In this systematic review, we demonstrated that although Canadian outcomes were more often superior to US outcomes than the reverse, neither the United States nor Canada can claim hegemony in terms of quality of medical care and the resultant patient-important outcomes. In virtually all areas, study results have demonstrated some apparent advantages for Canada and others for the United States. In cancer, where a number of strong studies have used population-based registries, Canadian outcomes appear superior in head and neck cancer, and possibly for low-income patients with a variety of cancers; American women with breast cancer appear to have better survival rates than Canadian women. In data from population-based registries, Canadians enjoy better risk-adjusted survival after a variety of surgeries, but American outcomes appear superior after hip fracture repair and cataract surgery. Studies that do not utilize population-based registries suggest that Americans have, possibly as a result of more aggressive interventions, less angina after MI, but the benefit may come at the price of increased strokes and bleeding. There is one area in which Canadian outcomes appear consistently superior: end-stage renal failure. Even here, however, as we shall discuss, one cannot be certain that superior medical care is responsible for the differences.
I have done a search. I also know the numbers like infant mortality get fudged based on how u define a birth. Also different chances of survival from cancer starting from pt of diagnosis. I also know that Medicaid patients have worse outcomes than people with private insurance in this country which every study shows. So no, the outcomes are not the same.
$600/year for a younger adult, $900/year for an adult between the age of 35-64, and $1,200/year for an elderly adult is unaffordable? With all visits and basic testing included in the price?
Yeah, we consider anything that draws breath a living infant, but many countries draw the line at between 28 and 32 weeks. We consider anything that's breathing and sustainable on mechanical ventilation when it comes out a viable infant, even if it's a 23 weeker.
Thats why the numbers arent what they seem. If different countries define what is a live birth differently, then some countries will have a lower death rate bc of a technicality, while babies in America are dying all over the place.
There was an old article on a poll that was done of average Americans back when healthcare reform in the 90s was being discussed about doctor salaries - the public thought doctors should be ok with making $80,000 a year. That tells u how much we should care what they think our salaries should be.
Lol. U dont even know why physicians in other countries make the salaries they make. Also for all that milking of the upper echelon, concierge care is booming and so is DPC for lower incomes.
And that 20k expense is a one-time deal like a totaled car that needs to be replaced. That's why I'm saying catastrophic coverage is the way to go- it covers you for the big stuff (the financial equivalent of a totaled car or a lawsuit from someone you hit), but leaves the little stuff of basic maintenance to the individual.
I've been around for enough 23 weeker deliveries to see exactly how insane it is that we consider infant mortality in the manner we do. But try telling that to the public, they don't know, understand, or care.
I see we still have the starry eyed, fresh from pre-allo, "I'm only in it to help people" mentality. Don't worry, I never gave the money much thought before I got to med school either. But something about the soul-crushing nature of med school, the thought of the debt you're accumulating, and knowing you'll be paying that debt off for a good 10+ years AFTER residency (even living bare bones) is sobering. It's enough to make me realize that when that day comes I will have earned every penny of that salary, and you have no right to tell me that 80k (or whatever the government thinks is enough) is anything less than a slap in the face.
It doesn't matter what that ortho surgeon does with his money, it's his money. Although I suppose a liberal trying to dictate the actions of another, especially in regards to finances, shouldn't come as a shock to anybody.
Having or not having insurance does not mean you have access to care. Case in point: I am a resident and am a hospital employee. I should have awesome insurance. Except, my health insurance does not cover any pharmacy other than the hospital associate pharmacy. Which, by the way, is only open from 9-3pm M-F. I've suddenly gotten very good at pricing drugs at local pharmacies if I need something semi-urgently. Amox or Augmentin might be cheaper at cash prices than your copay. Cheritussin is $10 a bottle; my copay would be $25 had I gotten it at the hospital pharmacy.
How do u know how he paid for his house? He told u? Arent orthopedic surgeries very physically rough on the person who is doing it? Arent orthos constantly working?
If we go full socialized medicine, I foresee a lot of physicians retiring or leaving the system at a rapid rate. Good luck getting your care when you've got no one willing to provide it.
Yes, but eventually there will be a tipping point where the old guard says "screw this" and retires. A great percentage of physicians over 55 have enough money to up and leave. With a third of physicians over age 55, you could easily see a massive loss of doctors in the workforce. Given that we have 900k physicians in the USA, and that residencies only turn out about 28k physicians a year, if there were a massive change that resulted in an exodus of doctors from the field, it could be literally devastating to our healthcare system due to the lag time in training replacements. There aren't enough doctors to care for people now, imagine what it would be like if we lost 20% of them.
Honestly... maybe it sounds great on the outside... I really can't comment because I've studied the economics too closely to make the mistake of thinking centralization of medicine or payments will help costs. Centralization of medicine and reimbursement systems are what brought us to this mess. There are no incentives to be cheap, efficient, and efficacious in government healthcare. The only incentive is to check all the right boxes and become a master of filing paperwork correctly, therefore avoiding CMS penalties. It has nothing to do with the patient anymore.
You're one of the few whose naivete is blatantly obvious
Single payer is a great system. Just look at the VA hospitals. Oh wait...
Or it could also be because this forum is largely populated by residents and attendings who, you know, actually know the field of medicine and how it works.
You realize that metaphor is meant to illustrate that as a bad thing, not an e-peen measuring stick, right?
Yes I am aware. I was poking fun at the metaphor.
Fixed that for you.
