• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Our health care system delivers another fantastic metric.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Meghan54 said:
Putting in a pacemaker, which I've assisted in several times, is much less invasive a surgery vs. a CABG in which your chest is literally split wide open, you're essentially killed (heart completely stopped while you're kept alive on a heart bypass machine, which itself can cause serious complications, not to mention post-pump psychosis) then revived, your leg is split open from groin to ankle to harvest the saphenous vein deep inside for the CABG graft(s).

Very, very different surgeries and lengths of recovery. Vastly different.
Click to expand...

Sounds like more the a pacemaker

During surgery, one or more flexible, insulated wires (leads or electrodes) are inserted into a major vein under or near your collarbone and guided to your heart with the help of X-ray images. One end of each wire is secured to the appropriate position in your heart, while the other end is attached to the pulse generator, which is usually implanted under the skin beneath your collarbone

nothing about ripping you leg apart.
 
glenn1 said:
Everyone dies eventually whether rich or poor. Why should I pay you for the privilege when your bad choices were likely a huge factor in your health to begin with? If you can't afford payment, ask for charity from those progressives who are sympathetic to your plight and could choose to donate without the coercion of tax law but choose not to.
Click to expand...

This here encapsulates the differing philosophies which are at play here. This statement is refreshingly honest. It speaks for itself.

The only thing I will say is, we're never going to agree because the differences of opinion aren't simply about the means of achieving certain goals. They're about the goals themselves. Don't bother trying to convince the right regarding healthcare because there is no common ground. They just don't care about the same things liberals care about. Liberals want to have a society where everyone has access to healthcare and has their basic needs met. Conservatives just want to keep their money to do with as they please.

Which is fine because we don't have to agree. We'll just wait until the demographics shift to where conservatives can't block it any more.
 
woolfe9998 said:
This here encapsulates the differing philosophies which are at play here. This statement is refreshingly honest. It speaks for itself.

The only thing I will say is, we're never going to agree because the differences of opinion aren't simply about the means of achieving certain goals. They're about the goals themselves. Don't bother trying to convince the right regarding healthcare because there is no common ground. They just don't care about the same things liberals care about. Liberals want to have a society where everyone has access to healthcare and has their basic needs met. Conservatives just want to keep their money to do with as they please.

Which is fine because we don't have to agree. We'll just wait until the demographics shift to where conservatives can't block it any more.
Click to expand...

If I rob a store, should you (the store owner) be responsible for it because you allowed him and had a location that was open for robbery?

If I eat myself to be a fatass that is 500lbs, and have to have constant medical attention, etc... Should you be paying my bills?


And yes, conservatives do want to keep our money. After all, we did earn it. But tell me, when was the last time you emptied out your pockets for random people? And obviously, we aren't talking about charitable contributions.
 
rudder said:
Wow.... that link is so chocked full of data I could easily see where you would draw your conclusion.

Care to include the possible reasons behind this data or is that too troublesome? I would say it is a safe bet to say that any pregnant woman who listens to her ob/gyn, goes to regularly scheduled appointments, etc will have near zero issues with her pregnancy (not factoring in genetic predispositions). Now on the flip side you have the pregnant woman who smokes, drinks, or takes who knows what will likely have a harder pregnancy. I missed the part of the article that factored this and other details into the equation.
Click to expand...

Your counter argument is that the US just has shittier people than all of the other countries?
The only thing I can think of that would otherwise have a negative effect on the health of a pregnant woman has more to do with litigation. In some areas due to malpractice rates you may be hard pressed to find an ob/gyn. Lack of specialized care could be in an issue. Ob/Gyn's have some of the highest malpractice premiums in the industry... throw in the shit reimbursment rates that is obamacare and these doctors simply go out of the baby delivery business.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of a woman having a problem finding an OB/GYN. Maybe you can find a handful of anecdotal stories but nationally I highly doubt this is a serious problem.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
And yes, conservatives do want to keep our money. After all, we did earn it. But tell me, when was the last time you emptied out your pockets for random people? And obviously, we aren't talking about charitable contributions.
Click to expand...

Except when it comes to killing people and blowing countries to hell and back, then you have no problem taking everyones money and spending many times over what any other country spends on .mil. Oh except for abortion, then killing is wrong but once they are born fuck em if they starve to death.
 
Meghan54 said:
I don't think your friend had a CABG done and got released 3 days after the surgery....open heart surgery is a bit more intensive to allow a 3 day release time after surgery. Maybe you're talking about a stint being put in place, perhaps?

From my experience working as an RN in several cardiovascular/open heart surgical ICU's, it takes at least a day to wean a fresh CABG post-op patient off the ventilator, much less get their vitals stable. We kept fresh post-ops in the ICU for 3 days typically, then stepped them down to our "step down ICU", where they spent about a week before getting moved to the floor.

I cannot fathom how it could be done in 3 days. They're waaaay too unstable for the first few days to move anywhere.
Click to expand...


"The average length of stay in the hospital for CABG surgery has been reduced from as long as a week to only three to four days in most patients. Many young patients can even be discharged home after two days."

http://www.medicinenet.com/coronary_artery_bypass_graft/page4.htm
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
If I rob a store, should you (the store owner) be responsible for it because you allowed him and had a location that was open for robbery?

If I eat myself to be a fatass that is 500lbs, and have to have constant medical attention, etc... Should you be paying my bills?


And yes, conservatives do want to keep our money. After all, we did earn it. But tell me, when was the last time you emptied out your pockets for random people? And obviously, we aren't talking about charitable contributions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because everyone who can't afford the insanely high cost of medical care in this country is a "lazy 500 lb fatass." You of course know this to be true, because you personally know all of them. That, or somehow it's easier to rationalize your lack of compassion for other human beings by denigrating them.
 
glenn1 said:
Everyone dies eventually whether rich or poor. Why should I pay you for the privilege when your bad choices were likely a huge factor in your health to begin with? If you can't afford payment, ask for charity from those progressives who are sympathetic to your plight and could choose to donate without the coercion of tax law but choose not to.
Click to expand...

There ya go: "I've got mine and fuck the rest of you" stated about as boldly as I've ever seen.
 
glenn1 said:
Yeah, fancy that someone getting way more than they put in under a socialist healthcare would think it was "pretty damn sweet." Those that are on the receiving end of the loot always think it's a great system. Funny how those who aren't in a socialist system but want to be, never pony up the money for it unless and until absolutely forced to by law because "collective action problem." Which means if they can't collectively impose action on rich people to pay for all of it, that's a problem because they sure as shit aren't going to volunteer.
Click to expand...

Except you folks are paying way more than rest of the world and still get shitty result.

https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm
 
Last edited:
Are American women fatter?
Smoke more?
Eat more junk foods.
Get less exercise?
I'd suspect the answer compared to Canadian women would be YES!

Our McDonalds, Big Gulp, Taco Bell society probably is unsurpassed by none other.
And this...
Hospitals with shareholders - makes no sense.
 
glenn1 said:
Yeah, fancy that someone getting way more than they put in under a socialist healthcare would think it was "pretty damn sweet." Those that are on the receiving end of the loot always think it's a great system. Funny how those who aren't in a socialist system but want to be, never pony up the money for it unless and until absolutely forced to by law because "collective action problem." Which means if they can't collectively impose action on rich people to pay for all of it, that's a problem because they sure as shit aren't going to volunteer.
Click to expand...

How do you think for profit insurance works?

You pool everyone together and some get more out of it than they pay and some (probably most unless the insurance company operates at a loss from premiums) get less.

How is this different than paying for single payer and some get more and some get less?

The only difference I can spot is that in single payer the people most likely to get more are the poorest people in the system and the people most likely to get less are the wealthiest.
 
Victorian Gray said:
"The average length of stay in the hospital for CABG surgery has been reduced from as long as a week to only three to four days in most patients. Many young patients can even be discharged home after two days."

http://www.medicinenet.com/coronary_artery_bypass_graft/page4.htm
Click to expand...

I'd say it depends on the type (I know, kind of obvious 😉). They are increasingly using MIS/robotic/still-beating heart CABG surgeries now. I'd think conventional OHS CABG would still have a slow recovery.
 
How about some more information as to:

Malpractice insurance rates, educational costs of medical degree, nurse wages, typical overtime hours worked by medical staff, % of new medical procedures/drugs developed in U.S., etc...

That ought to be a start.
 
Cozarkian said:
How about some more information as to:

Malpractice insurance rates, educational costs of medical degree, nurse wages, typical overtime hours worked by medical staff, % of new medical procedures/drugs developed in U.S., etc...

That ought to be a start.
Click to expand...

Don't think drug research spending is part of health spending.
 
glenn1 said:
Everyone dies eventually whether rich or poor. Why should I pay you for the privilege when your bad choices were likely a huge factor in your health to begin with? If you can't afford payment, ask for charity from those progressives who are sympathetic to your plight and could choose to donate without the coercion of tax law but choose not to.
Click to expand...

If only every Republican politician espoused this point of view ("hey poor people, go die!") then we could finally get them kicked out of office and get single payer.
 
si1.gif


USA is now not in the first-world ballpark. Those guys are getting half to a quarter of our mortality rates, and falling rapidly. It's not even in the former Warsaw Pact central Europe levels. We are at Easern European levels. Even Iran is kicking our butts, and they got sanctions on them.
 
Meghan54 said:
I don't think your friend had a CABG done and got released 3 days after the surgery....open heart surgery is a bit more intensive to allow a 3 day release time after surgery. Maybe you're talking about a stint being put in place, perhaps?

From my experience working as an RN in several cardiovascular/open heart surgical ICU's, it takes at least a day to wean a fresh CABG post-op patient off the ventilator, much less get their vitals stable. We kept fresh post-ops in the ICU for 3 days typically, then stepped them down to our "step down ICU", where they spent about a week before getting moved to the floor.

I cannot fathom how it could be done in 3 days. They're waaaay too unstable for the first few days to move anywhere.
Click to expand...

They need the beds for the next patient as even in the United States it's 3-5 days on average. My dad had it done as well but it was 4 days in the hospital total.

It depends on recovery time of the patient. Everyone is different. But I recall how they made him walk across from 1 hallway and back, then made him watch a video of how much care is needed, assigned a home nurse for a visit and discharged him. The stitches started falling off in 10-11 days and there's a follow up with the surgeon a month afterwards.

If you don't believe me, you can call up Long Island Jewish Medical Center in Nassau County, NY.
 
Why would private healthcare be OK in the 80s/90s but not OK now?

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pmss.html

Many studies show that an increasing number of pregnant women in the United States have chronic health conditions such as hypertension,1 diabetes,2 and chronic heart disease.3 These conditions may put a pregnant woman at higher risk of pregnancy complications.

...

Considerable racial disparities in pregnancy-related mortality exist. In 2011, the pregnancy-related mortality ratios were

12.5 deaths per 100,000 live births for white women.
42.8 deaths per 100,000 live births for black women.
17.3 deaths per 100,000 live births for women of other races.
Click to expand...

EDIT: But granted, if it's true that our increasing rate is due to better reporting, and that Europe reports the same as we do now, then flatlining while the rest of the world improves obviously isn't a good thing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top