Thread: A Health Care Scenario

it is not my list, it is WHO's

Originally Posted by flyboy

it is not my list, it is WHO's

Without knowing the criteria of scoring, this list is of not much use.

Btw. do you know any revolutionary treatments originating in Dominica or Costa Rica?

Originally Posted by treydampier

I have heard this from classmates of other countries. However, European medical students are not required to have college degrees in most cases. Their training as such is considered inferior in the US and so they have to complete residencies here in order to practice where as a US student can practice anywhere after residency (in most other countries).

A few things, it's extremely difficult to get into a medical uni in the UK. There are medical unis here that will not accept you if you retook a test in college, it's by no means an easy option and many people come here to study medicine.

'considered' does not mean it is, it just means that's what's been decided.

most other countries are developing.

I really do not understand why people are against this system in principle. I can understand, I suppose, why people would be against govt. involvement to a point, but if I had to pick between govt. involvement which to a point can be controlled by the population and insurance companies who answer to no one . . .

I think, for many many people, they will be able to walk into a hospital and get treated with out constantly stressing over insurance. It probably will be expensive. But, ya kwno, my grandad just recently had a quadruple heart by-pass. He walked into the hospital for his angina meds and they wouldn't let him leave until he'd had the op.

Oddly enough, he didn't mention the tax he'd paid over the years. My auntie is coming up for her third hip replacement, my nans had one, I was kept in hospital with suspected meningitis as a baby, I got asthma meds for years, I saw an NHS dentist for 18 years and an NHS orthodontist for 15-16 years. 10s, maybe hundreds of thousands of pounds in treatment . . . the tax seems a little insignificant, really.

Originally Posted by MichaelP

Unlike America where a teenager got denied treatment this year because a liver transplant was considered "new and experimental" by her health insurance (it had a 65% chance of saving her life). Or is it OK if it is a private industry bureaucrat that denies the coverage based on financial incentives?



At this point, my tax and benefits burden is roughly 20% of my income. I am in the 2nd from top tax bracket for the country where I work. That is before my tax returns, which are usually a 13th month worth thanks to my mortgage, my extra pension plan, my life insurance, my extra health insurance and few other long term planning measures.

Realistically, yes the European system is far from perfect. Ask any European citizen if they would like to improve it, you'll get a yes. Ask if they would like to trade it with the US system, you'll get a resounding "Hell no!".



There is an equal chance of it happening in the US in the very near future. Put simply, the middle class got reamed in the last few years... people just haven't realized how much yet.



You may need to check the most recent figures indicating a reverse brain drain. Indians and Chinese graduates are currently fleeing the US to get back home... Most of my friends that used to work in the valley or in other big tech centers are now back in Europe.



There are easy solutions to reduce the costs while improving the quality of healthcare. Some are so simple that it is laughable that they are not implemented yet. Check out Dr. Peter Pronovost's work to see how ludicrous the situation currently is.

Summary of his work:
When inserting an central venous catheter, doctors should

1. Wash their hands with soap.
2. Clean the patient’s skin with chlorhexidine antiseptic.
3. Put sterile drapes over the entire patient.
4. Wear a sterile mask, hat, gown and gloves.
5. Put a sterile dressing over the catheter site

An 18 months trial in Michigan saved an estimated 1500 lives and $100 millions to the state. The secondary infections went 2.7 per 1000 patients to 0.

For reference, secondary infections cause about 100,000 deaths a year in America.

Tell me why such a simple protocol isn't already the standard in America in the 21th century when it has been the norm in other industrialized countries for ages? When such simple, efficient and free solutions are the norm, maybe we can talk about Tort/Liability reform.

Not to be critical, but your facts are very ambiguous. ALL transplants US are covered under medicare (including heart, lung, liver, kidney, pancreas). The hospital care etc, might need some private insurance, but the transplant surgeons only get paid through medicare, so your story is at best jaded. I know several transplant surgeons if you would like for me to have them contact you and tell you the truth. One happens to be of German birth and works for the University of Wisconsin. Also your implement plan is in place at every hospital I have worked in. Its actually an OSHA standard, and yet some people don't do their homework and read studies by Michigan and conclude that they are the only ones following this protocol. So you need to know what your saying before you think no one else is doing these things.
Just my opinion. I do however admit, that there are many people who do not follow this simple protocol, but it is in place. Also, yes the list was in fact published by WHO, I guess they are the best authority on something, just not my personal health concerns.

Lets not get heated people, keep it friendly!

Originally Posted by gregs656

A few things, it's extremely difficult to get into a medical uni in the UK. There are medical unis here that will not accept you if you retook a test in college, it's by no means an easy option and many people come here to study medicine.

'considered' does not mean it is, it just means that's what's been decided.

most other countries are developing.

I really do not understand why people are against this system in principle. I can understand, I suppose, why people would be against govt. involvement to a point, but if I had to pick between govt. involvement which to a point can be controlled by the population and insurance companies who answer to no one . . .

I think, for many many people, they will be able to walk into a hospital and get treated with out constantly stressing over insurance. It probably will be expensive. But, ya kwno, my grandad just recently had a quadruple heart by-pass. He walked into the hospital for his angina meds and they wouldn't let him leave until he'd had the op.

Oddly enough, he didn't mention the tax he'd paid over the years. My auntie is coming up for her third hip replacement, my nans had one, I was kept in hospital with suspected meningitis as a baby, I got asthma meds for years, I saw an NHS dentist for 18 years and an NHS orthodontist for 15-16 years. 10s, maybe hundreds of thousands of pounds in treatment . . . the tax seems a little insignificant, really.

I am not going to comment on Britain and their health care system until I work in it. I know its very difficult to get into med school anywhere. I will say this though, the US has always had our own way of doing things. I just think trying to model a system based on systems that at best (per individual country) are smaller (less than 1/3rd) than the US system would have to be. The US has more people than the UK, Germany, and France combined. So, I am not saying it can't work.
Sorry I got off topic. I was hoping to stick to the scenario.

Originally Posted by sparq

Without knowing the criteria of scoring, this list is of not much use.

Let me Google that for you!

Here's the PDF:
http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

And the overall rankings are on document page 200, under "Overall Performance."

It is almost 10 years old because I think that was the last time they openly published their results. I'm sure the argument will be that the information is old, but I think it's realistic to say that we haven't moved significantly up that list, if at all.

Originally Posted by treydampier

You should travel to Dominica and you would realize how stupid this listing is. The european nations ahead of us, sure. Cuba? Colombia? Chile? Are you joking? Besides I think we should all move there since it seem the WHO says that these are the best places to be. I vote that all Americans who are able should move to Europe and all the other said countries. Let me know when everyone is going because for all of its faults, I have lived elsewhere and traveled and I would rather live here than anywhere else. The airports have planes leaving everyday. it will be lonely, but there is a lot of land here and I'll go to farming since there wont be any creditors to pay or bills for that matter.I mean I like the jungle and and cocaine fields and Dominica is as modern as it gets (I have been there, its awful unless you are a tourist). If you think docs should make less than bankers then perhaps they should quit and let the bankers die. $500K may seem like lot, but compared to what others have made with far less sacrifice and accrued with greed, I think they deserve it. If you disagree great, the US is a democracy and your vote and opinion is equal to mine.
However, its all opinion. I prefer to keep this friendly. I hope responses are geared to only the scenario.
Best Regards,

I'm not trying to say that health care system here in EU would be better than you have there in the USA, but i've understood that people with no money have no much changes to get medical aid except in the urgent cases.

My late great uncle lived in Florida from 1946 to 2004. At least from the late sixties i remeber as he flew back here almost every year to get his medical and dental checks because it was so much cheaper here, as he said. I didn't understand it back then and still doesn't get the sense.

I think if that if the WHO made the same list with the exception that it would cover only people with money then USA would be nr 1. If it would cover those without health insurance or money then, well, i can't say.

Regards,
Tomi

Originally Posted by treydampier

Not to be critical, but your facts are very ambiguous. ALL transplants US are covered under medicare (including heart, lung, liver, kidney, pancreas). The hospital care etc, might need some private insurance, but the transplant surgeons only get paid through medicare, so your story is at best jaded. I know several transplant surgeons if you would like for me to have them contact you and tell you the truth. One happens to be of German birth and works for the University of Wisconsin.

I will take your word for it, however the case is quite famous. I actually made a mistake about the date it was denied in 2007 and she died in December 2007.

Originally Posted by treydampier

I am not going to comment on Britain and their health care system until I work in it. I know its very difficult to get into med school anywhere. I will say this though, the US has always had our own way of doing things. I just think trying to model a system based on systems that at best (per individual country) are smaller (less than 1/3rd) than the US system would have to be. The US has more people than the UK, Germany, and France combined. So, I am not saying it can't work.
Sorry I got off topic. I was hoping to stick to the scenario.

UK, Germany, and France all have different systems. You're only adopting a principle, I don't think the American idea is particularly similar to ours, Germany's or France's.

Originally Posted by gugi

Really? Your assertion is false. If you disagree the burden of proof is on you, since you were the one to make it (hint: logic operations come in handy).

"people are irresponsbile" (an absolute)

"people like responsibility only when it refers to others"

Irresponsible people like responsibility? When it refers to other's (people) who are irresponsible?

Either contradicting, confusing, or both.