SiCKO

[Susan]

So life insurance and car insurance and home owners insurance and all forms of insurance should be free?

No, just health care.

well that makes no sense to me. And on the statement of a mad rush to the ER - oh yes there will be. I know that some people get insured and go to the doctor to get every little thing they can taken care of that insurance will cover. if it was free you bet the doctors office is going to fill up. americans are trained to go to the doctor for every little thing, we advertise prescription drugs on tv (which is illegal in many countries) in order to assure the public that everything under the moon has a drug to help. Restless leg syndrome? lol who thinks of these "syndroms"? Well drug companies of course. the public has been conditioned, children are overmedicated with antiobiotics for every little sniffle which has created some nasty mutated germs that spread in schools and daycares and keep kids sick. Seriously, to cover the costs they would hike taxes for an NHS i would think to cover those costs and for all the expensive high tech tests run. But the NHS has it's own drawbacks too

exerpt from wikipedia

The NHS has frequently been the target of criticism over the years. Examples of such criticism includes:

• The length of waiting lists for consultations and surgical procedures, however, the maximum time anyone person will wait is six months.
• The levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria ("superbugs"), such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Clostridium difficile, in hospitals..
• Many issues with the ongoing NHS IT upgrade..
• The decreasing availability of NHS dentistry and the trend towards dentists accepting private patients only..
• The lack of availability of some treatments due to their perceived poor cost-effectiveness..
• The lack of availability of various treatments either due to waiting lists (in the case of medical procedures) or lack of professionals willing to treat NHS patients (in the case of dentistry), leading to people seeking private treatment in cheaper countries overseas (see medical tourism)..
• Hospitals and trusts running a financial deficit and getting into debt..
• Several high-profile scandals have also been attributed to the NHS over the years such as the Alder Hey organs scandal and the Bristol heart scandal.

But instead of sitting around talking, if people want to make a change they need to do it. You see all the hippie movements of the late 60's and i wonder where are those people now? Nobody in america really stands up for anything and makes a change, we are very passive complainers now

[Him]

So life insurance and car insurance and home owners insurance and all forms of insurance should be free?

No, just health care.

well that makes no sense to me.

Well it makes perfect sense to me.

And on the statement of a mad rush to the ER - oh yes there will be. I know that some people get insured and go to the doctor to get every little thing they can taken care of that insurance will cover.

Who you know and don't know is irrelevant here. I don't know these people you are talking about, so I can't confirm your story which is very convenient for you.

if it was free you bet the doctors office is going to fill up. americans are trained to go to the doctor for every little thing, we advertise prescription drugs on tv (which is illegal in many countries) in order to assure the public that everything under the moon has a drug to help. Restless leg syndrome? lol who thinks of these "syndroms"? Well drug companies of course. the public has been conditioned, children are overmedicated with antiobiotics for every little sniffle which has created some nasty mutated germs that spread in schools and daycares and keep kids sick. Seriously, to cover the costs they would hike taxes for an NHS i would think to cover those costs and for all the expensive high tech tests run. But the NHS has it's own drawbacks too

This is the sea monsters in the Atlantic ocean argument. Anytime anyone suggest change, people who are afraid of change come up with all sorts of excuses as to why the change shouldn't happen. At the end of the day, that's all they are. Excuses.

exerpt from wikipedia

The NHS has frequently been the target of criticism over the years. Examples of such criticism includes:

• The length of waiting lists for consultations and surgical procedures, however, the maximum time anyone person will wait is six months.
• The levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria ("superbugs"), such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Clostridium difficile, in hospitals..
• Many issues with the ongoing NHS IT upgrade..
• The decreasing availability of NHS dentistry and the trend towards dentists accepting private patients only..
• The lack of availability of some treatments due to their perceived poor cost-effectiveness..
• The lack of availability of various treatments either due to waiting lists (in the case of medical procedures) or lack of professionals willing to treat NHS patients (in the case of dentistry), leading to people seeking private treatment in cheaper countries overseas (see medical tourism)..
• Hospitals and trusts running a financial deficit and getting into debt..
• Several high-profile scandals have also been attributed to the NHS over the years such as the Alder Hey organs scandal and the Bristol heart scandal.

These are more excuses.

There are plenty of benefits of a universal health care system.

Except from wikipedia.

Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.

Coverage should be provided to all citizens regardless of ability to pay.

Health care is increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.

Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.

Providing access to medical treatment to those who cannot afford it reduces the severity of epidemics by reducing the number of disease carriers. Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.

A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.

Patients would be encouraged to seek preventive care enabling problems to be detected and treated earlier.

Medical professionals could concentrate on treating patients rather than on administrative duties.

Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)

Managed care networks, with their extensive provisions and guidelines, reduce doctor flexibility and limit patient choice. The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.

The profit motive adversley affects the motives of healthcare. Because an applicant with a pre-existing condition (possibly from birth) would require more care, they are often blackballed from being able to obtain health insurance at a reasonable cost. Health insurance companies have greater profits if fewer medical procedures are actually peformed, so agents are pressured to deny necessary and sometimes life-saving procedures to help the bottom line.

[CheezeFlixz]

Who you know and don't know is irrelevant here. I don't know these people you are talking about, so I can't confirm your story which is very convenient for you.

I told you how to confirm the story I gave and Susan gave you, go to the local health department and wait around, I see the needless visits that go in there that we are all paying for. It's only convenient for you not to do it as this would nullify your argument and confront you with reality of what NHS would be like and we can't have that, can we?

There are plenty of benefits of a universal health care system.

So why don't you move to a country that has it? I here Canada has a lot of open space.

[D-Man]

You know, outside of Roger and Me, I've never been a huge fan of Michael Moore's work.  I mean I'm not an ultra-conservative or anything, I just find his stuff to be a little too negative and exploitative at times.  I've seen lots of other documentaries, and his style of making them just doesn't seem very objective to me.  So, I have no plans on seeing Sicko anytime soon.

As for health care, I can only tell what I know of my own experiences.  I had a bad sore throat a few months ago.  Not usually a big deal, but this one was keeping me up at night and I wasn't sleeping, so I decided to visit a doctor.  I currently work at a grocery store, and it's a union job, so I get some health benefits.  Anyway, I had to wait nearly an hour in the office before the doctor finally came in, just so she could have a look at my throat.  What this means for our system, I'm not quite sure.

At first I thought health care for all might be a good thing, but I have to look at what I see at work as well.  I see so many people coming through my register who are obviously taking far too many liberties with assistance programs.  I swear sometimes, everyone in my town is either on food stamps, WIC checks, or both, and the systems for handling those are very, very confusing.  I can only wonder what kind of a mess government sponsored health care might make. 

It's a very heart wrenching issue for me, and I'm torn on it. While I can see the potential for inefficiency and abuse,  I also can't just stand back, think about people much less fortunate than I,  and just say "Oh, screw those whiners and deadbeats.  We don't need no commie system to help their lazy asses." which is the impression I get from a lot of opponents to universal health care. 

I don't know what to think about it now, really. I think there's always a compromise that can be reached for anything, and I think there may be a way to compromise on this as well.  But right now, it's clear we have a lot more debating to do before we reach that day.

[ghouck]

Except from wikipedia.

Let's view information gathered from the wikipedia for what it is: Largely unverified product of the general masses, editable by anyone.

This is the sea monsters in the Atlantic ocean argument. Anytime anyone suggest change, people who are afraid of change come up with all sorts of excuses as to why the change shouldn't happen. At the end of the day, that's all they are. Excuses.

But it's NOT new, it's not a change to something unseen. It's a change to a system that is in place elsewhere, and we can see it's shortcomings there. You're just trying to insult people into agreeing with you.

[CheezeFlixz]

HUNGER IS ONE HELL OF AN MOTIVATOR!

Barring the elderly, handicap and the very young I think all entitlement programs should be thrown out. These people setting around drawing a check for nothing other than pumping out babies and being lazy is a waste of your and my tax dollars. You stop giving away free money, food stamps and the lot, there won't be any jobs Americans don't want to do. They'll work or they'll starve.
And if they comment a crime instead of working, put them to work in a prison factory where they learn a trade and provides goods to pay for their incarceration.
OK I have to go work now to pay my taxes to support the slackers.

[ghouck]

OK I have to go work now to pay my taxes to support the slackers.

And I'm AT work, and since I work for the State, my contributions to this thread are proof of our government's ineffectiveness and inefficiency.

[Andrew]

I have stayed out of this, except to read.  Since I'm military, all of my care comes from a military doctor.  Katie and the kids are seen under the military HMO.  Though most of this is at no cost to us, we do not go to the doctor's office for frivolous things.  And, when the kids are sick and need to be seen, we speak to the doctor before any sort of medication is prescribed.  The only time I want the children getting antibiotics is if their body will not be able to handle the issue on their own.  Katie and I apply the same to our own health.

About two months ago, I am pretty sure that my body fought off a Strep infection on its own - my throat hurt enough that drinking something like cranberry juice would bring tears to my eyes.  It took about 2 or 3 weeks for my throat to get back to normal from the "main part of the infection."

Anyway, a national health care system is feasible if people use the resource wisely (and that is the "if" - I don't think we could do it right now either).  Our current system, as it is today, could be more affordable.  I think one of the main problems we have currently is too many lawsuits, meaning it is rather expensive to have a practice.  People will make mistakes and the human body is amazingly complex when you consider everything going on.  Patients are too quick to sue doctor's over honest failures of judgement.  I am not saying that negligence is acceptable, I am saying that if something happens by accident or just making the wrong call when several possibilities exist, a multimillion dollar lawsuit is not the answer.

So why don't you move to a country that has it? I here Canada has a lot of open space.

I have to comment on the above, as that exact response is one of my pet peeves.  Telling someone who does not like the status to move somewhere else is not a useful part of any discussion about nationwide issues.  

There have been some other "Why was this said?" moments in the more recent posts in this thread.  For a debate on such a sensitive topic, this has been going great and very productive.  Please do not get into mudslinging.

[Oldskool138]

There are plenty of benefits of a universal health care system.

So why don't you move to a country that has it? I here Canada has a lot of open space.

You could move to Massachusetts.  Comrade Romney slapped us with Universal Healthcare before leaving office.  Don't want to get health insurance?  Say goodbye to your state tax refund.

Yep, here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts it's "No Health Insurance, No Problem".  God, I hate this state...

NOTE: I have adequate health insurance.  I HATE it when the government tells me I MUST do something or suffer the consequences (unless it's an evacuation to avoid a hurricane or terrorist attack).  That's not what America was built on.  Thomas Jefferson said it better than anyone, "A government that governs least, governs best"

[ghouck]

I think one of the main problems we have currently is too many lawsuits, meaning it is rather expensive to have a practice.

This is true, but unfortunately, it is for good reason. There are too often problems with doctors that don't listen to their patients, or make quick, lazy diagnosis (read about the number of people with colon cancer, or other colon ailments that are told the blood in their stool is from hemorrhoids before the doctor even looks at them, even after the patient says they never had them). From my experience, doctors come in one of three models: 1) The ones that don't listen because they think they are too smart and too educated. These are the ones that make money because little problems turn into big problems in their presence.  2) Those that are mediocre doctors with a quick-draw on the prescription pad. and 3) Honestly good doctors that care. Unfortunately, #1 gets the most professional references, and #2 gets the most patient references.

Anyway, a national health care system is feasible if people use the resource wisely

Wisely, is pretty much the Holy Grail of the situation. I work in a prison, and a person would be shocked about how many people, IV drug users, derelicts, just simply people that have chosen to be antisocial, go to prison and DEMAND that all the crap they've done to themselves in the years since their LAST stay in prison be FIXED. The guy spends 9 months on a crime-spree, meth-bender, then gets arrested and demands to have their teeth fixed, medicine for their hep-c, demands a "no fried food" diet (often disguised as a religious choice). Since it's on someone else's dollar, they're ALL ABOUT their health. Guy spends the last 4 weeks before being arrested sleeping in a ditch, hiding from the police, then demands an orthopedic mattress in jail. Admit it or not, these people start out as part of our society.

[ghouck]

About two months ago, I am pretty sure that my body fought off a Strep infection on its own

But that's different Andrew, We know you're not a mortal being like the rest of us. I'm all for starting a thread with all those cheesy Chuck Norris jokes, the ones that used to be cheesy Vin Diesel jokes, except now they can be cheesy Andrew jokes. I'll start:

Andrew Borntreger though he had Strep once, but he roundhouse kicked it and it was gone. Some people think this is the same way that the Small Pox Virus was erradicated. . .

[Andrew]

But that's different Andrew, We know you're not a mortal being like the rest of us. I'm all for starting a thread with all those cheesy Chuck Norris jokes, the ones that used to be cheesy Vin Diesel jokes, except now they can be cheesy Andrew jokes. I'll start:

I've had Navy doctors and Corpsmen put too many stitches, splints, and bandages on various parts of my body over the years to believe I am anything more than completely mortal.  Somewhere on the site, I think in the random thoughts, I even mention being sewn up without a local because they didn't have any on hand and that was for a gash that went to the bone (and through the tissue sheath around it) on the front of my lower leg.

[ulthar]

I think one of the main problems we have currently is too many lawsuits, meaning it is rather expensive to have a practice.

This is true, but unfortunately, it is for good reason. There are too often problems with doctors that don't listen to their patients, or make quick, lazy diagnosis (read about the number of people with colon cancer, or other colon ailments that are told the blood in their stool is from hemorrhoids before the doctor even looks at them, even after the patient says they never had them).

I think you are overgeneralizing just a little bit here.  There is NO DOUBT that there are too many medical law suits AND that the financial awards are too high.  You used the example bloody stools and a quick diagnosis of 'roids.

Doctors make diagnoses based on two things: differentials and statistics.  What this means is that when a patient presents with "bloody stools" and no other infomation, they try to eliminate the statistically most likely causes first.  To rule out causes, the differential part of the diagnostic procedure, the doctor needs information.  This information comes from only two sources: the patient tells him or he runs tests.

Now, I can tell you that the information pipeline from the patient to the doctor is horribly inaccurate.  Doctors REALLY have to filter what the patient says.  It's not that the doctor is not listening, it's that what the doctor needs to hear is NOT what the patient is saying.  If you present with bloody stool and don't mention the glass you ate yesterday, how is the doctor supposed to know that perhaps one of the causes of the bloody stool MIGHT just be evacuation of broken glass?

Another key source of information from the patient is the 'history.' All those forms you fill out about "have you had" and "did your parents have," as well as all those boring questions doctors ask you while perhaps you think they should be probing you for colon cancer are part of the puzzle.  Again, it's statistics.  People with no family history of colon cancer AND no other medical indicators in the history or presentation that cancer is likely are NOT going to find a good doctor who jumps on Colon Cancer as a diagnosis just because colon cancer is/was on the news every day for the last two years.  Medicine is not about  popular culture - it is an empirical science based on observation and fact.

Note: An empirical science based on observation and fact does not mean it is perfect or always "right."

Okay, so let us suppose that you present with bloody stools and give NOTHING in the history to indicate anything OTHER THAN 'roids.  In this scenario, the ONLY way the doctor can eliminate 'roids and/or find another cause is to conduct tests - to make more observations and collect more facts.

This costs money.  Sometimes, a LOT of money.  There is no way any healthcare system, ANY system, could perform ALL tests for ANYTHING for every patient.  No way, period.

The TV show "House, MD" shows this process pretty accurately.  Given the information the patient provides, the doctor has a list of choices that could be the cause where each choice is 'weighted' by how common it is and how well it fits the data.  If the most common choice also fits the description the best, that's as good a starting point as any.  Only when the patient provides additional information (such as by not getting better), is there a scientific reason reject that choice.

There are relatively few medical law suits happening due to true negligence (such as a drunk surgeon), but a lot happening over stuff like the pharmacist issued the incorrect dose because a decimal point was not clear, etc.  The OB specialty has been decimiated in recent years to the point that if the trend continues, there will not BE OB's within a few years.  It's too expensive, and hospitals are not hiring OB subspecialilsts because offering those subspecialty services causes THEIR insurance to go up.  And many of the OB related law suits are based on pure emotion - that if something happened to A BABY while it was being born, someone has to PAY.  These are often human errors and certainly do not come from a spirit of negligence or intent to do harm.

In the end, going to a doctor is a choice we all make.  You don't HAVE to go to the doctor.  If you don't think the diagnostic and subsequent treatment processes work properly, don't got to doctors.  It's as simple as that. 

If you do go to a doctor, I don't think it is fair to put unrealistic expectations or unattainable criteria of perfection on the medical profession.

Sorry so long..my $0.02.

[CheezeFlixz]

So why don't you move to a country that has it? I here Canada has a lot of open space.

I have to comment on the above, as that exact response is one of my pet peeves.  Telling someone who does not like the status to move somewhere else is not a useful part of any discussion about nationwide issues. 

There have been some other "Why was this said?" moments in the more recent posts in this thread.  For a debate on such a sensitive topic, this has been going great and very productive.  Please do not get into mudslinging.

I wasn't "mudslinging" it was an honest question. If one feels that other systems in other countries are far superior to the one in place in the US then why subject yourself to a perceived inferior system? You have the power and freedom to relocate to an area more in tune with your personal social ideologically? Canada would be a fair choice, it's nearby, speaks mostly English, somewhat like America only with far more taxes.

[ghouck]

I think you are overgeneralizing just a little bit here.  There is NO DOUBT that there are too many medical law suits AND that the financial awards are too high.  You used the example bloody stools and a quick diagnosis of 'roids.

If that's an over-generalization, then please tell me what other catogories there are.

Doctors make diagnoses based on two things: differentials and statistics.  What this means is that when a patient presents with "bloody stools" and no other infomation, they try to eliminate the statistically most likely causes first.  To rule out causes, the differential part of the diagnostic procedure, the doctor needs information.  This information comes from only two sources: the patient tells him or he runs tests.

Read a little about some of these cases, or even experience one yourself. I'm not speaking of a doctor that someone is trying to get a diagnosis from over the phone, I'm speaking of people that GO to the clinic, and the doctor doesn't bother to even look at them. Many doctors are very quick to over-simplify, , it's happened to two people in my family that have since died of cancer. My father couldn't even swallow soup and the doctor was still trying to treat him for acid reflux disease, saying it was causing swelling that prevented him from swollowing. 4 MONTHS later, they finally scoped him, and it was esophageal cancer. When the acid reflux meds didn't work after the first few weeks, the doctor SHOULD have moved on and looked for something else. He didn't.

Now, I can tell you that the information pipeline from the patient to the doctor is horribly inaccurate.  Doctors REALLY have to filter what the patient says.  It's not that the doctor is not listening, it's that what the doctor needs to hear is NOT what the patient is saying.  If you present with bloody stool and don't mention the glass you ate yesterday, how is the doctor supposed to know that perhaps one of the causes of the bloody stool MIGHT just be evacuation of broken glass?

That's just plainly blaming the patient. I've been there, with myself and my family too many times to even remotely begin to believe that. Many doctors DO NOT LISTEN, and I'm not speaking about one visit, but not listening across months of visits.

Okay, so let us suppose that you present with bloody stools and give NOTHING in the history to indicate anything OTHER THAN 'roids.  In this scenario, the ONLY way the doctor can eliminate 'roids and/or find another cause is to conduct tests - to make more observations and collect more facts.

And it would be nice if it worked like that, but too often it doesn't. My stepfather is one of those victims of 6 months of hemmorhoid treatment and 2 ER visits before the doctor decided to look into it. As I stated earlier, too many doctors conduct themselves as if their own guess is more accurate than the tests, therefore they don't perform them.

Last year I broke a toe and 2 mid-bones in my foot. When I went to the doctor and told him what happened (stepped on a wet bathroom floor, foot slid into the toilet), the doctor said it was a sprained ankle, because the bruise seemed to be more towards the top of my foot, near the ankle. I said, and showed that my ankle was not hurt at all, but he insisted on x-raying it, and made a point to get my toes OUT of the picture. After 30 minutes of argueing, I got another doctor to look at it, and x-ray it, and you know what, , a broken toe and two broken midbones. The first doctor still insisted that here was no way I could have broke those the way I said I did. He tried blaming ME for his incompetence and unwillingnedd to listen.

This costs money.  Sometimes, a LOT of money.  There is no way any healthcare system, ANY system, could perform ALL tests for ANYTHING for every patient.  No way, period.

Nobody asked for that, the point is, that when a doctor's initial diagnosis is incorrect, SOMETHING ELSE has to be checked. Too often it is NOT, or the checks do not jive with what the patient has described.

There are relatively few medical law suits happening due to true negligence

Partially because patients often have to sign waivers that prevent it before they are operated on.

In the end, going to a doctor is a choice we all make.  You don't HAVE to go to the doctor.  If you don't think the diagnostic and subsequent treatment processes work properly, don't got to doctors.  It's as simple as that. 

Think about what you just wrote there. . .More of a cop-out, as if people ASK to get sick, injured.

If you do go to a doctor, I don't think it is fair to put unrealistic expectations or unattainable criteria of perfection on the medical profession.

Nobody except you stated anything unrealistic, nobody mentioned perfect. Doctors don't get sued for being imperfect, so I'm not sure why you threw that in. Obviously you have some stake in defending medical professionals, else you wouldn't slant everything towards every problem being the patients fault.