Just watched John Q.. do hospitals really do that? Let people die for money???

[PlatinumGold]

Sorry, but I disagree. Doctors do not build reputations on their ability to manage money.

and ur evidence is?? i can tell you that i would never go to the most successfull doctors that i cater to because for them their practices are just money making machines. they aren't dedicated to their craft. they spend more time on business related stuff than anything else. then the doctors that i work with that i would go see, very often are not at all involved in the business aspect of their practice and are hurting financially as a result.

people don't go to a doctor based on reputation but on marketing. classic eg is a Lasik Eye Surgeon in my area. he claims to have the best lasik lasers because his laser doesn't use a knife but uses all lasers. My brother and his wife are both Opthalmic Surgeons and they'll tell you that it's just not true. the dual laser procedure doesn't heal as quickly and is more painful than using the blade.

but because this lasik surgeon in our area has a lot of money and markets well, he's able to keep patients coming in the door.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

the doctors who are the most skillful at business are the wealthiest and often the most skillful and caring doctors just barely scrape by. the problem with free market economy is that it puts a premium on one skill only, the ability to manage money. that doesn't necessarily translate into skill at the given professions.

Save your breath. He doesn't want to hear anything that contradicts his thesis. I worked with a family doctor in the top 5% of all practices in America. How? He does a lot of procedures. "That's where the money is . . . do as many procedures as you can." He's a nice guy and has very good people skills but he's in the bottom quartile of physicians that I know personally and professionally. I came across more copies of Medical Practice Economics than JAMA, NEJM, or Lancet.

 

[eakers]

i will never follow the trian of thought that rich people should have better health care than poor people.

how does the amount of money that one person relate to their worth as a human being?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eakers
i will never follow the trian of thought that rich people should have better health care than poor people.

how does the amount of money that one person relate to their worth as a human being?

The "rich" man has the ability to pay for goods and services anytime they want them. A poor person will have to stand in line waiting for the same "rich" to pay for his good and services. If you dont have the ability to pay for a good or service you want, be prepared to wait. It takes time to pick the pocket of someone who can afford to pay....

 

[PlatinumGold]

i will never follow the trian of thought that rich people should have better health care than poor people.

how does the amount of money that one person relate to their worth as a human being?

Eakers,

my brother and his wife, who both finished residencies and are opthomologists, have an excess of $300,000 in debt. how would you recommend they repay that w/out asking for significant fees?? if the patient doesn't have insurance and doesn't have the means to pay and isn't willing to do the paperwork required to get medicare or medicaid or they don't qualify, what are these very in debt doctors supposed to do?? spend their valuable time and service these patients??

 

[AdamDuritz99]

I work for the ER at my hospital doing the insurance and such. In the state of TN(and i'm sure in most states) it is illegal to turn anyone away from the ER if it's an emergency. Now with that said, what is considered and emergency? That's the trick question. In John Q, the kid was brought to the emergency room and admitted into the hospital. At that point he was stabilized. Beyond that, is it considered and emergency? In the movie.. no. In real life.. bring in the lawyers. I would like to believe at my hospital they wouldn't turn anyone in that situation down. But I wouldn't doubt that in other hospitals across america that they could deny that particular treatment and get away with it. It's really sad actually. As someone said above, our hospital also writes of millions of unpaid bills. I thought John Q was a great movie and enjoyed it thoroughly, but there was a little hint of propaganda.

peace
seab

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

i will never follow the trian of thought that rich people should have better health care than poor people.

how does the amount of money that one person relate to their worth as a human being?

Eakers,

my brother and his wife, who both finished residencies and are opthomologists, have an excess of $300,000 in debt. how would you recommend they repay that w/out asking for significant fees?? if the patient doesn't have insurance and doesn't have the means to pay and isn't willing to do the paperwork required to get medicare or medicaid or they don't qualify, what are these very in debt doctors supposed to do?? spend their valuable time and service these patients??

If they are doctors yes... that's what being a doctor is about. Doctoring. not making money, not paying off debt, it's about doctoring. Obviously as indicated by your and Amused post money plays a greater role than patient care.... can't either of you see how incorrect that is?

Perhaps the fault of this is in the training of doctors and how expensive that is... perhaps it's in a judicial system that makes it so freaking easy to sue someone for acting correctly... whatever the case... Since the beginning of the profession the intention was to put the patient, those in need of care first. Not money.... not.... money.

 

[tcsenter]

Ahh, but what if the best, most skilled doctors are compelled by the system to accept lower fees than the mediocre ones? The fantasy of free market forces must be pleasant. I've worked with reknowned neurosurgeons (yes, God is in the building) and orthopedic surgeons (legends in their own minds). But most of the pediatricians and internal medicine doctors are better physicians. Nobody wants a mediocre neurosurgeon but they are out there and they command similar fees to the top dogs

You're talking about two different areas of medicine, internal medicine vs. surgeons. While I know some crack general surgeons who are also crack critical care intensivists, nary the two usually meet. You have your internal medicine/critical care folks, and they do what they do best, and then you have your surgeons, and they do what they do best.

Saying that an internal medical specialist is a better 'physician' than a surgeon, deliberately basing your standard of a 'physician' in a manner that inherently favors what an internal medicine specialist does best, would be like saying "surgeons are better at being surgeons than pediatricians or internal medicine specialists". Get it?

There is a reason that neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons make the big money, they happen to be THE two most difficult residency programs to get into. Both often enter another one or two year fellowship after graduating from residency. So you have 4 years of medical school, 5 years of surgical residency (including one intern year), then another 1-2 years of fellowship, for a total of 10-11 years of training. Internal medicine and pediatrician is a three year residency.

Further, the creation and establishment of residency programs are conditional upon a certificate of need. From year to year, the government via regulatory agencies have more say in how many residents of any particular specialty are cranked out and where the need is greatest. You cannot just say you're going to have a residency program without the government's approval.

Free market principles dictate that whoever possesses the rarest and most demanded skills gets the highest wages. That you don't agree that a particular specialist's skills SHOULD be the most demanded is neither here nor there.

The idea that minorities receive "lesser quality care" is absurd. Minorities are typically poorer, more ignorant about health matters, less compliant with medical advice, have lifestyles that involve excessive smoking, drinking, and poor nutrition. It is well known that a diet rich in animal fats and greasy foods results in the substantially higher rates of heart attack and cancer among blacks. It is also well documented that as income increases among blacks, they don't change what they eat very much.

 

[Pooteh]

that movie is so stupid. it stereotypes oneside to be evil, plain evil to beat you over the head with it. u didn't find it obvious? poor u

and if your going to b*tch about healthcare, you could ask, do politicians and tax payers really let people die for money because we wont go for a national healthcare system?


yes.


and no i'm not for it.

 

[eakers]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

i will never follow the trian of thought that rich people should have better health care than poor people.

how does the amount of money that one person relate to their worth as a human being?

Eakers,

my brother and his wife, who both finished residencies and are opthomologists, have an excess of $300,000 in debt. how would you recommend they repay that w/out asking for significant fees?? if the patient doesn't have insurance and doesn't have the means to pay and isn't willing to do the paperwork required to get medicare or medicaid or they don't qualify, what are these very in debt doctors supposed to do?? spend their valuable time and service these patients??

shouldnt the goverment have some sort of responsiblility to take of its people though?

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: eakers

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

i will never follow the trian of thought that rich people should have better health care than poor people.

how does the amount of money that one person relate to their worth as a human being?

Eakers,

my brother and his wife, who both finished residencies and are opthomologists, have an excess of $300,000 in debt. how would you recommend they repay that w/out asking for significant fees?? if the patient doesn't have insurance and doesn't have the means to pay and isn't willing to do the paperwork required to get medicare or medicaid or they don't qualify, what are these very in debt doctors supposed to do?? spend their valuable time and service these patients??

shouldnt the goverment have some sort of responsiblility to take of its people though?

Sure, it's called Socialism.

 

[Lucky]

stupid, terrible movie. and socialism is a dumb idea too.

 

[tcsenter]

I will never follow the trian of thought that rich people should have better health care than poor people...how does the amount of money that one person relate to their worth as a human being?

Because health care costs money, the 'best' health care costs a lot of money. Your question is every bit as absurd as asking 'I don't understand why people with money should be able to drive more expensive cars or buy more expensive homes than poor people.' Because they can afford it! What's so difficult about this?

Health care is both a product and a service and people who deliver those products and services don't go to work so they can feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves. The bank who holds their mortgage doesn't accept 'warm and fuzzy' feelings as payment, the utility company servicing their home doesn't accept as payment a check written in the amount of 'I hereby transfer a little of my warm and fuzzy-ness to you as payment for a month's electricity.' The lending institution holding their student loans don't accept 'warm and fuzzy' IOUs as a loan payment. Companies from whom the hospital has purchased millions of dollars of equipment do not accept 'warm and fuzzy' as payment. Drug companies don't develop drugs by opening a can of warm and fuzzy magic fairy dust and spritzing it around the room.

One's 'value' as a human being has no bearing on this issue, it is an intangible if not irrational standard that is impossible to define objectively and varies in interpretation from one person to the next. There is no doctrine of law which suggests that as long as a service is rendered that may benefit another, that service MUST be done without expectation of compensation and it must be rendered upon demand without condition.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

There is a reason that neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons make the big money, they happen to be THE two most difficult residency programs to get into. Both often enter another one or two year fellowship after graduating from residency. So you have 4 years of medical school, 5 years of surgical residency (including one intern year), then another 1-2 years of fellowship, for a total of 10-11 years of training. Internal medicine and pediatrician is a three year residency.

If you use 2001 AOA status (Medical Honor Society) was a proxy then the top pay should go to . . . Dermatologist 32%, Orthopedics 26%, followed by General Surgery 16% the next 8 medical classifications are within several % points including Internal Medicine at 15%. The above is slightly misleading b/c several specialties participate in a separate application service than ERAS.

Match results from 1997

I would post results from 2001 but wasn't paying attention during the presentation. Ophthalmology, Otolaryngology (Ear, Nose, and Throat), and Urology are MORE difficult residency programs to enter than Orthopedic Surgery. In fact, Neurosurgery, Neurology, Ophthalmology, and Otolaryngology don't even participate in the current application service they use the Central Application Service (CAS).

Most elite pediatricians and IM doctors spend more than 3 years as residents typically as Chief Residents and/or subspecialty training. Which means 4 years of medical school, 3 years of primary residency, 1-3 years in subspecialty fellowship and/or chief resident for a total of 8-10 years not the misleading 3 year residency you post.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Most elite pediatricians and IM doctors spend more than 3 years as residents typically as Chief Residents and/or subspecialty training. Which means 4 years of medical school, 3 years of primary residency, 1-3 years in subspecialty fellowship and/or chief resident for a total of 8-10 years not the misleading 3 year residency you post.

Either way, medical training is expensive and very few can actually do it. Therefore it will be an expensive service.

 

[freegeeks]

The US has the best medical care in the world. It's not free, but it's the best.

according to this study and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one you're not.

if you don't want to read everything -- some quotes

"The United States spends more per person on health care than any other country, yet in overall quality its care ranks 37th in the world," says a World Health Organization analysis.

"The fact is that America does not have the finest health care system in the world; it has the finest emergency care system in the world. Highly trained American doctors can summon Star Wars-type technology in saving patients who have become seriously injured or critically ill. But as far as preventative medicine goes, the U.S. is still in the Stone Age."

"Perhaps the greatest reason why Europeans are healthier than Americans is because they have reduced poverty, especially child poverty. The link between poverty and poorer health has long been proven. One survey reviewed more than 30 other studies on the relationship between class and health, and found that "class influences one's chances of staying alive."

"The United States did about as well as Rush Limbaugh running the 800-meter high hurdles. We came in 37th, behind all of Europe and a lot of smaller countries like Singapore and Costa Rica."

"For example, we were the No. 1 undisputed world champions at spending money. We spend more of our gross national product on health care than any other nation, coming out to about $3,700 per person. (Sorry, no rebates if you didn't get sick.)
Unfortunately, "spending" doesn't count. It's not even an exhibition event. For that kind of money, we should be the healthiest country of all, but most of the money is spent on a small portion of the population. The richest people in the United States are in tiptop shape, because they get whatever they want. They get expensive MRI scans every time they sprain an ankle, and go in once a year for stress tests and colonoscopy, the Official Invasive Medical Procedure of the 2000 Olympic Games."

"The United States does spend the most money per capita of any country in the world: $4,187 per year. However, when one considers that there are in excess of 42 million people in this country without any form of health insurance, this means that this very high level of per capita expenditure is going to a select proportion of the population.
What about overall health? The U.S. was ranked 24th. The top five countries in this category were Japan, Australia, France, Sweden, and Spain. This result has been noted before. The implication: Despite a big edge in technology, individual health care status is below many countries.
It seems to me that at the very least, the United States needs to grips with this reality: Despite owning the best medical technology, the U.S. has a poor system of providing health care to the entire population. This issue of health coverage will continue to be a social and political hot potato."





now the american flagwaving crowd can come in this thread and start the flamewar

 

[bmacd]

that movie was soooo sad.

-=bmacd=-

 

[alareau]

Originally posted by: morkinva

Originally posted by: Xerox Man
I don't understand why people gripe about medical costs in America . . . I mean, we obviously have the best health care in the world...

What??! WHAT??! WHAT ?!?!?!

didn't they make a joke about this in the simpsons. when homer had his heart condition i think

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

The US has the best medical care in the world. It's not free, but it's the best.

according to this study and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one you're not.

if you don't want to read everything -- some quotes

"The United States spends more per person on health care than any other country, yet in overall quality its care ranks 37th in the world," says a World Health Organization analysis.

"The fact is that America does not have the finest health care system in the world; it has the finest emergency care system in the world. Highly trained American doctors can summon Star Wars-type technology in saving patients who have become seriously injured or critically ill. But as far as preventative medicine goes, the U.S. is still in the Stone Age."

"Perhaps the greatest reason why Europeans are healthier than Americans is because they have reduced poverty, especially child poverty. The link between poverty and poorer health has long been proven. One survey reviewed more than 30 other studies on the relationship between class and health, and found that "class influences one's chances of staying alive."

"The United States did about as well as Rush Limbaugh running the 800-meter high hurdles. We came in 37th, behind all of Europe and a lot of smaller countries like Singapore and Costa Rica."

"For example, we were the No. 1 undisputed world champions at spending money. We spend more of our gross national product on health care than any other nation, coming out to about $3,700 per person. (Sorry, no rebates if you didn't get sick.)
Unfortunately, "spending" doesn't count. It's not even an exhibition event. For that kind of money, we should be the healthiest country of all, but most of the money is spent on a small portion of the population. The richest people in the United States are in tiptop shape, because they get whatever they want. They get expensive MRI scans every time they sprain an ankle, and go in once a year for stress tests and colonoscopy, the Official Invasive Medical Procedure of the 2000 Olympic Games."

"The United States does spend the most money per capita of any country in the world: $4,187 per year. However, when one considers that there are in excess of 42 million people in this country without any form of health insurance, this means that this very high level of per capita expenditure is going to a select proportion of the population.
What about overall health? The U.S. was ranked 24th. The top five countries in this category were Japan, Australia, France, Sweden, and Spain. This result has been noted before. The implication: Despite a big edge in technology, individual health care status is below many countries.
It seems to me that at the very least, the United States needs to grips with this reality: Despite owning the best medical technology, the U.S. has a poor system of providing health care to the entire population. This issue of health coverage will continue to be a social and political hot potato."





now the american flagwaving crowd can come in this thread and start the flamewar

So what you meant to say is,

The US has the best medical care in the world. It's not free, but it's the best.

Right?

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I will never follow the trian of thought that rich people should have better health care than poor people...how does the amount of money that one person relate to their worth as a human being?

Because health care costs money, the 'best' health care costs a lot of money. Your question is every bit as absurd as asking 'I don't understand why people with money should be able to drive more expensive cars or buy more expensive homes than poor people.' Because they can afford it! What's so difficult about this?

Health care is both a product and a service and people who deliver those products and services don't go to work so they can feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves. The bank who holds their mortgage doesn't accept 'warm and fuzzy' feelings as payment, the utility company servicing their home doesn't accept as payment a check written in the amount of 'I hereby transfer a little of my warm and fuzzy-ness to you as payment for a month's electricity.' The lending institution holding their student loans don't accept 'warm and fuzzy' IOUs as a loan payment. Companies from whom the hospital has purchased millions of dollars of equipment do not accept 'warm and fuzzy' as payment. Drug companies don't develop drugs by opening a can of warm and fuzzy magic fairy dust and spritzing it around the room.

One's 'value' as a human being has no bearing on this issue, it is an intangible if not irrational standard that is impossible to define objectively and varies in interpretation from one person to the next. There is no doctrine of law which suggests that as long as a service is rendered that may benefit another, that service MUST be done without expectation of compensation and it must be rendered upon demand without condition.

Straw man.

Here.... you're right... OK.... there is no doctrine of law which says one man should help another without expectation of compensation.

I am troubled by the condition of the profession when a doctor is so scared of the bank, the utlity companies, lending companies and drug companies that they let that fear interfere....in any way.... with treatment of a patient. Ethically the patient must come first... not the doctor's bank account or debt...

As an example... if a doctor lost a great deal on the stock market and was in danger of losing his house... imagine the temptation to erroneously charge the patient or the insurance company... your argument seems to imply that since a doctor should expect compensation as a right of his profession, it is therefore OK not to treat those who are in need but cannot affor the service at the markets rate....

Surely you wouldn't pass a dying man on the street and not help him because you were on the clock and that wasn't what you were being paid to do...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I will never follow the trian of thought that rich people should have better health care than poor people...how does the amount of money that one person relate to their worth as a human being?

Because health care costs money, the 'best' health care costs a lot of money. Your question is every bit as absurd as asking 'I don't understand why people with money should be able to drive more expensive cars or buy more expensive homes than poor people.' Because they can afford it! What's so difficult about this?

Health care is both a product and a service and people who deliver those products and services don't go to work so they can feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves. The bank who holds their mortgage doesn't accept 'warm and fuzzy' feelings as payment, the utility company servicing their home doesn't accept as payment a check written in the amount of 'I hereby transfer a little of my warm and fuzzy-ness to you as payment for a month's electricity.' The lending institution holding their student loans don't accept 'warm and fuzzy' IOUs as a loan payment. Companies from whom the hospital has purchased millions of dollars of equipment do not accept 'warm and fuzzy' as payment. Drug companies don't develop drugs by opening a can of warm and fuzzy magic fairy dust and spritzing it around the room.

One's 'value' as a human being has no bearing on this issue, it is an intangible if not irrational standard that is impossible to define objectively and varies in interpretation from one person to the next. There is no doctrine of law which suggests that as long as a service is rendered that may benefit another, that service MUST be done without expectation of compensation and it must be rendered upon demand without condition.

Straw man.

Here.... you're right... OK.... there is no doctrine of law which says one man should help another without expectation of compensation.

I am troubled by the condition of the profession when a doctor is so scared of the bank, the utlity companies, lending companies and drug companies that they let that fear interfere....in any way.... with treatment of a patient. Ethically the patient must come first... not the doctor's bank account or debt...

As an example... if a doctor lost a great deal on the stock market and was in danger of losing his house... imagine the temptation to erroneously charge the patient or the insurance company... your argument seems to imply that since a doctor should expect compensation as a right of his profession, it is therefore OK not to treat those who are in need but cannot affor the service at the markets rate....

Surely you wouldn't pass a dying man on the street and not help him because you were on the clock and that wasn't what you were being paid to do...

Very big strawman.


Is a doctor going to have a charge enough to cover his bills to live? Yes.
Does that mean that a doctor will not or cannot care for those that cannot afford service? No.
Will paying customers get faster and better service? Most likely.
Would a doctor render aid at an accident scene knowing he would not be paid? Highly Likely.

 

[freegeeks]

So what you meant to say is,

The US has the best medical care in the world. It's not free, but it's the best.

Right?

what I meant to say is

The US has the best medical care in the world, if you can afford it.
there is a big difference between "not free" and "affordable".

Just look at the numbers in the links I provided -- the US spends the most on health care of all the countries but more then 40 million americans don't have acces to basic health care because they don't have insurance. What's the point of having the most MRI/capita when a large part of your population does not have any acces to those kind of technology.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The idea that minorities receive "lesser quality care" is absurd. Minorities are typically poorer, more ignorant about health matters, less compliant with medical advice, have lifestyles that involve excessive smoking, drinking, and poor nutrition. It is well known that a diet rich in animal fats and greasy foods results in the substantially higher rates of heart attack and cancer among blacks. It is also well documented that as income increases among blacks, they don't change what they eat very much.

Well documented you say. Well let's see it buddy. Only peer-reviewed journal articles or a review based on such info need apply.
AHRQ (government clearinghouse for information on healthcare)
Research by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has focused on identifying and understanding how inequities in health care contribute to disparities, and how disparities can be eliminated. For example:

Cancer mortality rates are 35 percent higher in blacks than whites, however much can be done to reduce or eliminate this disparity by administering population- and community-based prevention programs and improving the effective delivery of both preventive and treatment services in the clinical setting.
Cervical cancer, a disease that can be greatly reduced by effective health care, is 5 times higher in Vietnamese women in the United States than white women.
Infant mortality is nearly 2 1/2 times higher in African Americans than in whites.
Before age 75, women are more likely than men to die in the hospital after a heart attack, yet studies suggest that women typically receive fewer high-technology cardiac procedures than men.
African-American diabetics are 7 times more likely to have amputations and develop kidney failure than white diabetics.

Disparities in health care have been well documented in recent decades across a broad range of medical conditions and for a wide range of populations. These groups include:

Racial and ethnic minorities.
Women.
Children.
Elderly.
Low-income populations.
People with special needs (such as chronic illness, disabilities, and end-of-life issues).
Those living in rural areas and the inner city.

Cancer you say . . . let's try reading the journal Cancer . . .
When blacks and whites have equal access to quality healthcare, racial discrepancies in patient survival rates after colorectal cancer disappear, researchers report.

"When financial incentives and restrictions of access to care are minimized, there are no racial differences in treatment and relative survival" among male colorectal cancer patients, conclude investigators led by Dr. Jason Dominitz of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina.

The study appears in the current issue of the journal Cancer.

Native Americans according to a CURRENT undersecretary at HHS
But I'm sure by your version they have poor health b/c they drink too much, too lazy to work to pay a doctor, too dumb to go when sick, they probably just call the shaman and chew on a weed . . .

Lung Cancer blacks must smoke more
Dr. Blackstock noted that "the results indicate that African Americans with lung cancer are presenting later" in the disease process. "For whatever reason, they are entering the healthcare system later than other groups," he said.

"We spend so much time testing different treatments, but if we can just get patients plugged into the healthcare system it can make all the difference in the world," Dr. Blackstock emphasized. He noted that his team is planning to conduct interventional studies to determine the best method of improving access to healthcare for African Americans with lung cancer.

I could spend all day trying to educate you but I won't. JohnQ was certainly a sensationalized account of healthcare in America. Damaged Care was a Showtime movie that provides a decent depiction of managed care and its potentially deleterious effects.

Funny and Sensationalized but Somewhat Accurate in AreasSocial medicine site but even the free market advocates will get a chuckle.

More to the point, medical care in America is expensive. This aside on physicians is a non sequitur . . . granted that always happens at ATOT. The foundation of good healthcare is not found in hospitals or specialty practices. Our system does not acknowledge this fact b/c the components of the system are all looking out for #1. Hospitals want increased reimbursements while holding down everyone's salary. Physicians want increased reimbursement in order to maintain and advance their salaries. Drug companies are just trying to provide the best available therapies at the lowest possible cost . . . .HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. But AO and his minions are right about one thing . . . many in the general public expect something for nothing or at the very least 5-star care on a 1-star budget.

Throughout this nation good doctors continue (and many have always) serve all their patients regardless of ability to pay. But the overpriced ophthalmologist and orthopedic surgeon did not go to school for free. Somebody has to pay the cost of their education . . . oops I just remembered that most if not all of their residency training was supported by your tax dollars. The moderately compensated internist, GP, Ob/Gyn (being ravaged by the other bastion of the free market . . . insurance companies), and pediatrician spent the same dough on the same education. We all choose residencies based on our personal compass. We choose what to do with such training based on our personal compass. We are compensated based on a menagerie of factors ranging from free market forces to straight up collusion. Anyone believing GREED has not factored into the cost of care as much as mismanagement of resources (public/private) then you should look into a leadership position at WorldCom, Adelphia, Enron, Global Crossing, Harken Energy . . .

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

So what you meant to say is,

The US has the best medical care in the world. It's not free, but it's the best.

Right?

what I meant to say is

The US has the best medical care in the world, if you can afford it.
there is a big difference between "not free" and "affordable".

Just look at the numbers in the links I provided -- the US spends the most on health care of all the countries but more then 40 million americans don't have acces to basic health care because they don't have insurance. What's the point of having the most MRI/capita when a large part of your population does not have any acces to those kind of technology.

Ok lets look at some other numbers.
the us has a population of about 290 Million and 40Million do not have insurance.
This means that 87% of the population can afford insurance. This seems to be quite affordable for most.

So who are these 40% that cannot afford insurance.
There are a lot of 20something year olds that feel they dont need insurance.
There are people that are between jobs and for a short time cant afford it.
Then there are the poor that usually get some sort of help for healthcare.


But lets also talk about realitys, very few in the US go without medical care. People here are able to pick up the phone and call an ambulace to come pick them and take them to the emergency so they can get some free antifungal cream for their feet.

 

[freegeeks]

To BaliBabyDoc

The problem is that most people in OT are just going to say:

"The links you provided BaliBabyDoc are nothing more then communist/socialist propaganda and other yadayadayadayada"

most people over here are so ignorant, even if you give them 100 links to different sites and studies to support your point view they still are going to bs without giving you some links to reputable (and mine and yours were reputable : WHO, Stanford, ...) sites and studies . And you know why, because for once the USA is not number one and they just can stand it.