How many of the 50k applicants a year are just flat-out delusional?

[PreciousHamburgers]

While I totally agree that we are not actually a civilized country until everyone in this country can afford access to care, the hive of scum and villainy that is Allo does have some good points.

1) People are entitled to care but how much care? If you are a chain smoker your insurance costs go up because you will cost the system more money but not in an equitable single player system. Why should comparatively healthy people pay for other people's mistakes?

2) If you make access to care universal then you have two choices: You increase the supply of care providers to the point where care providers make significantly less than they currently do. How could we finance such a decision with the current state of higher education? Or you live with the fact that people will have massive wait times for primary care. We can't even afford to provide effective and efficient primary care to the currently insured folks in this country and people do not tend to use primary care effectively to begin with (e.g. using the ER for primary care, never going for regular checkups, etc) so how are we going to do even more with an all-insured system?

3) Even if everyone is insured, how do we convince docs to go to the boonies where they are needed the most without somehow restricting their professional freedom? (The answer is probably we don't and make people serve in the boonies for a set amount of time before they are allowed to fly solo like they do in other countries, my home country included where it's called "doing a rural" in Spanish).


Also the idea of having an increased social burden for financing the most expensive care which can at times be futile (e.g. keeping someone on a ventilator for a year when they have zero quality of life, "doing everything" or a full code on a 90 year old diabetic suffering from cardiac arrest because the family wants you to try everything, extensive interventions on sub-18 week premies, etc.) but that is more of an ethical minefield altogether that requires a case by case analysis to be fair.

Don't get me wrong. I think single payer is for sure the way to go but at the very least we have to subsidize higher education before we can convince smart, young people to give up their lives for low compensation AND high debt. While the reasons I listed above are legitimate, I think they are soluble and the importance of providing equitable care is greater than the values they seem to tout.

Or make it easier for some primary care to be done by people with less education/qualifications. Start at the base of a skills pyramid, and work your way up as the need for more expertise is needed. Have physicians sign off on prescriptions for antibiotics and other more common medications if need be. Someone doesn't need an MD to give vaccinations or tell someone with the flu to get some rest and hydrate... Don't like seeing a nurse or a tech for your cold? That's fine, get a job that offers good private insurance as a benefit, universal coverage can be just a basic coverage for everyone. It's better than having nothing at all.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lucca]

Or make it easier for some primary care to be done by people with less education/qualifications. Start at the base of a skills pyramid, and work your way up as the need for more expertise is needed. Have physicians sign off on prescriptions for antibiotics and other more common medications if need be. Someone doesn't need an MD to give vaccinations or tell someone with the flu to get some rest and hydrate... Don't like seeing a nurse or a tech for your cold? That's fine, get a job that offers good private insurance as a benefit, universal coverage can be just a basic coverage for everyone. It's better than having nothing at all.

Def. agree and so does the ACA.

 

[mk04447]

Or make it easier for some primary care to be done by people with less education/qualifications. Start at the base of a skills pyramid, and work your way up as the need for more expertise is needed. Have physicians sign off on prescriptions for antibiotics and other more common medications if need be. Someone doesn't need an MD to give vaccinations or tell someone with the flu to get some rest and hydrate... Don't like seeing a nurse or a tech for your cold? That's fine, get a job that offers good private insurance as a benefit, universal coverage can be just a basic coverage for everyone. It's better than having nothing at all.

This is already being done; without the help of government I might add. Pharmacists are issuing an increasing share of vaccinations. Walgreens is opening windows where NPs write the script and they fill the order right there. Obamacare burns me up, the free market would self correct if the damn legislature got out of the way. But we digress.

Back on track, I know several schools deal with these delusions by sending crazy offers. I saw a letter the other day, went something like this... Your application has been reviewed and while you will not be interviewed for a seat in (enter COM), we would like to offer you a spot in the upcoming pharmacy class of 20xx.

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

This is already being done; without the help of government I might add. Pharmacists are issuing an increasing share of vaccinations. Walgreens is opening windows where NPs write the script and they fill the order right there. Obamacare burns me up, the free market would self correct if the damn legislature got out of the way. But we digress.

Back on track, I know several schools deal with these delusions by sending crazy offers. I saw a letter the other day, went something like this... Your application has been reviewed and while you will not be interviewed for a seat in (enter COM), we would like to offer you a spot in the upcoming pharmacy class of 20xx.

Any examples of the free market providing universal coverage (including to those who can't pay anything), lifting lifetime limits on coverage, and banning denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions? Also, the 'free market' doesn't tend to work so well when people for the most part don't understand what it is they are buying. I can only see the market "correcting itself" for the tiny minority among us who can be choosy about what jobs with benefits we take and who have very high end plans.

 

[efle]

While I totally agree that we are not actually a civilized country until everyone in this country can afford access to care, the hive of scum and villainy that is Allo does have some good points.

1) People are entitled to care but how much care? If you are a chain smoker your insurance costs go up because you will cost the system more money but not in an equitable single player system. Why should comparatively healthy people pay for other people's mistakes?

2) If you make access to care universal then you have two choices: You increase the supply of care providers to the point where care providers make significantly less than they currently do. How could we finance such a decision with the current state of higher education? Or you live with the fact that people will have massive wait times for primary care. We can't even afford to provide effective and efficient primary care to the currently insured folks in this country and people do not tend to use primary care effectively to begin with (e.g. using the ER for primary care, never going for regular checkups, etc) so how are we going to do even more with an all-insured system?

3) Even if everyone is insured, how do we convince docs to go to the boonies where they are needed the most without somehow restricting their professional freedom? (The answer is probably we don't and make people serve in the boonies for a set amount of time before they are allowed to fly solo like they do in other countries, my home country included where it's called "doing a rural" in Spanish).


Also the idea of having an increased social burden for financing the most expensive care which can at times be futile (e.g. keeping someone on a ventilator for a year when they have zero quality of life, "doing everything" or a full code on a 90 year old diabetic suffering from cardiac arrest because the family wants you to try everything, extensive interventions on sub-18 week premies, etc.) but that is more of an ethical minefield altogether that requires a case by case analysis to be fair.

Don't get me wrong. I think single payer is for sure the way to go but at the very least we have to subsidize higher education before we can convince smart, young people to give up their lives for low compensation AND high debt. While the reasons I listed above are legitimate, I think they are soluble and the importance of providing equitable care is greater than the values they seem to tout.

They handle all this pretty well in Denmark. 1) Everyone gets whatever care they need/is available. You have to see a GP who refers you to specialist, which they call the "gatekeeper" system. 95+% of issues get resolved at the GP. You don't see tons of people in the ER for their kid's flu or sinus infection like you do here. People do pay a ton more, unfairly, to take care of smokers/obese/etc and are actually proud of it. To them, there is no hesitation providing care to anyone, regardless of how poor their life choices have been. It's unthinkable to them that you'd be able to sleep at night with a little more cash in your wallet while someone's parent dies of treatable COPD. 2) All higher education is free (in fact, slightly paid). Yay more taxes. Again, people are proud of this. GP is actually the most sought-after, and is more competitive than specialties. There is very little pay gap between GP and specialty or between specialties, and everyone works 37 hour weeks, so things like Derm are at the bottom of the totem pole there. Their solution to waitlists was to allow people to go to the private care sector and still be covered by the government if they couldn't be seen in X days (usually a month, shorter for acute stuff). The problem has almost totally resolved now, and the massive waits for things like MRI is mostly a problem of the past. 3) Districts are allowed only to have a certain number of GPs, each with a certain number of patients. GP is competitive enough that when a spot opens almost anywhere it gets filled. People are also assigned a place to do their residency which can include extremely rural places like Greenland. A lot of the ethical dilemmas do remain though. They're willing to pay insane taxes but you still have to draw lines and do cost-effectiveness analysis etc.

 

[Lucca]

They handle all this pretty well in Denmark. 1) Everyone gets whatever care they need/is available. You have to see a GP who refers you to specialist, which they call the "gatekeeper" system. 95+% of issues get resolved at the GP. You don't see tons of people in the ER for their kid's flu or sinus infection like you do here. People do pay a ton more, unfairly, to take care of smokers/obese/etc and are actually proud of it. To them, there is no hesitation providing care to anyone, regardless of how poor their life choices have been. It's unthinkable to them that you'd be able to sleep at night with a little more cash in your wallet while someone's parent dies of treatable COPD. 2) All higher education is free (in fact, slightly paid). Yay more taxes. Again, people are proud of this. GP is actually the most sought-after, and is more competitive than specialties. There is very little pay gap between GP and specialty or between specialties, and everyone works 37 hour weeks, so things like Derm are at the bottom of the totem pole there. Their solution to waitlists was to allow people to go to the private care sector and still be covered by the government if they couldn't be seen in X days (usually a month, shorter for acute stuff). The problem has almost totally resolved now, and the massive waits for things like MRI is mostly a problem of the past. 3) Districts are allowed only to have a certain number of GPs, each with a certain number of patients. GP is competitive enough that when a spot opens almost anywhere it gets filled. People are also assigned a place to do their residency which can include extremely rural places like Greenland. A lot of the ethical dilemmas do remain though. They're willing to pay insane taxes but you still have to draw lines and do cost-effectiveness analysis etc.

I'd be willing to give the government a lump out of my paycheck if we could build that kind of system here. But can you convince the American public who isn't even on board with the whole climate change thing yet?

 

[efle]

This is already being done; without the help of government I might add. Pharmacists are issuing an increasing share of vaccinations. Walgreens is opening windows where NPs write the script and they fill the order right there. Obamacare burns me up, the free market would self correct if the damn legislature got out of the way. But we digress.

Back on track, I know several schools deal with these delusions by sending crazy offers. I saw a letter the other day, went something like this... Your application has been reviewed and while you will not be interviewed for a seat in (enter COM), we would like to offer you a spot in the upcoming pharmacy class of 20xx.

Healthcare market is not a free market. All sorts of the usual economics are screwed up, based on major problems like the consumer being almost totally uninformed compared to the providers. Check out Arrow's classic

 

[efle]

I'd be willing to give the government a lump out of my paycheck if we could build that kind of system here. But can you convince the American public who isn't even on board with the whole climate change thing yet?

It's not like the battle of education around climate change. You don't really need the public to understand evidence and form validly based beliefs. You just need the public to be poor enough and sick enough to get out and vote for reform

 

[Lucca]

It's not like the battle of education around climate change. You don't really need the public to understand evidence and form validly based beliefs. You just need the public to be poor enough and sick enough to get out and vote for reform

I think you'll find that poverty and illness are terribly poor predictors of voter turnout. The actual debate on this kind of reform always comes down to value based arguments from both sides and that's how it will continue to be. The duty of the nation to support all of its citizens is the item in question and in that sense this debate is very similar to that of minimum wage in the political realm. In general, however, we do need far more people to vote.

 

[Stagg737]

Interesting. With things so bad for specialists, it really doesn't make sense to me how there is much greater competition for med seats than in the US...

Probably has something to do with the outlook and pay for PCPs. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the pay gap between PC and specialties is minuscule compared to the U.S. I'm sure more people in the U.S. would enter PC fields if they didn't pay a fraction of what specialties do.

Yeah dat single payer system tho

It's interesting when you step into the Allo boards and see all these well educated people saying it could never work that way for us. After seeing it first hand I have to wonder what has them so convinced. Their culture is quite similar to ours, both the patients and doctors are happier and clearly they have a better system. Why can't we start copying it?

Because every single country where single payer is implemented is both significantly more homogenous in their demographic and needs than the U.S. is, and they all have a fraction of the population we have. There is no successful single payer system in the world that has as many people over the age of 60 that we do, or the demand for healthcare. Combine that with the general entitled opinion of the U.S. population that 'I deserve the best no matter what!' and I think it becomes much more obvious why it wouldn't currently work here. @Lucca summed up some other major issues pretty nicely.

While I totally agree that we are not actually a civilized country until everyone in this country can afford access to care, the hive of scum and villainy that is Allo does have some good points.

1) People are entitled to care but how much care? If you are a chain smoker your insurance costs go up because you will cost the system more money but not in an equitable single player system. Why should comparatively healthy people pay for other people's mistakes?

2) If you make access to care universal then you have two choices: You increase the supply of care providers to the point where care providers make significantly less than they currently do. How could we finance such a decision with the current state of higher education? Or you live with the fact that people will have massive wait times for primary care. We can't even afford to provide effective and efficient primary care to the currently insured folks in this country and people do not tend to use primary care effectively to begin with (e.g. using the ER for primary care, never going for regular checkups, etc) so how are we going to do even more with an all-insured system?

3) Even if everyone is insured, how do we convince docs to go to the boonies where they are needed the most without somehow restricting their professional freedom? (The answer is probably we don't and make people serve in the boonies for a set amount of time before they are allowed to fly solo like they do in other countries, my home country included where it's called "doing a rural" in Spanish).


Also the idea of having an increased social burden for financing the most expensive care which can at times be futile (e.g. keeping someone on a ventilator for a year when they have zero quality of life, "doing everything" or a full code on a 90 year old diabetic suffering from cardiac arrest because the family wants you to try everything, extensive interventions on sub-18 week premies, etc.) but that is more of an ethical minefield altogether that requires a case by case analysis to be fair.

Don't get me wrong. I think single payer is for sure the way to go but at the very least we have to subsidize higher education before we can convince smart, young people to give up their lives for low compensation AND high debt. While the reasons I listed above are legitimate, I think they are soluble and the importance of providing equitable care is greater than the values they seem to tout.

You will never convince a large portion of smart, young people to give up their lives for low compensation and high debt. That would make them pretty stupid, at least in financial terms. There's no way a single payer system could possibly work in the U.S. for total coverage for all the reasons you previously mentioned and more. Maybe you could provide preventative or basic coverage to everyone, but it would never work unless there was some kind of wrap-around coverage for chronic problems or major medical events. The other thing you forgot though is the cost of pharmaceuticals here. Until we get big pharma prices under control there's no point in even trying to go to single payer.

Personally, I'd rather adopt a public-private hybrid system like Australia has. Everyone receives preventative and primary coverage through Medicare (like Medicaid in the U.S.) and have the option of purchasing plans that provide wrap-around coverage at government set rates. At the same time people may purchase private insurance on their own and utilize private hospitals or clinics (which are usually provide better, faster healthcare) and take some of the financial/resource burden off of the government. It give both physicians and most patients a choice, and it provides coverage for those who wouldn't be able to afford private insurance otherwise.

 

[mk04447]

Any examples of the free market providing universal coverage (including to those who can't pay anything), lifting lifetime limits on coverage, and banning denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions? Also, the 'free market' doesn't tend to work so well when people for the most part don't understand what it is they are buying. I can only see the market "correcting itself" for the tiny minority among us who can be choosy about what jobs with benefits we take and who have very high end plans.

Gotta disagree. The truth is the markets never been permitted to address these things because of the initial pain that would be felt by the abusers. As a nation we tend to punish good behavior and reward poor choices. Insurance is no different, the guy who habitually exercises carries the two ton man; bass acwards. Refusing to enact loser pays forces doctors to order a MRI on every hurt elbow and this too gets passed on. Quite simply, if accountability through tort reform, deregulation, and it were possible to bill the biggest offenders (the overweight, depressed, elderly, etc.) you'd see two things... First, people would make better choices if that Big Mac was going to cost them $200 a month in premiums... Second, healthcare costs would plummet and become far more preventive than reactive. That would mean there would be room for concessions on a few of the extreme cases. Most on here are too young and have never really learned conservative principles, but prosperity beats a hand out every time. When America roars there are churches, non-profits, and generous souls willing to pick up the missing links. Most of the uninsured would become successfully employed and garner insurance through work. You've been conditioned to think these people are helpless and need the hand out, they don't. What they need is to be told no and billed for their vices. Reward good choices and people will make more of them. I realize these sentiments are foreign these days, but I think you'll see (I hope you see) a shift in society over the next few years. I know there is a huge backlash coming to the weak millennials, I see it in my teenagers and their friends, they're sick of working hard just to be recognized in the same fashion as the lazy pricks. I'm hopeful we'll turn the corner and I think our best years are ahead... This includes some really great things in healthcare also.

 

[Lucca]

Gotta disagree. The truth is the markets never been permitted to address these things because of the initial pain that would be felt by the abusers. As a nation we tend to punish good behavior and reward poor choices. Insurance is no different, the guy who habitually exercises carries the two ton man; bass acwards. Refusing to enact loser pays forces doctors to order a MRI on every hurt elbow and this too gets passed on. Quite simply, if accountability through tort reform, deregulation, and it were possible to bill the biggest offenders (the overweight, depressed, elderly, etc.) you'd see two things... First, people would make better choices if that Big Mac was going to cost them $200 a month in premiums... Second, healthcare costs would plummet and become far more preventive than reactive. That would mean there would be room for concessions on a few of the extreme cases. Most on here are too young and have never really learned conservative principles, but prosperity beats a hand out every time. When America roars there are churches, non-profits, and generous souls willing to pick up the missing links. Most of the uninsured would become successfully employed and garner insurance through work. You've been conditioned to think these people are helpless and need the hand out, they don't. What they need is to be told no and billed for their vices. Reward good choices and people will make more of them. I realize these sentiments are foreign these days, but I think you'll see (I hope you see) a shift in society over the next few years. I know there is a huge backlash coming to the weak millennials, I see it in my teenagers and their friends, they're sick of working hard just to be recognized in the same fashion as the lazy pricks. I'm hopeful we'll turn the corner and I think our best years are ahead... This includes some really great things in healthcare also.

Lol Allo in one paragraph wow.

 

[Syns]

Gotta disagree. The truth is the markets never been permitted to address these things because of the initial pain that would be felt by the abusers. As a nation we tend to punish good behavior and reward poor choices. Insurance is no different, the guy who habitually exercises carries the two ton man; bass acwards. Refusing to enact loser pays forces doctors to order a MRI on every hurt elbow and this too gets passed on. Quite simply, if accountability through tort reform, deregulation, and it were possible to bill the biggest offenders (the overweight, depressed, elderly, etc.) you'd see two things... First, people would make better choices if that Big Mac was going to cost them $200 a month in premiums... Second, healthcare costs would plummet and become far more preventive than reactive. That would mean there would be room for concessions on a few of the extreme cases. Most on here are too young and have never really learned conservative principles, but prosperity beats a hand out every time. When America roars there are churches, non-profits, and generous souls willing to pick up the missing links. Most of the uninsured would become successfully employed and garner insurance through work. You've been conditioned to think these people are helpless and need the hand out, they don't. What they need is to be told no and billed for their vices. Reward good choices and people will make more of them. I realize these sentiments are foreign these days, but I think you'll see (I hope you see) a shift in society over the next few years. I know there is a huge backlash coming to the weak millennials, I see it in my teenagers and their friends, they're sick of working hard just to be recognized in the same fashion as the lazy pricks. I'm hopeful we'll turn the corner and I think our best years are ahead... This includes some really great things in healthcare also.

The implications of this argument are painfully unsettling. I suppose the ends do justify the means - or us 'youngsters' simply disregard your bootstrap philosophy. *shrug*

 

[Cotterpin]

@mk04447 How can you say that the elderly and the depressed are among "the biggest offenders"? Was there some choice an elderly person could have made to avoid aging?

 

[Syns]

@Cotterpin Mk04447 has ignored the effect of social determinants, natural aging, etc... By extension, rational argument would also fall in the realm of worthlessness.

 

[mk04447]

@mk04447 How can you say that the elderly and the depressed are among "the biggest offenders"? Was there some choice an elderly person could have made to avoid aging?

Well since you asked... before medicine I was in executive management. Each year I would sit down with our insurance rep and look at our statistics. Companies are rated on their drug consumption; the number of statins, SSRIs, etc. these ongoing expenses are much more debilitating than a huge acute claim, car accident etc. Some smaller companies have begun to discount an individuals rate with proof of attendance at a health club, but these are typically small incentives. The insurance companies want to rate based on BMI, but ones that do cannot remain competitive, >BMI are your biggest offenders. Anyway, systemic movement in a preventive, punitive, direction would equalize these factors and eventually, it would be too expensive to maintain that gut; ergo no statin and likely fewer SSRIs. So age is rarely the problem, its the exacerbation of fat, nicotine, alcohol, and little if any exercise.

 

[Cotterpin]

I think that's a naive, idealistic, over-simplified way to look at things. Like if you just tell people it's going to be prohibitively expensive to be fat, then all on their own they're just going to completely remodel their lifestyles and American culture?

 

[efle]

You just need to give people more immediate signals. Another example from Scandinavia: high taxes on very unhealthy food. I didn't buy soda or candy at all while i was there because it cost 5x what it does here. Same goes for cigs and alcohol, you can reduce consumption by making it painfully expensive to mistreat yourself.

 

[mk04447]

I think that's a naive, idealistic, over-simplified way to look at things. Like if you just tell people it's going to be prohibitively expensive to be fat, then all on their own they're just going to completely remodel their lifestyles and American culture?

Kids and your incessant instant gratification. You are correct in only one regard, this takes time. However, when you get over being sickeningly PC, you'll find your fat, isn't my problem. Further, when you start paying taxes this will invade you. I don't know who said this and I'm going to botch it a bit, but you'll get the point... If you're not a liberal at 25 you haven't got a heart, but if you're not conservative by 35 you're an idiot.

Ultimately, this is America. You should be able to do anything you want, but your freedom shouldn't impact me. Therefore, have the Twinkie, but you'll be responsible for your higher healthcare costs. Though it won't take long before many get sick of paying these expenses and forego the Starbucks.

 

[Cotterpin]

@mk04447 I'm not a kid. I don't need your lecture.

 

[mk04447]

@mk04447 I'm not a kid. I don't need your lecture.

My bad, you seemed to have trouble with easy concepts so I assumed.

 

[Cotterpin]

Woooooooow.

 

[Syns]

@mk04447 If you get a speeding ticket, you pay your fine and suffer the consequences of higher monthly insurance costs. The financial burden forces you to re-prioritize your decision making process. Great, now I complete understand your point. How could I have been so young and naive.
















#Sarcasm. Kappa. *facepalm*

 

[Lucca]

Mk sounds like such a beta.

 

[skooper]

Yeah you messed it up big time. It's "If you're young and not a liberal, you haven't got a heart. If you're old and not a conservative, you haven't got a brain."

It's still a bull**** saying either way, but that's the correct version tyvm

 

[skooper]

Ultimately, this is America.

sensei teach me about america pls

 

[ChrisMack390]

Soo about those med school apps.....

 

[mk04447]

If you disagree feel free to share an original thought, maybe a fact, or an accepted concept.

 

[skooper]

If you disagree feel free to share an original thought, maybe a fact, or an accepted concept.

sorry I can't, just don't get america like you do

 

[nvas]

I came here to feel better about my chances at med school but instead I was reminded of the healthcare crisis

 

[Lucca]

If you disagree feel free to share an original thought, maybe a fact, or an accepted concept.

I was gonna take a break from MCAT and do just this but considering your posts read like random copypasta of Glenn Beck transcripts I chose not to. Instead I chose to make snarky comments.

 

[efle]

If you disagree feel free to share an original thought, maybe a fact, or an accepted concept.

What's hilarious is that people in Sweden would look at you like an insane person for your views! Its all relative. I pay taxes and would still like to see us progress more towards a system like Norway or Germany or France. There are hurdles sure but not bigger than those reforms have overcome in the past. But hey time will tell - maybe these next fifty years will mark the first in history that conservative views weren't laughable to the following generations.

 

[Syns]

I was gonna take a break from MCAT and do just this but considering your posts read like random copypasta of Glenn Beck transcripts I chose not to. Instead I chose to make snarky comments.

A truer conclusion will never be reached.

 

[NeuResurgens]

Godwin's Law of SDN - as the number of pages in any thread increases, so does the probability that the discussion will turn to health care reform.

 

[skooper]

gaiz how did the hookup thread get to 160 replies without going off topic and we can't even hold it together for 130 posts??

 

[skooper]

what are some of the dumbest things you heard premeds say?

 

[Spinach Dip]

gaiz how did the hookup thread get to 160 replies without going off topic and we can't even hold it together for 130 posts??

It's a matter of priorities....

 

[skooper]

It's a matter of priorities....

fair tbh I'd take hookups too over health reform

 

[Lawpy]

Godwin's Law of SDN - as the number of pages in any thread increases, so does the probability that the discussion will turn to health care reform.

It's called Burnett's Law

Burnett’s Law: As an SDN Forums discussion grows longer, the probability of being told, “you will be a terrible doctor” or, “I feel bad for your future patients” approaches 1.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

So, should we be paying for other people's mistakes? I don't know about y'all, but I'd rather not pay higher taxes because some dip**** was noncompliant with their meds/treatment regimen.

 

[Banco]

So, should we be paying for other people's mistakes? I don't know about y'all, but I'd rather not pay higher taxes because some dip**** was noncompliant with their meds/treatment regimen.

Calm down.

 

[Pattycake25]

If you disagree feel free to share an original thought, maybe a fact, or an accepted concept.

How about this?

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

"Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position. Alternative values of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions did not alter these conclusions."

You're a *****. You're also a jackass, singling out various cohorts and using them as scapegoats for your backwards, entirely debunked economic philosophy and obsolete worldview. You're ALSO a bad physician, if you didn't know this incredibly basic fact that is hammered into medical students from their first WEEK (or couldn't realize how obvious it was, because...y'know...smoking kills?). PLEASE stop "caring" for patients, and go back to bossing people smarter than you around, which you admitted in a previous post was your past and is undoubtedly your only real skill (as reflected in this thread).

 

[efle]

So, should we be paying for other people's mistakes? I don't know about y'all, but I'd rather not pay higher taxes because some dip**** was noncompliant with their meds/treatment regimen.

Sure, why not? That's how its done in some of the happiest, healthiest nations. I guess we just aren't that altruistic

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

Gotta disagree. The truth is the markets never been permitted to address these things because of the initial pain that would be felt by the abusers. As a nation we tend to punish good behavior and reward poor choices. Insurance is no different, the guy who habitually exercises carries the two ton man; bass acwards. Refusing to enact loser pays forces doctors to order a MRI on every hurt elbow and this too gets passed on. Quite simply, if accountability through tort reform, deregulation, and it were possible to bill the biggest offenders (the overweight, depressed, elderly, etc.) you'd see two things... First, people would make better choices if that Big Mac was going to cost them $200 a month in premiums... Second, healthcare costs would plummet and become far more preventive than reactive. That would mean there would be room for concessions on a few of the extreme cases. Most on here are too young and have never really learned conservative principles, but prosperity beats a hand out every time. When America roars there are churches, non-profits, and generous souls willing to pick up the missing links. Most of the uninsured would become successfully employed and garner insurance through work. You've been conditioned to think these people are helpless and need the hand out, they don't. What they need is to be told no and billed for their vices. Reward good choices and people will make more of them. I realize these sentiments are foreign these days, but I think you'll see (I hope you see) a shift in society over the next few years. I know there is a huge backlash coming to the weak millennials, I see it in my teenagers and their friends, they're sick of working hard just to be recognized in the same fashion as the lazy pricks. I'm hopeful we'll turn the corner and I think our best years are ahead... This includes some really great things in healthcare also.

Really? Because you sound like every obliviously naive eighteen-year-old who has just read Ayn Rand and wants the rest of us to "wake up." I hope you aren't this condescending and judgmental with patients. Most of these ideas are just not true and are as "idealistic" (albeit right-leaning) as any ideas I had as a young liberal.

 

[mk04447]

How about this?

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

"Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position. Alternative values of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions did not alter these conclusions."

You're a *****. You're also a jackass, singling out various cohorts and using them as scapegoats for your backwards, entirely debunked economic philosophy and obsolete worldview. You're ALSO a bad physician, if you didn't know this incredibly basic fact that is hammered into medical students from their first WEEK (or couldn't realize how obvious it was, because...y'know...smoking kills?). PLEASE stop "caring" for patients, and go back to bossing people smarter than you around, which you admitted in a previous post was your past and is undoubtedly your only real skill (as reflected in this thread).

LOL. You remind me of this girl I was arguing with once, she kept pouting saying, "I listened to you, now you have to listen to me." She went on and on, the less I listened the more fired up she got.

 

[Lucca]

So, should we be paying for other people's mistakes? I don't know about y'all, but I'd rather not pay higher taxes because some dip**** was noncompliant with their meds/treatment regimen.

Noncompliance is a failure of the healthcare provider, not the patient.

 

[skooper]

she kept pouting

as a female, i can tell you that she was asking for the D
But did you give it to her?

 

[efle]

the less I listened the more fired up she got

Ah, the true mark of someone unable to handle challenges to their views: the slightly more mature version of "la la la can't hear you"

Noncompliance is a failure of the healthcare provider, not the patient.

That's nonsense. You can fully educate someone on why it's bad for them to be an obese smoker, and provide every supporting resource, but they may still kill themselves with daily habit.

 

[skooper]

Noncompliance is a failure of the healthcare provider, not the patient.

um no
we can argue about whether the patient can be fully blamed or if there are other circumstances (often related to SES and education) that caused them to be non-compliant, but it is not the providers' fault.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

Noncompliance is a failure of the healthcare provider, not the patient.

That's total BS and you know it. If a physician educates the patient about their disease and treatment options as well as they possibly can, then it is not the physician's fault if the patient still chooses to be noncompliant. Once again, I'm not taking the fall for someone else's asinine choices. I've seen many frequent fliers in the ED. You know why they're frequent fliers? Because of noncompliance every single damn time. The ER docs I worked with just get tired of having to explain the same things every time they see the patient. It's the same thing for someone asking for advice on SDN. They want help, most likely to improve something, so SDN'ers tell them different options of how to best improve their situation or whatever. If the person who asked for help refuses to listen to the advice because of preconceived notions or laziness or whatever, then that's ON THEM when they later fail/crash and burn/whatever.