has better care, you can't think it's so much better that we're getting what we pay for. I mean, Jesus F*cking Christ. Enough of theory. Look at the numbers. Twice as much money for earlier death.
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Some interesting stats..

http://www.spinalcord.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=21446

It is estimated that the annual incidence of spinal cord injury (SCI), not including those who die at the scene of the accident, is approximately 40 cases per million population in the U. S. or approximately 11,000 new cases each year.

Since 2000, motor vehicle crashes account for 46.9% of reported SCI cases

the most frequent neurologic category at discharge of persons reported to the database is incomplete tetraplegia (34.1%), followed by complete paraplegia (23.0%), complete tetraplegia (18.3%), and incomplete paraplegia (18.5%). Less than 1% of persons experienced complete neurologic recovery by hospital discharge.

Lifetime costs:
The average yearly health care and living expenses and the estimated lifetime costs that are directly attributable to SCI vary greatly according to severity of injury.
Average Yearly Expenses
(in May 2006 dollars) Severity of Injury First Year Each Subsequent Year
High Tetraplegia (C1-C4) $741,425 $132,807
Low Tetraplegia (C5-C8) $478,782 $54,400
Paraplegia $270,913 $27,568
Incomplete Motor Functional at any Level $218,504 $15,313


So in the US 3.67/100K new SCIs per yr

In the UK
http://www.pjonline.com/pdf/hp/200503/hp_200503_condition.pdf

800 new people per yr 1.42/100K

http://www.rickhansen.com/sections/aboutsciandlinks/docs/InventoryExecSummary.pdf
In Canada, 1000-1100 new SCIs per yr 3.1 to 3.4/100K, no good data, these are the numbers "generally accepted"

I got to go to work. Good discussion though.
 

GeneralVeers

Socially Distanced
15+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
7,523
6,960
Las Vegas
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The United States is paying about twice as much for healthcare as other nations. Even if you think the quality data are misleading and the US actually has better care, you can't think it's so much better that we're getting what we pay for. I mean, Jesus F*cking Christ. Enough of theory. Look at the numbers. Twice as much money for earlier death.


Why do we spend twice as much on healthcare? It has to do with the liability situation in this country. How many unnecessary CTs, X-rays, and ultrasounds do you order just to "cover yourself"? I've ordered tons of them myself, on patients who obviously didn't have whatever condition I was trying to rule out.

Unfortunately the politicians will never enact serious liability reform, because it's they, along with John Edwards who profit most from suing doctors.

Also, I've seen attending physicians order Zofran for patients, when much cheaper drugs like Reglan or Phenergan would work just as well.
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I don't think we gain that much by arguing about which country has more unhealthy people. Even if we all came to an agreement, surely the system of healthcare has an impact on on the underlying health of the population. For instance, how well a system leads to treatment for pre-diabetes will affect how many people in the country are diabetics or pre-diabetic. Similarly, we can't look at treatments for specific diseases to really gain any knowledge. For instance, it not only matters what the survival rate after a first MI is, but also how many people are prevented from getting MIs by having their risk factors managed before pathology develops.

Instead, I'd like to go back to my chart, at least for a minute, and point out that there is a lot of juggling going on to explain why the infant mortality and life expectancy are better than in other countries despite looking worse with the numbers. But, we're ignoring the top line of the chart. The United States is paying about twice as much for healthcare as other nations. Even if you think the quality data are misleading and the US actually has better care, you can't think it's so much better that we're getting what we pay for. I mean, Jesus F*cking Christ. Enough of theory. Look at the numbers. Twice as much money for earlier death.

Your chart needs to take into account how sick people are, also to make the numbers look a little better it should look at per capita income. Nurses cost more in the US partly because the cost of living is higher.

Lastly, if you believe what I bolded you there is a residency in primary care with a spot for you. Reality is this matters little because patients dont take their meds, dont start excercising and dont stop smoking. Thats the reality.
 

qjj

Full Member
Feb 25, 2007
14
0
Status (Visible)
Do you really think that the United States spend an entire healthcare system worth of money just on ultrasounds and CTs and other diagnosistic tests that wouldn't be ordered in other nations? Here's a hint: do diagnostic tests comprise more than half of the healthcare cost in the US system? Here's another hint: no.
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Why do we spend twice as much on healthcare? It has to do with the liability situation in this country. How many unnecessary CTs, X-rays, and ultrasounds do you order just to "cover yourself"? I've ordered tons of them myself, on patients who obviously didn't have whatever condition I was trying to rule out.

Unfortunately the politicians will never enact serious liability reform, because it's they, along with John Edwards who profit most from suing doctors.

Also, I've seen attending physicians order Zofran for patients, when much cheaper drugs like Reglan or Phenergan would work just as well.

100% agreed!:thumbup:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=K01&cycle=2006
In 2006 attorney and their companys contributed almost $120 million

Oh and dont get me started on John Frickin Edwards!
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,205
1,279
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Do you really think that the United States spend an entire healthcare system worth of money just on ultrasounds and CTs and other diagnosistic tests that wouldn't be ordered in other nations? Here's a hint: do diagnostic tests comprise more than half of the healthcare cost in the US system? Here's another hint: no.

They very quickly add up. Is it more than half no. is it a good chunk of money, you better believe it. CMS should be negotiating the cost of drugs (which is currently illegal) which would help as well. A little bit of everything helps, the need for specialists also needs to be changed. Much of this can be done safely at the PCP which would be cheaper.
 

qjj

Full Member
Feb 25, 2007
14
0
Status (Visible)
Can you please address the huge disparity in cost between the US and other nations? Nurses' pay isn't cutting it for me for a 100% increase in healthcare cost.
 

Tiger26

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
Mar 14, 2004
1,459
147
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I guess I'll have to be the voice of reason here. I'll start, by popular demand, with a picture of sorts.
20060323img2.gif

The problem with these infant mortality numbers among socialized health care systems is that they don't take into account regional differences within the actual countries themselves. If you look closely, the infant mortality rates in those countries correspond almost entirely with the regional per capita incomes in those same countries. Even though 'infant mortality' is the gold standard for the left, they not coincidentally fail to mention the details.

Of course, most of these people are also the same ones who don't give a damn about an infant before she/he exits the womb . . . but that's a whole other topic.
 

Miami_med

Moving Far Away
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2006
2,084
9
Now the opposite of Miami
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Clearly, any health care system makes sacrifices. In developed countries, the potential resources available in health care outstrip our ability to provide it to every single person. It's similar to a triage decision. What do you want to sacrifice? If you want universal healthcare, are you (as a country) willing to sacrifice the high quality that the upper-tier of society enjoys in order to provide a reduced standard of health care equally accessible to all of society?

Of course, we could let people decide how much healthcare they will access based on what they will pay for. I also think that you've placed a false dichotomy here. Resources are fluid. It's not like there is a static pie that we try and divide up fairly. The problem in US healthcare is a technological component that evolved under limitless government money with no thought for cost in mind. If we made people responsible again, there would be SOME incentive to control costs in order to compete. Right now, more expensive = more government money. This will only get worse in a Universal System. In a more efficient system, almost everyone with even the most remote of work ethics and income will benefit to a degree. Inequality between economic groups won't necessitate a total lower quality of care for any group.
 
About the Ads
This thread is more than 14 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.