TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US ranks last in Healthcare
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

^hey is youtube working alright for you?>

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru ^hey is youtube working alright for you?>

yeah.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatniko yeah.

It's not loading for me...help?

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru It's not loading for me...help?

Direct link? I dunno.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys91bhcWZTA

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatniko Direct link? I dunno. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys91bhcWZTA

lol thank you!!

I think youtube is down.

@Neo....
.....Are you comparing your healthcare to the developing world? I mean come on.....public healthcare depends on taxes and most people in the US pay for their taxes not like here in Mexico..we don't fear our government
Also would you rank American's as depressed? B/c that is what keeps UK down most of their populace are drunk and depressed. Right George?
Just look at things this way can the American public change and be responsible for themselves to be able handle public healthcare or is it not possible at all? It seems like you would never accept it because of pay...

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru @Neo.... .....Are you comparing your healthcare to the developing world? I mean come on.....public healthcare depends on taxes and most people in the US pay for their taxes not like here in Mexico..we don't fear our government Also would you rank American's as depressed? B/c that is what keeps UK down most of their populace are drunk and depressed. Right George? Just look at things this way can the American public change and be responsible for themselves to be able handle public healthcare or is it not possible at all? It seems like you would never accept it because of pay...

Well, I'm not quite sure of the exact questions you're asking, but I'll take shot.

I'm not comparing the US health system to those of the developing world, but to other "Western" forms of medicine. However, I'm mostly just making comments on our current system, what is wrong with it, and what I believe needs to change. Public healthcare is funded primarily through taxes, and to a lesser degree from charitable or other contributions, but even the "privatized" American system is to a large degree funded through taxes. This can be either directly or through "hidden" taxes from regulation and administrative costs. My fear is the thought of the government being responsible for the health of 300 million people. It has difficulty in small-scale projects that don't deal directly with people's well-being. I shudder to think of the waste and red tape that would arise from a national health agency. It also does not get past the problem of having non-medical people making health decisions that we sometimes have with health insurance companies.

I don't think Americans are depressed, per se, but they have a very difficult time of thinking in the long-term and don't do very well when reacting to the consequences. Obesity is a perfect example. People enjoy eating whenever and whatever they want and they also enjoy being physically inactive. There are other factors involved, but people decide to eat what they want and not be physically fit and then they have to deal with the consequences. Unfortunately, those consequences not only affect their own health, but the health of others through increased costs and lower availability. There has begun to be a backlash against the obese for this, but the major blame is still put on the healthcare system for higher costs. Americans seek instant gratification rather than long term stability. They want a new house now, a new car now, a new plasma TV now, but they don't want to pay now for health problems that might occur later. I also fear that this is also how Americans see a change to a socialized system; instant, "free" healthcare for all without looking at the long-term consequences.

How do we change this pervasive short-sightedness? The only way is to show that long-term payoffs are far greater than short-term ones, but that is not easy. It's not easy to change an entire culture's mentality, but I think without that happening, any healthcare system the US decides upon is doomed.

As to your last question, about "pay," here's what I worry about. Healthcare is a tough way to make a living. I'm not saying that it doesn't have its benefits and I'm not saying other professions are easy, but that healthcare has unique challenges that most people simply couldn't make a career dealing with. My job everyday is to deal with sick, injured or dying people. Preventative medicine of healthy patients does happen, but getting back to my last point, most people only see a doctor when not healthy. These daily interactions can be difficult on many levels, and when added to the cost and time that is invested in education, medicine is a difficult field. My motivation for going into medicine was not money, as it's not for 99% of doctors. We're here because we want to help people and we know the difficulties involved. However, there does come a point where the payoff no longer balances the cost of working in healthcare. Our ability to make sound medical decisions has already been severely hampered from health insurance companies (HMO's), government regulations, public perception and ridiculous paperwork messes, things most feel would be even worse in a socialized system. Now, we're also having to worry about a system where physician and nurse salaries would be lowered to the point where the costs are no longer proportionate with the gains. I love what I do and I can't imagine doing anything else. However, if it gets to the point where another field is less time consuming, less stressful and has monetary rewards that meet or exceed my own, while still allowing some sort of job satisfaction, I'd be an idiot not to change fields. We already have a healthcare worker shortage and making it an even less attractive field because of the reasons I just talked about would make the problem even worse.

Ok so what you are basically stating is that you and the majority of classmates become doctors because it pays well. However, if pay decreases many of you would rather be social workers or teachers because that pay would probably equilevant or more than doctors so it would lead to a shortage?
Man oh man are american doctors spoiled or what? My cousin is becoming a plastic surgeon and he HAS to go to a small village in Mexico and treat the people that come to him. He doesn't get paid by currency he gets paid by the people either bringing him chickens or inviting him to dinner etc etc. Wouldn't it be really good if American doctors could learn a little bit of humbleness?

good. the last thing this world needs is more americans living longer. it's the dangerously stupid ones that are dying young anyway...

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH good. the last thing this world needs is more americans living longer. it's the dangerously stupid ones that are dying young anyway...

It's cruel to look at things that way and the sad thing is that I think Neo feels the same way.

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru It's cruel to look at things that way and the sad thing is that I think Neo feels the same way.

cruel? too bad. life isn't fair and good people die undeserved deaths all the time. i'd rather see more of the fat, lazy, unhealthy welfare-suckling degenerates leaving this world if it's going to be anyone. these will tend to be the bible-belt fried-twinkie-eating lifelong tobacco-using rednecks that depend on subsidized health care to extend their miserable lives anyway. our resources are limited and precious, why waste them on these people if they refuse to help themselves? welcome back natural selection!

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru Ok so what you are basically stating is that you and the majority of classmates become doctors because it pays well. However, if pay decreases many of you would rather be social workers or teachers because that pay would probably equilevant or more than doctors so it would lead to a shortage? Man oh man are american doctors spoiled or what? My cousin is becoming a plastic surgeon and he HAS to go to a small village in Mexico and treat the people that come to him. He doesn't get paid by currency he gets paid by the people either bringing him chickens or inviting him to dinner etc etc. Wouldn't it be really good if American doctors could learn a little bit of humbleness?

Wow, reading comprehension is not your strong point...let me quote myself;

quote:

My motivation for going into medicine was not money, as it's not for 99% of doctors.

In the US we are not forced into any profession. When we choose to do what we do for a career we have to weigh the benefits with the consequences. I *want* to help those in need, but if it becomes impossible to live doing that, I'm going to do something else. I know that I will never be rich when looking at my debt, the trend in physician salaries and the impending changes in our system. However, I would like to be able to pay off my debts, have a house and provide for my family. If that's "just doing it for the money," then I'm guilty as charged.

If you loved being a baker, but you didn't make enough money to pay for baker school, and each day you came into work you got kicked in the nuts, as much as you love baking, you'd choose something else to do for a living. If you saw the garbage man (no offense to garbage men) making more money than you, with better hours, no school required and less stress, you'd probably consider being a garbage man before being a baker. There is *no* difference with medicine. It is a job, and yes, it is the "noble" profession where most do it for the right, just reasons, but reality comes into play.

I'm glad your cousin will be doing what he is doing; that is his choice and it's admirable. I also wonder how long he was in school, how much work it took to get there and what kind of debt he is in. I'm not saying this to "dis" him, I really don't know. I wonder how it compares to the American medical education process. I also think that doctors (as do other professionals) have the right to decide if they think the rewards of their job are worth what they put into it. If someone is willing to put in 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of medical school, 3+ years of residency ending in hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt in order to work 60-80 hour weeks taking care of the sick, dying and injured in return for some chickens and dinners then more power to them. I'd like to see anyone in the US in any profession be happy with that kind of cost/gain ratio.

But, you can tell me and all other doctors that they need their humble pie as much as you'd like. People who don't know what being a doctor or working in healthcare entails love to say that and I've gotten used to it. I'll continue to deal with the reality of the situation and try to make it better short of enslaving those in the medical profession.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm glad your cousin will be doing what he is doing; that is his choice and it's admirable. I also wonder how long he was in school, how much work it took to get there and what kind of debt he is in. I'm not saying this to "dis" him, I really don't know. I wonder how it compares to the American medical education process. I also think that doctors (as do other professionals) have the right to decide if they think the rewards of their job are worth what they put into it.

Well he went directly into med school as is the case in mexico. No undergrad just straight to med school if you score good. Then he was done with his MD and is/has to do three years of service or residency then after that he is going to be specializing in plastic surgery. He has no debt med school doesn't cost money here
So 4yrs med school 3 service 3 specializing

Well here's another (among many) kick in the pants to socialized medicine...


link

quote:

Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives. Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone. Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state. The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "out_rageous" and "disgraceful". About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt. Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money. advertisement The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050. Obesity costs the British taxpayer �7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations. Meanwhile, �1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade. Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services. One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements. Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, said it would be "outrageous" to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors' views "disgraceful". Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people's "responsibilities" as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restric_tions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments. The survey found that medical professionals wanted to go much further in denying care to patients who do not look after their bodies. Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for "social abortions" and fertility treatment. Paul Mason, a GP in Portland, Dorset, said there were good clinical reasons for denying surgery to some patients. "The issue is: how much responsibility do people take for their health?" he said. "If an alcoholic is going to drink themselves to death then that is really sad, but if he gets the liver transplant that is denied to someone else who could have got the chance of life then that is a tragedy." He said the case of George Best, who drank himself to death in 2005, three years after a liver transplant, had damaged the argument that drinkers deserved a second chance. However, Roger Williams, who carried out the 2002 transplant on the former footballer, said doctors could never be sure if an alcoholic would return to drinking, although most would expect a detailed psychological assessment of patients, who would be required to abstain for six months before surgery. Prof Williams said: "Less than five per cent of alcoholics who have a transplant return to serious drinking. George was one of them. It is actually a pretty successful rate. I think the judgment these doctors are making is nothing to do with the clinical reasons for limiting such operations and purely a moral decision." Katherine Murphy, from the Patients' Association, said it would be wrong to deny treatment because of a "lifestyle" factor. "The decision taken by the doctor has to be the best clinical one, and it has to be taken individually. It is morally wrong to deny care on any other grounds," she said. Responding to the survey's findings on the treatment of the elderly, Dr Calland, of the BMA, said: "If a patient of 90 needs a hip operation they should get one. Yes, they might peg out any time, but it's not our job to play God."

^I have a question how well would insurance companies work if they are not for profit? Can you name any other business that is non-profit and is performing well and isn't corrupt or incompetent?

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

We suffer from this sort of myopic illusion in "inclusivity" which basically narrows down to only those in a certain social sphere being 'worthy' of medical care, and the fabrication that there

isn't enough to go around.

Well I hate to burst the bubble, but there's more than enough to go around, and to help and hopefully save (for our better karma and the future of our species) the whole of our weakened and poor, for whatever reason these human beings have found themselves in such state.

Division lines and nationalities and all that grandiose bullshit to bolster our own state of clinginess to this rock flying through space are nice and all, but if we're not willing to look out for the least of us outside the sphere of US, then I hope to god our future can somehow learn the emotion of empathy that we're working to stamp out.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I've said it before and I'll say it again. We suffer from this sort of myopic illusion in "inclusivity" which basically narrows down to only those in a certain social sphere being 'worthy' of medical care, and the fabrication that there isn't enough to go around. Well I hate to burst the bubble, but there's more than enough to go around, and to help and hopefully save (for our better karma and the future of our species) the whole of our weakened and poor, for whatever reason these human beings have found themselves in such state. Division lines and nationalities and all that grandiose bullshit to bolster our own state of clinginess to this rock flying through space are nice and all, but if we're not willing to look out for the least of us outside the sphere of US, then I hope to god our future can somehow learn the emotion of empathy that we're working to stamp out.

All you have to do is show me where the money, resources and trained healthcare providers are to give everyone the medical care they need and I'll believe you.

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru ^I have a question how well would insurance companies work if they are not for profit? Can you name any other business that is non-profit and is performing well and isn't corrupt or incompetent?

I'd go with;

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Goodwill
United Way
Habitat for Humanity
Red Cross

Most of the various disease associations;
American Heart Association
American Cancer Society


I would say it's easier to find NPO's that aren't corrupt than for-profits.

Would you ever volunteer for free?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono All you have to do is show me where the money, resources and trained healthcare providers are to give everyone the medical care they need and I'll believe you.

Sure.

They're in the trash bins, disposed of pharmeceutical goods used to lure doctors into funding the beast.

You never dumpster dived, huh? ^_^

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru Would you ever volunteer for free?

I volunteer my kindness for free in a myriad of ways every single day, in various ways yet unaccounted for.

I expect nothing in return except perhaps hopefully human perceptive empathy on some level, similar to the "don't steal or harm others just as you would not want to be harmed or thieved" mentality. I guess its "THE IDEA" 2.0, for a modern world.

I understand that I'm 2000 years ahead of my time here, just as someone (some others?) were 2000 years ago, but it's really not that difficult of a stipulation.

Think.

Then feel.

Then look at your resources and make a difference.

It starts with the individual. Really. We make the difference here. Not the politician eating his steak at some fancy restaurant.

I volunteer, usually once a week, but time has become scarce recently. Most of my volunteering has been at a free clinic in an urban setting. My first sentence is the problem though. When you work 60+ hour weeks, it's hard to find time to volunteer. If I had more free time, I'd volunteer more, just like I know most people in the medical field would. 40 hour work weeks make it inconvenient to volunteer, 60-80 hour weeks make it nearly impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I volunteer, usually once a week, but time has become scarce recently. Most of my volunteering has been at a free clinic in an urban setting. My first sentence is the problem though. When you work 60+ hour weeks, it's hard to find time to volunteer. If I had more free time, I'd volunteer more, just like I know most people in the medical field would. 40 hour work weeks make it inconvenient to volunteer, 60-80 hour weeks make it nearly impossible.

You don't have to volunteer necessarily.

Just smile and be kind and don't judge people until you know them, it goes a long way.

I'm sure you do all these things anyway, or at least that would be my guess. ^_^

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby You don't have to volunteer necessarily. Just smile and be kind and don't judge people until you know them, it goes a long way. I'm sure you do all these things anyway, or at least that would be my guess. ^_^

Jeebus knows I try.

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