TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Equality in the 1990s would have saved 900 000 black Americans
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Since you are into medicine can you answer a question that I don't understand (my girlfriend is a nurse but doesn't work in certain areas). I went for an MRI. Now the machine cost probably a few million dollars and the technician probably makes about $60K-100K a year but when you factor in that the test takes 15 minutes, is printed on the spot, and there are so many people that have used the device that is has probably been paid for 10 times over, why do they still charge hundreds and hundreds of dollars for something that lasts 15 minutes and requires no professional? I think there are things in healthcare that seem overinflated costs wise and is contributing to the rediculous costs.

That MRI payed for many more people that just the tech. There was a radiologist who looked at it, then maybe a few other doctors to conference the results with. Nurses and nurse's aids who helped with the testing and aftermath, all the way down to janitors got paid from that MRI. Then there are maintenance costs, rent, electricity etc. And then, depending on where it was done, you have to pay for the people that didn't pay for their MRI. If it was done at a hospital, that was the case, if it was done in a private clinic, then you're paying for those costs and the convenience.

Hope that makes sense.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono That MRI payed for many more people that just the tech. There was a radiologist who looked at it, then maybe a few other doctors to conference the results with. Nurses and nurse's aids who helped with the testing and aftermath, all the way down to janitors got paid from that MRI. Then there are maintenance costs, rent, electricity etc. And then, depending on where it was done, you have to pay for the people that didn't pay for their MRI. If it was done at a hospital, that was the case, if it was done in a private clinic, then you're paying for those costs and the convenience. Hope that makes sense.

That is the thing, the radiologist and no one else looked at it, I went to a specialist who I paid another few hundred dollars to, to look at the MRI for 15 minutes, to say yup you have a herniated disk, and there is nothing we can do, and then sent me on my merry way.

Yeah I had the first done at a private medical clinic, the second MRI was at a hospital.

I can't help but feel screwed, the loud clicking and the 1960's music playing in the headphones while trying not to scratch my nose for 15 minutes wasn't nearly as fun as I thought it'd be

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono First is that medicine is a technology field. As technology becomes more advanced, and everyone wants only the "latest and greatest," costs go up, not down. If you want a top of the line computer today, you're going to pay premium prices, if you want a top of the line computer from 5 years ago, you won't. However, when it comes to medicine everyone wants the best, there is no "5 year old" option. We could give everyone cutting-edge 1970's medicine at wonderfully low costs, but people want 2005 medicine.

You have some good, realistic points. My argument is with the practice of healthcare. What if the research and technology aspects were for profit and the practice was not? In other words, if we have profit generating our advancements and in treatment we have a plan that insures all in getting use of those technologies in practice? If we put the same money we are spending currently in private HMOs into a healthcare system that covered all Americans and thus cut down the administrative costs greatly, you could maintain the wages of doctors and staff and would have some money that could help pay for some of the currently uninsured.

quote:

Originally posted by zig Im trying to make a general point..not about you or this thread..i think more discussions on here should probably be in a broader context..there are many europeans here that wont understand the ins and outs of american politics nor the health care system that america employs..perhaps the discussion should be about "Has the American health care system failed" or "Are european healthcare systems better models for future care" etc etc I was on one of the european forums today..regional forums..and basically they were bitching that the PDD forum seems to deal with exclusively american politics and that was interesting..and then i thought ye we do talk alot about american politics. Having said that ive never seen one of them in here. Just a point..ok enough bitchin. btw just D/L your latest mix from your site...maybe more bitchin to come huh...LOL

I would love to discuss some European politics, so I really wish they'd stop by here. I wouldn't know where to begin a discussion, but I'd join in...

Thanks for checking out my stuff, just keep in mind I'm still learning

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 You have some good, realistic points. My argument is with the practice of healthcare. What if the research and technology aspects were for profit and the practice was not? In other words, if we have profit generating our advancements and in treatment we have a plan that insures all in getting use of those technologies in practice? If we put the same money we are spending currently in private HMOs into a healthcare system that covered all Americans and thus cut down the administrative costs greatly, you could maintain the wages of doctors and staff and would have some money that could help pay for some of the currently uninsured.

There is an assumption here is that the majority of R&D and "The Field" are on the same payroll however.
I do agree that the practice of healthcare could be better; and I'm coming from a country that has a lot of it!

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 You have some good, realistic points. My argument is with the practice of healthcare. What if the research and technology aspects were for profit and the practice was not? In other words, if we have profit generating our advancements and in treatment we have a plan that insures all in getting use of those technologies in practice? If we put the same money we are spending currently in private HMOs into a healthcare system that covered all Americans and thus cut down the administrative costs greatly, you could maintain the wages of doctors and staff and would have some money that could help pay for some of the currently uninsured.

I guess we do need to define who is making these profits.

HMOs are, to some extent, although many of those are going bankrupt, doctors are, again to some extent, although much less than they did 10-20 years go, and hospitals definitely aren't. That's why you have so many closings and consolidations. It's not good to be a hospital right now, because of the before mentioned no-pays, the administration now required to process insurance and government paperwork (there are now more hospital workers who process paperwork than take care of patients) and the constant, expensive fight with insurance companies.

The people who are making money are the people in medical R&D and drug companies. When something new comes out, hospitals clamor over the new technology in hopes that it will attract patients to bolster their poor bottom-lines. The amount companies ask for when selling these new technologies is outrageous. The other big-money makers are drug companies. Almost every other nation besides the US have laws that limit the price that can be put on prescription drugs. So when medicine comes out, America is the cash cow. US prescription drug prices are 2-10 times higher than elsewhere because we have no limits on how much they can cost and drug companies make their reserarch money back, and them some through the pockets of Americans.

So in reality, it is the R&D/Drug companies that make the profit, not the health care providers or institutions. Some private clinics are an exception.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono The amount companies ask for when selling these new technologies is outrageous.

True, and they certainly do make a profit, though those profits tremendously help future R&D, not to mention the wet blanket you throw on innovation when you take the incentive away. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 So by your standards if someone has a massive heart attack and they can't show proof that they can pay for their ER visit, just let them die?

C'mon, you know that's not how it works.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka C'mon, you know that's not how it works.

But then what is the dividing line between what we think government should do in terms of health care and what we find unacceptable?

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 But then what is the dividing line between what we think government should do in terms of health care and what we find unacceptable?

Doctors need the right to deny care, if no care is needed. I know this sounds crazy but hold off on judgement for a second.

If a patient comes to the ER, no matter how many times they have come before in desperate attempts for drugs or attention or to get off the street or for whatever silly reason, they must be seen, costing thousands of dollars that in most cases will never be paid. I'd have to look up the exact statistics but I believe only 3% of actual emergency room visits are "emergencies" (something requiring immediate care) and only 12% are "urgencies" (requiring care in the next 12-24 hours). So, the overwhelming majority of visits are for trivial issues in need of a family practice doc costing hundreds of dollars or less per visit than an ER visit costing in the thousands.

The mentality is that ER visits are "free" for these people, in that they will never have to pay back their bills, whereas a family doc visit must be paid. This very idea of "free" health care is also what scares me the most about socialized medicine. When a person percieves something as "free" they tend to lose their restraint. If I could have "free" ice cream whenever I wanted, I'd have no problem with using it in excess, or even wasting it from time to time. The same goes for health care. If Americans begin to see their healthcare as "free," they will only increase their usage that dwarves the next country by I believe 3 times, per capita (health care spending and facility hours per person).

I realize this gives the doctor a great deal of power, but something drastic must be done to save the health care system. Also, contrary to popular belief, doctors too have a conscience and set of morals that I believe would not allow many of them to turn away someone in need...and the threat of our legal system also helps (which is a whole other issue...medicine driven by the fear of legal recourse and not need). Put the responsibility of administering care back into the hands of health care providers, not the whims of the patient.

Exactly. And I'd much rather trust the opinion of a qualified doctor who has completed the rigors of acquiring his expertise over some typical governmental beaurocrat when it comes to issues of my own personal health and well being.

OK, fine, you allow doctors to turn away people who dont need to be treated, but that doesn't mean more people should be denied healthcare coverage. I cannot express the importance of good preventative medicine that can stop people from racking up expensive hospital bills as problems worsen without treatment.

I do want to point out that there are also policies to the right that also harm healthcare in our system. As I mentioned before, it is now illegal to file a law suit against your insurance company if you receive your plan through work. That means I can have a very legitimate medical problem that is supposed to be covered and they can deny my claim for no reason at all and nothing can be done to prevent that.

To put everything in perspective, if government shouldn't be involved in helping to provide healthcare to the poor and say a 10 year old kid is very sick with cancer, do we find some sort of way in the private sector to get the kid quality healthcare or do we simply have the kid go to a clinic, because it's not our fault the mother shouldn't have had a child without enough money to raise it? I would hope as a nation we're a little more of a community than the latter. If that is the case, my argument is moot because there's nothing that can be said to find common ground if there's not even a concern for those with less.

Lastly, the point that you should beware of too much government and beaurocrats dictating things, why then is the right (not all but many) trying so hard to mix government and religion? That perspective is exactly what the left feels about that issue, but we're branded as atheists and recently we were accused of trying to destroy Chirstmas. Things like the faith based initiative are directly mixing beaurocrats with religion and it is overwhelmingly supporting Evangelical Christianity, which is not the majority of the country. If the trend the Bush administration has started were to continue, why would I want government spending my money to enforce Evangelical ideas when I'm a Catholic? Why should the government be saying who can and cannot have a secular, legal marriage based on a certain relgious view? And furthermore why should government be making decisions about giving aid to the private sector? With all the spending the GOP has been doing and many of he new programs they've introduced, it is very difficult to see them as a party who does not like big government. There's no way you can deny the "Contract with America" has had quite a few breaches.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I do want to point out that there are also policies to the right that also harm healthcare in our system.

Certainly. I never claimed there was some perfect system, I just stated my opinion about what's reasonable to expect from who and what the implications of having too much government in your life would be.

quote:

Lastly, the point that you should beware of too much government and beaurocrats dictating things, why then is the right (not all but many) trying so hard to mix government and religion? That perspective is exactly what the left feels about that issue, but we're branded as atheists and recently we were accused of trying to destroy Chirstmas. Things like the faith based initiative are directly mixing beaurocrats with religion and it is overwhelmingly supporting Evangelical Christianity, which is not the majority of the country. If the trend the Bush administration has started were to continue, why would I want government spending my money to enforce Evangelical ideas when I'm a Catholic? Why should the government be saying who can and cannot have a secular, legal marriage based on a certain relgious view? And furthermore why should government be making decisions about giving aid to the private sector? With all the spending the GOP has been doing and many of he new programs they've introduced, it is very difficult to see them as a party who does not like big government. There's no way you can deny the "Contract with America" has had quite a few breaches.

Wait, I thought we were talking about healthcare--don't change the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Certainly. I never claimed there was some perfect system, I just stated my opinion about what's reasonable to expect from who and what the implications of having too much government in your life would be. Wait, I thought we were talking about healthcare--don't change the subject.

It is on subject though, because it questions how government can be so inefficient and dangerous in dealing with healthcare and be considered such a positive in other areas. I fail to see how those stances can coexist, especially when religion is so much more personal.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 It is on subject though, because it questions how government can be so inefficient and dangerous in dealing with healthcare and be considered such a positive in other areas. I fail to see how those stances can coexist, especially when religion is so much more personal.

Well, I don't think more government is the answer to any problem, including religion. Although I do think that point is off topic.

There are countless charities that are there to help those in need. A 10 year old cancer patient has many resources in which to find care, including just going to a hospital. They MUST treat him and his cancer, that is the law. I'd guess that about 1/8 of the cancer patients I see don't pay for their services, or pay a reduced amount, but they recieve exactly the same care as those that do.

One other thing I find interesting in this whole situation is our priority system. People will spend thousands of dollars for a new TV, cars beyond their income or house payments that are above their means, but when it comes to health insurance, something that protects your life, people complain when it gets pricey. To me it's flabbergasting because without that life, all those other toys and payments are pretty pointless. If I'm going to spend a good chunk of change on anything, it would be in protecting my life, not toys.

I remember one summer I was working construction and I was having a conversation with a forman about health care. He went on and on complaining that his most recent triple bypass cost his insurance company (not him, he only paid the premium) $5000 for the operation. Then he drove off in his new Ford pickup truck, which replaced his "old" 2-year old truck. The irony was amazing to me that a guy would complain about the cost of an operation that saved his life, only to drive off in a new truck he didn't need. I felt like telling him the next time he needs a triple bypass and he thinks it's too expensive, tell them he doesn't want it. He can die of an MI a happy man with lots of money in his brand new truck.

While there are some options available, the original post that started this thread suggests that not enough is being done to cover all people, because there are significant gaps. This is especialy in early stages when serious problems can be detected before they become life threatening.

I have had a little experience in the medical industry and from what I saw, there was a great difference in how people covered by medicare received treatment and how people who were on another assistance program of some sort when they could not pay were treated. In some ways medicare actually is better than for those who pay privately or are covered by health insurance, because there are a number of strict rules and goals that must be followed in care, particularly in rehabilitiation efforts.

I'm more than willing to agree that I don't think govenment is the cure-all for any problem, but my stance is that I think people. particularly children, should have access to healthcare when it is needed, the same way we have public schools. The public school system is nowhere near perfect and not equal, but it is a step further to ensure access than to not have access at all. Additionally if people want to pay for private doctors out of pocket, like with private school, that should be an option. Otherwise I think if we don't want to change from the HMO system, the policies promoted by Bill Bradley, where we add a system to cover uninsured children would be a positive step. If these children are all, in fact, being covered by various other means, the cost to declare them insured should be minimal.

Not much more to really say I guess, because it's largely based on ideology it seems, but if anyone wants to continue discussion, I'm down. Where's all the Europeans on healthcare perspectives?

Interesting debate, many interesting arguments from both sides. although i agree more with wolverine16

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Where's all the Europeans on healthcare perspectives?

since im from sweden i can tell the pros and cons about that system. In sweden everyone have equal rights to good health care, covered by the government. All hospitals used to be owned by the government, but nowadadys many of them is contracted out to private companies (but still publicly accessable). It is also possible to get private health care, although that is very unusual (there is no need for it really). Personally I think that the swedish system is very good. It was for example ranked nr 1 by a big british investiagion in 2003 or 2003, dont remember (based on the WHO list but also taken into accout more aspects).

the main backside with the swedish system is the waiting time for some of the non so urgent operations (although its getting better). This is as far as i know a problem with most socialized healthcare systems (as well as with canadas).

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Interesting debate, many interesting arguments from both sides. although i agree more with wolverine16 since im from sweden i can tell the pros and cons about that system. In sweden everyone have equal rights to good health care, covered by the government. All hospitals used to be owned by the government, but nowadadys many of them is contracted out to private companies (but still publicly accessable). It is also possible to get private health care, although that is very unusual (there is no need for it really). Personally I think that the swedish system is very good. It was for example ranked nr 1 by a big british investiagion in 2003 or 2003, dont remember (based on the WHO list but also taken into accout more aspects). the main backside with the swedish system is the waiting time for some of the non so urgent operations (although its getting better). This is as far as i know a problem with most socialized healthcare systems (as well as with canadas).

I agree there is a problem in many socialized healthcare systems with wait times for some non-emergency care. Do you have any details on how Sweden on is cutting down these wait times right now while maintaining access?

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I agree there is a problem in many socialized healthcare systems with wait times for some non-emergency care. Do you have any details on how Sweden on is cutting down these wait times right now while maintaining access?

more resources i think. I think most waiting times in swedens system was built up during the beginning of the '90s when sweden was in an ecnomic crise and had to cut down drastically on everything... and it hasnt really got back to a low level since that, even tho its better now...

i know tranceaholic was saying something about that denmark had cut down their waiting times to almost none with the help of additional founds, which is probably a good investment.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew more resources i think. I think most waiting times in swedens system was built up during the beginning of the '90s when sweden was in an ecnomic crise and had to cut down drastically on everything... and it hasnt really got back to a low level since that, even tho its better now... i know tranceaholic was saying something about that denmark had cut down their waiting times to almost none with the help of additional founds, which is probably a good investment.

That's what I thought it might be. Sorry, but do you know by any chance what % of taxes go for healthcare? I just really would like to know what other places are doing and what can feasably be done here to improve the system. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 That's what I thought it might be. Sorry, but do you know by any chance what % of taxes go for healthcare? I just really would like to know what other places are doing and what can feasably be done here to improve the system. Thanks.

hmm okay so i tried, its quite complicated, since the healthcare in sweden is mainly covered by local counties and not the national governemtn, but i took stockholm as an example. I did not compare it to our taxes either since that is kinda irrelevant (due to swedens huge taxes, not because of the health care system i think tho )... hehe..

20 billion SEK for drugs for Sweden in total (about 300 USD per person and year, covered by the national government).

40 billion SEK for ALL health care costs in stockholm county (including more drugs, staff, locals, contracting etc etc). That would be about 3000 USD per person and year.

So total cost for health care in sweden would be 3 300 USD per year, donno if thats good or bad, what is it in the US?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew So total cost for health care in sweden would be 3 300 USD per year, donno if thats good or bad, what is it in the US?

http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/09/pf/...yerhealthplans/

quote:

Since 2000, that annual premium paid by employees to insure themselves and their families has increased nearly 49 percent. In 2003, the employee's cost for family coverage increased 13 percent to $2,412 a year, which accounts for 27 percent of the total premium. Premiums for single coverage increased by less than 8 percent to $508 a year.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/09/pf/...yerhealthplans/

yeah, but that only says how much the employees are paying? and does the government not pay for anything?

so i looked it up and according to this website: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/t1.asp

your annual spending on healthcare is $5,670 per capita, which is a lot more than sweden spends.

I could only find numbers for 1996, but I'd only imagine that they are worse today. Americans, per capita, see a doctor 9 times a year, in Sweden that is 2.9. So, even if it is the higher number you posted, it is still not more than triple what the Swedes pay. So, double the cost for three times the doctor's visits, doesn't sound all that bad.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.