Actually, Romneycare has increased patient wait times to 1.5 months.

[theeedude]

Of course. He's right and anything negative which is true must not be allowed. Call Thinkpol!

... says the guy who likes using illegal immigrants as slave labor so he can save $0.02 on his lettuce.

Here comes the cheering section

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, it is asinine because it presumes that increasing demand will not be met with an increased supply of medical personnel (much of which could be done simply by allowing others like nurses to treat issues that don't truly require a doctor). It is asinine because it insinuates that "Dims" are somehow responsible for the AMA constraining the supply of doctors. It is asinine because it ignores the fact that people without insurance already place a heavy, expensive burden on the medical system by relying on ERs for care. It is asinine because he ignores the fact the every other first-world country already does it successfully, and most of them do it better than we do. And perhaps most of all, it is asinine because of his, "I've already got mine, so screw the rest of you." attitude.

Then I have the perfect solution. Let's pick the system we want currently have without interference from the other. You have Congress run your system. You pay the taxes for it. Congress tell the doctors what they can and can't legally do. Since it's really simple they should have no problems. I keep my current insurance and how we currently practice medicine. Congress keeps it's hands off. You don't pay for my system and I don't pay for yours. Once a year people can switch if they wish.

That's fair.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Here comes the cheering section

As I said O'brien, feel free to run your system, just yours.

 

[werepossum]

Then I have the perfect solution. Let's pick the system we want currently have without interference from the other. You have Congress run your system. You pay the taxes for it. Congress tell the doctors what they can and can't legally do. Since it's really simple they should have no problems. I keep my current insurance and how we currently practice medicine. Congress keeps it's hands off. You don't pay for my system and I don't pay for yours. Once a year people can switch if they wish.

That's fair.

Sounds great. Unfortunately, progressive ideas only work with the armed might of government enforcing them for everyone.

Honestly, I wish proponents of universal coverage would give off pretending it's going to be cheaper and quicker and admit that it will be more expensive and slower, but is morally the right thing to do. Then we could have intelligent debates about things like how to empower people below the lofty rank of doctor - with the understanding that some few people will die for an RN not picking up some obscure symptom that a doctor would more likely catch. Or how to determine the best and proper number of each level of health care provider, and how to reach those numbers, without driving the best and brightest out of medicine.

 

[Bowfinger]

Then I have the perfect solution. Let's pick the system we want currently have without interference from the other. You have Congress run your system. You pay the taxes for it. Congress tell the doctors what they can and can't legally do. Since it's really simple they should have no problems. I keep my current insurance and how we currently practice medicine. Congress keeps it's hands off. You don't pay for my system and I don't pay for yours. Once a year people can switch if they wish.

That's fair.

What does that have to do with what I said? I'd love to see something better than the mess Congress passed last year. I'm open to some sort of public-private hybrid; that reportedly works quite well in some countries. What I'm not open to is continuing the clusterfsck we've had. While it worked quite well for some and adequately for many, it didn't work at all for millions of Americans. I consider that unconscionable for the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world.

None of which changes the fact that PokerGuy's comments were asinine.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sounds great. Unfortunately, progressive ideas only work with the armed might of government enforcing them for everyone.

Honestly, I wish proponents of universal coverage would give off pretending it's going to be cheaper and quicker and admit that it will be more expensive and slower, but is morally the right thing to do. Then we could have intelligent debates about things like how to empower people below the lofty rank of doctor - with the understanding that some few people will die for an RN not picking up some obscure symptom that a doctor would more likely catch. Or how to determine the best and proper number of each level of health care provider, and how to reach those numbers, without driving the best and brightest out of medicine.

But other nations have a better system than us, as if there were any possible equivalence between say France and the US. Any system we create would be for political gamesmanship. So be it. Let's give it a try, however the government cannot interfere with the other option. If they screw up, then only those who opted for it deal with the consequences. They should gleefully ask for this anyway because it's so great right from the start.

 

[Bowfinger]

Sounds great. Unfortunately, progressive ideas only work with the armed might of government enforcing them for everyone.

Honestly, I wish proponents of universal coverage would give off pretending it's going to be cheaper and quicker and admit that it will be more expensive and slower, but is morally the right thing to do. Then we could have intelligent debates about things like how to empower people below the lofty rank of doctor - with the understanding that some few people will die for an RN not picking up some obscure symptom that a doctor would more likely catch. Or how to determine the best and proper number of each level of health care provider, and how to reach those numbers, without driving the best and brightest out of medicine.

I do think it could be cheaper if it were done right, i.e., coupling it with massive reforms to the way America does health care. Unfortunately, I have no confidence we will do it right. Our two-party horse race system seems designed to ensure we get mostly inept governance, especially with the unbounded partisan gamesmanship we've seen recently. Nonetheless, even if it is inevitably more expensive, it needs to be done because it is morally right.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What does that have to do with what I said? I'd love to see something better than the mess Congress passed last year. I'm open to some sort of public-private hybrid; that reportedly works quite well in some countries. What I'm not open to is continuing the clusterfsck we've had. While it worked quite well for some and adequately for many, it didn't work at all for millions of Americans. I consider that unconscionable for the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world.

None of which changes the fact that PokerGuy's comments were asinine.

I'm saying go for it. I have to deal with government programs now. Someone can buy a ten pack of syringes without showing ID. Then they can go to another and another. You can get a hundred in no time.

Meanwhile offices can't call in or fax for a box of them for a diabetic patient. They have to physically go and get a prescription or have the doc mail it to the pharmacy. That's the sort of illogical thing seen daily. Of course the government doesn't have to change anything because they are the ultimate power.

The imperfections of the system are a problem, but so far a lot of them aren't from the private sector. If you think that you can get the government to create a system equivalent to European nations, give it a shot.

Other people will sell such a system even if it prohibited a doctor from saving your life due to a regulation technicality.

Since we can't get the government to even look at what we need (we've discussed this before), the alternative is legislate first and fix later. Good luck.

Color me skeptical. This isn't directed at you, but to those who don't think about probable outcomes. Hell knows I'm frustrated by insanity on a daily basis.

 

[BoberFett]

I do think it could be cheaper if it were done right, i.e., coupling it with massive reforms to the way America does health care. Unfortunately, I have no confidence we will do it right. Our two-party horse race system seems designed to ensure we get mostly inept governance, especially with the unbounded partisan gamesmanship we've seen recently. Nonetheless, even if it is inevitably more expensive, it needs to be done because it is morally right.

You and I are in agreement on the ability of our government to do it properly. I, however, would rather see this country continue fighting only to have the federal government disintegrate and leave behind a looser knit set of states rather than this useless $4T war-mongering, marijuana-banning boondoggle of a government we have been burdened with. Morality be damned.

 

[theeedude]

As I said O'brien, feel free to run your system, just yours.

My system is the US healthcare system.

 

[ShawnD1]

^ My grandmother was treated for Emergency care in Canada when we went to Toronto. Absolutely no wait time, it's bs rightwingers in the US tell themselves to feel better about about our absolutely shitty system.

44,000 thousand die a year from lack of health insurance in the USA

^Socialized medicine is more efficient than this bs

The wait times thing is real. If you randomly show up in ER, you will die waiting. If you have a real emergency, call for ambulance. I will exand on this when i get on a real computer

 

[theeedude]

The reason too many people go to ER is that it's the only place required by law to treat everyone, regardless of having insurance. This is a problem across the country, and if anything, individual mandate means people will have insurance to pay for a non-ER doctor if they don't have an actual medical emergency.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The reason too many people go to ER is that it's the only place required by law to treat everyone, regardless of having insurance. This is a problem across the country, and if anything, individual mandate means people will have insurance to pay for a non-ER doctor if they don't have an actual medical emergency.

The ER staff has to treat regardless of ability to pay, but that's not what is responsible for the majority of non emergency cases.

 

[Capt Caveman]

The wait times thing is real. If you randomly show up in ER, you will die waiting. If you have a real emergency, call for ambulance. I will exand on this when i get on a real computer

Maybe in Canada. Two weeks ago, my boss was on his way to work by the subway and had to go to the emergency room. We all thought he'd be there for hours but he was in the office a hour late. He told us there was no wait and he was in and out.

I had to make an appt with my PCP last fall to do some routine blood work. My appt was the next day.

Oh, I live in Boston.

The problem is a shortage of PCPs, especially outside of the metro Boston area.

 

[Throckmorton]

That's the whole point: the US as a whole also has a physician shortage now. Imagine how wonderful that will be when you add millions of new patients without doing anything to increase the supply of doctors. Yep, you guessed it, you get extremely long wait times, more people going to urgent care and the ER for things that don't currently require urgent or ER care because it's the only way they'll be able to see a doctor. In other words, you get exactly what we've seen in MA.

It will also be a lot more expensive, and the care will be of a lower standard because the doctors will be overworked. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Thanks once again dims for your dose of stupidity.

So your solution for wait times due to the physicial shortage caused by the AMA is for some people to not get healthcare?

Isn't that called rationing?

 

[ShawnD1]

The wait times thing is real. If you randomly show up in ER, you will die waiting. If you have a real emergency, call for ambulance. I will exand on this when i get on a real computer

Alrighty I'm on a real computer. The deal with socialized medicine (obviously) is that everybody can get care, in theory. The trick is that you need to separate which people are for real and which people are schizophrenic retards who think they're sick but it's really just aliens from outer space telling them they are sick.

So care must be given to people who need care. There's a real order of operations here. Absolutely #1 highest priority is ambulances. In my city, and many others, ambulances must stay with the patient until the hospital takes over. They try to get to these people right away so it frees up the ambulance to go hunt for more crack heads with stab wounds. I've been taken to the hospital in an ambulance twice before and the care was excellent. Cost in my city at this time: $400 for an ambulance ride (to make sure people don't call for one unless they really need one).
Either tied with that or slightly below that is people who are already in the hospital. You're already there, they know you have a real problem, they will treat you well.
Next up is people who have appointments. If your regular doctor thinks you're for real and you really should see a specialist at the hospital or do some test, you can make an appointment and it's usually pretty quick. Wait times for "unimportant" procedures are horrible; things like foot surgery to remove a bone grown that causes crippling pain will take half a year (my mom had this). Canadians who have money should probably just go to the US for things like foot surgery.










This paragraph being really far down is to illustrate how low your priority is when you're in the waiting room at a Canadian hospital. If you have an ear infection or you need stitches, you can go to a regular walk in clinic (not a hospital) and wait an hour, and that's never really a problem for anyone. If you go to the hospital and your condition is not important enough to call an ambulance, you will starve to death in the waiting room. DO NOT GO TO THE HOSPITAL IF YOU ARE NOT DYING.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2011/04/05/17883631.html (April 5, 2011)

Emergency wait times fall but still fail

The latest figures also show the average patient who requires hospital admission is waiting 11.6 hours in Edmonton, down from 15.8 hours in September. D:

The wait is 9.1 hours in Calgary, down from 14.9 hours in September.

Hospitals are for people with cancer and gun shot wounds. If you're having trouble with some other bullshit, go to a regular doctor like everyone else.


Sounds like the US is plagued by the same idiots who don't know the difference between emergency and not an emergency.
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news...e-hospitals-among-worst-in-us-25-ncx-20110215

NewsCore) - SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Patients seeking care at New York State hospitals spend nearly five hours in emergency rooms, among the worst rates in the US, the New York Post reported Tuesday, citing a national study.

How long would they wait if they just went to a normal doctor like everone else? Maybe an hour if they don't have an appointment? 20 minutes if they do have an appointment? Suicide booths - it's the only answer.

 

[LegendKiller]

The state of healthcare in this country is disgusting. It's disorganized, fractured, non-standardized and poorly equipped to meet our citizen's needs. The insurance industry is a joke.

Sure, their "average" wait times may have gone up, but what does that mean? Does it mean that non-urgent care, which is the bulk of all care, doesn't get addressed immediately? I have no problems with that. Does it mean that urgent care gets addressed immediately?

I don't really care about anecdotes, I want statistics. Overal, from what I have read, the statistics show that care is given in priority better under a nationalized system.

As far as a "bigger government", there's simply some things that can get done better by the government, such as providing a more uniform system. There is simply no incentive for private companies to revolve around a single standard.

 

[theeedude]

The ER staff has to treat regardless of ability to pay, but that's not what is responsible for the majority of non emergency cases.

Depends on where you live.

 

[ShawnD1]

Sure, their "average" wait times may have gone up, but what does that mean? Does it mean that non-urgent care, which is the bulk of all care, doesn't get addressed immediately? I have no problems with that. Does it mean that urgent care gets addressed immediately?

That's generally how stuff works. At a privately owned family doctor's office, my brother got immediate attention because he was bleeding a lot and needed stitches. The doctor was willing to bump patients who had appointments in order to treat someone who needed help.
My dad was able to jump line a few times at privately owned dental clinics. One was for a broken tooth and one for a botched root canal. He was in a lot of pain, and dentists were willing to give him special priority.
Medical people have souls too. If you have a real problem and you need help right away, they will generally try to help.... unless you're an asshole.

Things that are not time-critical can still be important to you. When looking at the big picture, it's not really a big deal that you had to wait 10 hours to get a prescription cream for the rash on your balls. Nobody died as a result of you waiting and you still got the care you wanted. That doesn't change the fact that you had to wait 10 hours for ball cream. Annoying is still annoying. Yes you should care.

 

[jackstar7]

That settles it: I'm not voting for Romney.

 

[rudder]

Same deal in Tennessee with our Tenncare program. Rather than go buy some OTC medicine... the Tenncare recipients would go to the emergency room to get free meds. I can only imagine this happening on a national scale.

When people do not have to pay co-pays and such... you better bet they will use up the free healthcare.

 

[LegendKiller]

That's generally how stuff works. At a privately owned family doctor's office, my brother got immediate attention because he was bleeding a lot and needed stitches. The doctor was willing to bump patients who had appointments in order to treat someone who needed help.
My dad was able to jump line a few times at privately owned dental clinics. One was for a broken tooth and one for a botched root canal. He was in a lot of pain, and dentists were willing to give him special priority.
Medical people have souls too. If you have a real problem and you need help right away, they will generally try to help.... unless you're an asshole.

Things that are not time-critical can still be important to you. When looking at the big picture, it's not really a big deal that you had to wait 10 hours to get a prescription cream for the rash on your balls. Nobody died as a result of you waiting and you still got the care you wanted. That doesn't change the fact that you had to wait 10 hours for ball cream. Annoying is still annoying. Yes you should care.

No, I shouldn't care that it's annoying. We live in a society with limited resources, time is a resource. We need to allocate our resources better.

 

[ShawnD1]

Same deal in Tennessee with our Tenncare program. Rather than go buy some OTC medicine... the Tenncare recipients would go to the emergency room to get free meds. I can only imagine this happening on a national scale.

I guess Canada solved that problem: you'll wait 11 hours if you want the ER to give you free shit

Thank god most medical stuff is on some kind of priority system regardless of government or private ownership. People with real problems get help. People who just want to waste time get to sit around for half a day. Fuck those people.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My system is the US healthcare system.

Translated from newspeak that means you want a system that dictates as you like to everyone. No. If you and others insist on Congress running medicine then you take it and it's consequences for good or ill. Since you think it would be so superior then you can brag about how right you were. The rest of us opt out of your control.

 

[her209]

Translated from newspeak that means you want a system that dictates as you like to everyone. No. If you and others insist on Congress running medicine then you take it and it's consequences for good or ill. Since you think it would be so superior then you can brag about how right you were. The rest of us opt out of your control.

So you opt for no control?