The best single item I've seen on the healthcare debate

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh wait till Senseamp is the one asking why his significant other is dying and a person like you tells him "Sorry the law is the law". His view will change 180 degree's.

But this is a guy who believe the healthcare industry is some example of a "free unregulated" market. So what can we expect when discussing the real world like you describe?

No it will not change 180 degrees. If my SO did not share something with me, it's not up to the doctor to do so. And if one tried, I'd ask for another doctor, because I wouldn't want my SO treated by someone so unprofessional that they would break the law like that because they think they are above it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

One last thing so we can expose all this.

If the law or regulation forces the physician to withhold a procedure which will save a patient's life through oversight or whatever you would maintain the physician has the obligation to let the patient die, correct? Civics 101 as you say.

The government is superior to the practitioner and therefore must be obeyed.

We're supposed to embrace this because private health care is expensive?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Really? So what's your field of practice?

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours

But seriously
On a personal level I've been the sole caretaker and medical liason for 25yrs for my wife with MS, my father with heart desease, and my mother until her death from diabetes and cancer. seems I've spent half my life in hospitals

On a professional level
10yrs mgmt for a pharmacuetical manufacturer
5yrs reimbursement processing for a major ins. co.
3yrs as finance/IT controller for a physicians group of 6 doctors
6yrs as controller for a medical equipment manufacturer
Currently controller for an equipment supplier servicing pharmacuetical and mining co.s


Whats your field of expertise

Pharmacist, diabetes counselor and not that it's medicine, but I have a doctorate in biology.

I think Sensamp has helped formulate my concerns. He believes we are obliged to follow whatever regulation is formulated in haste for good or ill. The patient's needs are secondary. Obey or be cast out.

Sound like good medicine to you?

Nah, let's just let doctors do whatever they want, I mean clearly they know better what laws should and should not be followed. Why should elected lawmakers write laws if we have Rider here who can write them for himself so much better?

Who's knowledge of patient care is superior, the provider or the lawyer?

It's not up to you to break the law. Period. You break it, you are risking a fine. Period. What part of that don't you get? Question mark.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh wait till Senseamp is the one asking why his significant other is dying and a person like you tells him "Sorry the law is the law". His view will change 180 degree's.

But this is a guy who believe the healthcare industry is some example of a "free unregulated" market. So what can we expect when discussing the real world like you describe?

No it will not change 180 degrees. If my SO did not share something with me, it's not up to the doctor to do so. And if one tried, I'd ask for another doctor, because I wouldn't want my SO treated by someone so unprofessional that they would break the law like that because they think they are above it.

She's in a friggin coma and you can't even find out why? Awesome morality there.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
One last thing so we can expose all this.

If the law or regulation forces the physician to withhold a procedure which will save a patient's life through oversight or whatever you would maintain the physician has the obligation to let the patient die, correct? Civics 101 as you say.

The government is superior to the practitioner and therefore must be obeyed.

We're supposed to embrace this because private health care is expensive?

This has nothing to do with private or public insurance. Even if I was paying you cash, you still cannot break confidentiality laws because you feel it's for the best. Yes, the law is superior to you and you must obey it or risk a fine.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh wait till Senseamp is the one asking why his significant other is dying and a person like you tells him "Sorry the law is the law". His view will change 180 degree's.

But this is a guy who believe the healthcare industry is some example of a "free unregulated" market. So what can we expect when discussing the real world like you describe?

No it will not change 180 degrees. If my SO did not share something with me, it's not up to the doctor to do so. And if one tried, I'd ask for another doctor, because I wouldn't want my SO treated by someone so unprofessional that they would break the law like that because they think they are above it.

She's in a friggin coma and you can't even find out why? Awesome morality there.

I can ask court to give me custody and right to make medical decisions and view medical information of someone in a coma. It's not up to you as doctor to circumvent laws you don't feel like following.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Really? So what's your field of practice?

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours

But seriously
On a personal level I've been the sole caretaker and medical liason for 25yrs for my wife with MS, my father with heart desease, and my mother until her death from diabetes and cancer. seems I've spent half my life in hospitals

On a professional level
10yrs mgmt for a pharmacuetical manufacturer
5yrs reimbursement processing for a major ins. co.
3yrs as finance/IT controller for a physicians group of 6 doctors
6yrs as controller for a medical equipment manufacturer
Currently controller for an equipment supplier servicing pharmacuetical and mining co.s


Whats your field of expertise

Pharmacist, diabetes counselor and not that it's medicine, but I have a doctorate in biology.

I think Sensamp has helped formulate my concerns. He believes we are obliged to follow whatever regulation is formulated in haste for good or ill. The patient's needs are secondary. Obey or be cast out.

Sound like good medicine to you?

Nah, let's just let doctors do whatever they want, I mean clearly they know better what laws should and should not be followed. Why should elected lawmakers write laws if we have Rider here who can write them for himself so much better?

Who's knowledge of patient care is superior, the provider or the lawyer?

It's not up to you to break the law. Period. You break it, you are risking a fine. Period. What part of that don't you get? Question mark.

Oh I get it. The State is the master, we are the slave. For this, we might get cheaper health care.


There's no real comparison. If this is the choice I'd keep the status quo. Not that I like it, but you'd have someone dead before disobedience.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Oh I get it. The State is the master, we are the slave. For this, we might get cheaper health care.
There's no real comparison. If this is the choice I'd keep the status quo. Not that I like it, but you'd have someone dead before disobedience.

Yes, in America, we obey laws. It has nothing to do with private vs public. Even under current system, you have to follow the law. Your job is to do the best you can for the patient within the confines of the law.
If you want to practice civil disobedience and break the law you see as "unjust," be ready to pay a fine.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I had hoped to never be introduced to a real life O'Brien before, but I suppose they must exist. Such is life.

 

[mattpegher]

As it stands there are certain laws that govern the chain of next of kin and medical decision making that do not hit a wall when a patient becomes incapacitated. If a patient no longer has the ability to make medical decisions then his spouse or children automaticly take on that role, even neices and nephews, and grandchildren. Who ever the legal next of kin is has the right to health information and medical decisions when a patient becomes incapacitated and unable to make decision on their own. No prior written assignment needs to be made. The difficulty comes when multiple next of kin of the same level differ in their decisions, then it is prudent to have the courts step in, and better yet if the patient drew up a power of attorney prior.

In the ER we get these situations all the time. The most aggravating are when adults are in for mental health issues and parents or children call, we have to have them talk to the patient for information. Also discussion sexual/reproductive/drug and mental health issues with minors over the age of 13 in our state, the parents cannot be informed without the patients consent.

When the state starts telling me that I cannot treat my patient in the best way possible, I am getting out of medicine.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I certainly agree that we have absolutely got to get it right and if that takes more time and more debate, then I'm all for it.

Unforetunately we have to operate under the current political time table. I can certainly understand why Obama wants to get at least the basics pushed through this year, as next year will be all about the mid-term elections and anything not done by then wont get done.

I'm all for carrying the debate into next year if necessary, but I fear comprimize will only become more difficult as the mid terms approach. And I don't expect we will get it completely right the first time, it will be a work in progress for the next couple of administrations I fear

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
As it stands there are certain laws that govern the chain of next of kin and medical decision making that do not hit a wall when a patient becomes incapacitated. If a patient no longer has the ability to make medical decisions then his spouse or children automaticly take on that role, even neices and nephews, and grandchildren. Who ever the legal next of kin is has the right to health information and medical decisions when a patient becomes incapacitated and unable to make decision on their own. No prior written assignment needs to be made. The difficulty comes when multiple next of kin of the same level differ in their decisions, then it is prudent to have the courts step in, and better yet if the patient drew up a power of attorney prior.

In the ER we get these situations all the time. The most aggravating are when adults are in for mental health issues and parents or children call, we have to have them talk to the patient for information. Also discussion sexual/reproductive/drug and mental health issues with minors over the age of 13 in our state, the parents cannot be informed without the patients consent.

When the state starts telling me that I cannot treat my patient in the best way possible, I am getting out of medicine.

Check HIPPA. Last update we had is that unless the admission papers specify a name we were told not to give out any information. Even then many places give out "codes" to next of kin just to be sure.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Besides Matt, note the attitude when confronted with the choice between following regulations and the patients best interest. If it cost the patient his life we are to be obedient. Considering how regs are written, I'd not like to be punished for doing the right thing and unless it's clear that would not be the case I could not possibly support any such option even if they paid me a million a year to sign on.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I certainly agree that we have absolutely got to get it right and if that takes more time and more debate, then I'm all for it.

Unforetunately we have to operate under the current political time table. I can certainly understand why Obama wants to get at least the basics pushed through this year, as next year will be all about the mid-term elections and anything not done by then wont get done.

I'm all for carrying the debate into next year if necessary, but I fear comprimize will only become more difficult as the mid terms approach. And I don't expect we will get it completely right the first time, it will be a work in progress for the next couple of administrations I fear

I understand the political concerns Obama has. I'm not naive

Notwithstanding the whole thing is incredibly vague. As Matt can tell you there are treatments which aren't "approved". That doesn't mean they're not well established or understood, but the bureaucracy creates such a burden that no one wants to spend a large fortune for a new indication. The FDA has been trying to figure out how to stop this practice for a long time, simply because it skirts the process. Like some here, they are more concerned about the form than the welfare of the patient. We're not talking "mad scientist" stuff.

Will that be protected? Who know? That will be up to Uncle Sam, and that's a huge problem. Medicine by fiat.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Besides Matt, note the attitude when confronted with the choice between following regulations and the patients best interest.
If it cost the patient his life we are to be obedient. Considering how regs are written, I'd not like to be punished for doing the right thing and unless it's clear that would not be the case I could not possibly support any such option even if they paid me a million a year to sign on.

Are you under the impression that until health care reform is passed you are free to break the law with impunity if you feel it's in patient's best interest? This is not an option for you to support or not support, it's the law already.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: mattpegher


When the state starts telling me that I cannot treat my patient in the best way possible, I am getting out of medicine.

Way too many good doctors have left medice already for this very reason(inable to treat patients properly), wether it be state or government laws or regs, insurance companies dening or dictatating treatments. To many have already given up and more will follow if we don't do something.

What ever we do, the number one goal of reform has to be

RETURN HEALTH CARE DECISIONS TO THE PATIENT AND THEIR DOCTORS.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Besides Matt, note the attitude when confronted with the choice between following regulations and the patients best interest.
If it cost the patient his life we are to be obedient. Considering how regs are written, I'd not like to be punished for doing the right thing and unless it's clear that would not be the case I could not possibly support any such option even if they paid me a million a year to sign on.

Are you under the impression that until health care reform is passed you are free to break the law with impunity if you feel it's in patient's best interest? This is not an option for you to support or not support, it's the law already.

If the time comes that the government can by fiat declare that someone who has done no harm must die because of it's negligence then that government has no legitimate reason to exist.

People opposed the government holding one man prisoner without due process, yet you claim that the government has an arbitrary right to cause people to die.

You would support a totalitarian system because it's law. It's moral bankruptcy of the worst kind.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Besides Matt, note the attitude when confronted with the choice between following regulations and the patients best interest.
If it cost the patient his life we are to be obedient. Considering how regs are written, I'd not like to be punished for doing the right thing and unless it's clear that would not be the case I could not possibly support any such option even if they paid me a million a year to sign on.

Are you under the impression that until health care reform is passed you are free to break the law with impunity if you feel it's in patient's best interest? This is not an option for you to support or not support, it's the law already.

If the time comes that the government can by fiat declare that someone who has done no harm must die because of it's negligence then that government has no legitimate reason to exist.

People opposed the government holding one man prisoner without due process, yet you claim that the government has an arbitrary right to cause people to die.

You would support a totalitarian system because it's law. It's moral bankruptcy of the worst kind.

Laws we are talking were passed by a democratic system, not totalitarian one. Nothing was declared by fiat, these were laws passed by people through their duly elected representatives. Now you may hate representative democracy, but that's the system of government we have, and until that changes, yes, I support following laws in a democratic system where I have a vote for people who pass those laws. That is the social contract we have in America.
If opposing lawbreaking makes me morally bankrupt by your standards, then fine.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Besides Matt, note the attitude when confronted with the choice between following regulations and the patients best interest.
If it cost the patient his life we are to be obedient. Considering how regs are written, I'd not like to be punished for doing the right thing and unless it's clear that would not be the case I could not possibly support any such option even if they paid me a million a year to sign on.

Are you under the impression that until health care reform is passed you are free to break the law with impunity if you feel it's in patient's best interest? This is not an option for you to support or not support, it's the law already.

If the time comes that the government can by fiat declare that someone who has done no harm must die because of it's negligence then that government has no legitimate reason to exist.

People opposed the government holding one man prisoner without due process, yet you claim that the government has an arbitrary right to cause people to die.

You would support a totalitarian system because it's law. It's moral bankruptcy of the worst kind.

Laws we are talking were passed by a democratic system, not totalitarian one. Nothing was declared by fiat, these were laws passed by people through their duly elected representatives. Now you may hate representative democracy, but that's the system of government we have, and until that changes, yes, I support following laws in a democratic system where I have a vote for people who pass those laws. That is the social contract we have in America.
If opposing lawbreaking makes me morally bankrupt by your standards, then fine.

The Nazis were elected.

 

[JSt0rm]

why did you guys make a good thread fucking strange?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The Nazis were elected.

quoted for posterity

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
why did you guys make a good thread fucking strange?

This is what usually happens...

a few people will make stupid off topic comments or illogical statements/deductions and then things 'flat spin' as others rush in to argue on an idiot's terms.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
argue on an idiot's terms.

thats a good one. I've probably done it in the past but now when I type something in response to someone half the time I just delete it and say whats the point.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
argue on an idiot's terms.

thats a good one. I've probably done it in the past but now when I type something in response to someone half the time I just delete it and say whats the point.

hehe, done that too many times to count. Wish I'd have done many other times.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The Nazis were elected.

quoted for posterity

Quote this