Health Care in the USA

**Del1r1um** · 08-01-2009, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by Leighton

I completely agree. Individuals are horrible at making rational, good decisions. For the most part. We are emotional, and emotions play a role in the decision making process.

I won't get into the healthcare debate, but I will never agree that government officials are better at making decisions for individuals than the average man or woman.

Originally Posted by Leighton

As for the inalienable rights. Humans are born with those inalienable rights that no one can take away. While I may agree with the spirit of that sentiment, the Constitution apparently does not.

But there is this tricky little part in the constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

**JimmyHAD** · 08-01-2009, 03:56 AM

Yeah, I don't think the issue is what doctors get paid. It is what insurance companies and pharmaceuticals get. I'd rather have a govt. bureaucrat between me and my doctor than a Wall St. bureaucrat as it is now. Go to this website here and read insurance executive Wendall Potter's testimony before congress to see how they are trying to manipulate the public.

**gugi** · 08-01-2009, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Is it a cultural thing or just a paranoia of some sort.

I haven't lived all that long in USA, but I find it's a rather strange attitude towards the government. On one hand there is an almost worship of the political system and the people who set it up, and on the other an utter distrust and often disgust at the actual government that is produced by this very system.
Except when it comes to defense, which I find a bit strange, because it's actually 'offense'. My only explanation so far is that it's just an analogue of the 'us vs. them' thing that you can see with every european towards all of its neighbors.

**Del1r1um** · 08-01-2009, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by gugi

On one hand there is an almost worship of the political system and the people who set it up, and on the other an utter distrust and often disgust at the actual government that is produced by this very system.

I think that some people revere the people who set up the system because some of them did so with a mindset of distrust and disgust for government.

**Pyment** · 08-01-2009, 04:12 AM

It isn't the few dollars (at least for me), it's trusting the government to spend the money wisely and not to leave politics outside the exam room door. I don't want lobbyists, special interest groups, and fanatics deciding what kind of services can be offered. I don't trust government to control costs in a way that is influenced by medical needs and not by political exigencies.

And Trey, I would say there has been remarkably little Dr bashing in this thread. The drug companies and insurance companies have taken their lumps, but I think people here understand that health care professionals are a committed caring bunch.

the problems of cost shifting you allude to are actually one of the arguments used FOR the expanded health care plan. The more people covered, the fewer costs to shift. Some people think that having health care available to all will decrease the incentive for people to seek disability.

**treydampier** · 08-01-2009, 04:12 AM

All your points are well taken. Everyone has their own opinion and your is as good as mine. As for the CIA document, do bear in mind that every country ahead of us has fewer laws that govern reporting such incidences. They are also ESTIMATES not hard core statistics. As for the case for Natasha Richardson, her symptoms according to the press and other medical review have demonstrated a clear cut presentation for epidural hematoma (ie. patient hits head->unconscious-> feels fine-> goes to sleep-> and does not wake up). Unless you have a degree or some qualification that gives you ground to refute my next statement, then you are not informed on standard practice regarding acute head injuries. Every smart paramedic and ER doc in the US will advise any patient who gets knocked unconscious to go to the hospital to get a CT scan even though they are feeling "fine", if they don't and the incidence is reported, they will not practice medicine for long.
As for my career choice, its not true every doctor has a choice about taking fee for service. A general surgeon, neurosurgeon, emergency do, or other physician who is not able to practice their trade without a hospital has no choice but to accept insurance basically. Therefore, unlike the other careers I mentioned, they have someone tell them what their work is worth. Try that with your mechanic or plumber and see how far you get. And to say that the cost of the operation has gone down since 1989, perhaps you have never heard of inflation, or increased costs, or the fact that technology for that type of surgery has only made it more expensive? Not to mention the fact that the $1500 now is worth substantially less than 1989 because of the decline in the value of the dollar. As for your example of the doc almost out of residency, he probably never cared about medicine to begin with, but I wish him all the success in the world with Kaiser as he will work hard there or be out of a job very soon.
Think of this. When your appendix ruptures, or your bowels perforate, or you get colon cancer, you won't find a surgeon who will go to your house to repair your injuries. The sad part is, some day a surgeon or physician of another specialty might save your life or the life of someone you love and the people today have such little respect for their physicians that they think an insurance company should be able to tell the doctor what your life is worth. My example, curable colon cancer through a single surgery that the insurance company says is worth $1500, therefore if the doctor declined then you would have to convince the insurance people that you are worth more than $1500 despite their thoughts. My grandfather is 87 years old, and when the doctor game to his house as a child, he was paid something whether it be corn, flour, dollars, or chickens. What if all the private physicians (surgeons or otherwise) said we will just take a month off? Small town USA doesn't have access to the large university hospitals where the docs have lots of resident physicians to pick up the extra load. This will never happen, but remember that never is a long time.
As for me, I don't care about the money believe it or not. I intend to do plenty of free work and even more underpaid work. In fact, whoever walks in my doors will get treated regardless if they are the president or homeless, but when the $300K in school debt comes due and docs declare bankruptcy and can't keep their practice open, who will the needy turn to then? I also like what Mike Huckabee stated on Fox the other night, "I could care less about a CEO, but I want my physician to be well paid" (this may not be perfectly correct). AS for the person who says contribute 1.5% to help out someone, I would give more than that to someone deserving. An irresponsible female with 3 children form 3 different men is not deserving of your tax dollars so she can stay home. The children should be taken care of with the mother working otherwise she does not deserve them. The US does not even provide its soldiers who risked everything to defend us the best healthcare, they would rather pay defense contractors billions than help their fallen. This is absurd people. I am not talking about invented problems like PTSD (which the soldiers who stormed NOrmandy couldn't get because the diagnosis was not created until the Vietnam era), but soldiers who loose limbs or their eyes or hearing should have better healthcare than anyone in the country.
Like all things though, this too will pass. The solution will come and hopefully everyone can benefit.

**Pyment** · 08-01-2009, 04:26 AM

Trey, I work at a clinic where everyone who walks through the door gets treated regardless of payor class. We have Catholic sponsorship and our commitment to service regardless of payment is reflected in our mission statement. I often have the privilege to meet with Drs that are interviewing for employment. I always point to the mission statement and tell them to read it and pay attention to the part about service and say "If you are not committed to serving your patients maybe you don't belong here."

Hopefully, I have caused some candidates to self select.

**Leighton** · 08-01-2009, 04:42 AM

I apologize in advance if my questions below sound snide or trite or otherwise offensive. I just want to see healthcare fixed, that is my viewpoint. I think its on its way to being broken, just like social security and I would like to see it working in the near future.

That said, I am interested in understanding your viewpoints. I am not sure if I have a clear understanding of what exactly some of you are saying. Thus, I ask the questions below for clarification. I've said more than my peace and I don't want to step on anyone's toes or **** anyone off. I know I can get pretty mean when debating. Its not personal.

I just have a couple of questions to the opponents of national healthcare.

1) Do you even think the system is broken? If not, why not? Aren't health care costs soaring out of the reach of the average American?

2) Just to be clear, do you also believe in no Social Security, roads are purely the province of the states, CPS (child protectives services) is unnecessary, unemployment insurance is wrong/bad/don't want it for anyone, and all the social welfare programs are a waste of your money and you'd rather it be in your pocket to give to charities instead? Or am I reading too much into your arguments and healthcare is different?

3) The government will always mismanage your money and you can do a better job at providing yourself with the services and regulations the government does provide?

4) If the poor and the illegal immigrants use the ER room, don't the people who do pay for health insurance ultimately pay for their visits? Its pretty much guaranteed that those groups won't ever pay their ER bills; and even if the hospital collects, the collection agency takes a huge chunk of the bill. Therefore, the hospital has to eat the costs and then pass it on to those who pay. Is this a problem? If so, how do we fix it? I'm all for either banning them from guaranteed use of the ER OR just making everyone pay for it through taxes. At least the working poor pay taxes, and we have to pay for the illegals anyway; can't exactly find them...

Again, I may have phrased the questions poorly, please excuse the language. I am just trying to get a better overall picture of the opposing viewpoint and why they feel the way they do.

**gugi** · 08-01-2009, 05:05 AM