So I finally saw Sicko....

callen

writersu wrote:

maybe I will see it.......but does he bash the national government or the state government?

not so much

....not sure if you've seen any of his other movies...they're all written as sarcastic comedies...and are really funny.

oh when I asked you if you were being sarcastic...duh...didn't pay attention that you just said you hadn't seen it yet...sorry.

writersu

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Wow that is kind of scary. Money shouldn't be a factor in people avoiding medical care. If somone is sick, or thinks they are sick they should have access, since if they are sick and it is serious it is going to get to a point where they probably won't have a choice but to go to a hospital.

how is it in Canada? There has been times I have heard of when people have died because they weren't helped at hospitals. I am not sure if they were years ago or not, but I have heard of it.

callen

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Wow that is kind of scary. Money shouldn't be a factor in people avoiding medical care. If somone is sick, or thinks they are sick they should have access, since if they are sick and it is serious it is going to get to a point where they probably won't have a choice but to go to a hospital.

Thanks for chiming in......most if not all the resistance I get from family and freinds (mind you they have health insurance) is that the care in Canada is horrible.....whats your take?

callen

writersu wrote:

how is it in Canada? There has been times I have heard of when people have died because they weren't helped at hospitals. I am not sure if they were years ago or not, but I have heard of it.

beat me by a minute!

firstquartermoon

know1 wrote:

I still maintain that the concept of health insurance is the root of the problem. Get rid of that and we start seeing changes.

Yea, like no more hospitals.
The money has to come from somewhere. Until we live in a eutopian society where everything is free, the universal healthcare is still be best option.

writersu

callen wrote:

beat me by a minute!

ok, so I WIN the Have No Life Contest!!!!!!!!

yeah, me!!!!!!!!

writersu

firstquartermoon wrote:

Yea, like no more hospitals.
The money has to come from somewhere. Until we live in a eutopian society where everything is free, the universal healthcare is still be best option.

still don't think I would feel safe without hospitals but I would like to see them look at prices........

you know, I just thought of it.....there is a woman I know whose husband is an anesthesiologist, and he said that his insurance he has to hold against malpractice is huge. If we had healthcare that was national, maybe the doctors would be more protected as well?

what do you think?

Kel Varnsen

callen wrote:

Thanks for chiming in......most if not all the resistance I get from family and freinds (mind you they have health insurance) is that the care in Canada is horrible.....whats your take?

It could be better but it is not as bad as some people make it out to be. If you got to a clinic you can some times wait up to an hour (maybe 2) if you don't have an appointment (although if it is not busy you won't have to wait at all). If you go to an ER for something life threatening typically I don't think you have to wait, but you will if they determine your injury is non-life threatening and it is busy. There is lots of talk about how a large portion of the population doesn't have a regular family doctor. Personally I don't have a family doctor, not because of any kind of shortage, but because I am in good health, and am too lazy to find one, since the odd time I need a doctor I am fine with a clinic. So I think those figures are exaggerated.

There is also a lot of talk about long wait time for optional surgery. Like if you need shoulder or hip surgery because of an injury you sometimes have to wait quite awhile. This is unfortunate (especially with our aging population) but it more due to our small population and not enough medical schools. A similar problem is that people that don’t live in major cities sometimes have trouble getting doctors to live in their towns. The governments are trying to address this, I know new medical schools are opening up, including some away from major urban areas, to increase the number of doctors as well as the number in outlying areas.

chopitdown

writersu wrote:

still don't think I would feel safe without hospitals but I would like to see them look at prices........

you know, I just thought of it.....there is a woman I know whose husband is an anesthesiologist, and he said that his insurance he has to hold against malpractice is huge. If we had healthcare that was national, maybe the doctors would be more protected as well?

what do you think?

malpractice info US v canada

The extra cost of malpractice lawsuits accounts for some of the difference in health spending in the two countries. In Canada the total cost of settlements, legal fees, and insurance comes to $4 per person each year, but in the United States it is $16.[67] Average payouts to American plaintiffs were $265,103, while payouts to Canadian plaintiffs were somewhat higher, averaging $309,417.[68] However, malpractice suits are far more common in the U.S., with 350% more suits filed each year per person. [67] While malpractice costs are significantly higher in the U.S., they make up only a small proportion of total medical spending. The total cost of defending and settling malpractice lawsuits in the U.S. in 2001 was approximately $6.5bn, or 0.46% of total health spending.[69] Critics say that defensive medicine consumes up to 9% of American healthcare expenses.[70][71] In the same year in Canada, the total burden of malpractice suits was $237 million, or 0.27% of total health spending.[67]

emphasis mine...but i think the biggest difference is what's bolded.

writersu

Kel Varnsen wrote:

It could be better but it is not as bad as some people make it out to be. If you got to a clinic you can some times wait up to an hour (maybe 2) if you don't have an appointment (although if it is not busy you won't have to wait at all). If you go to an ER for something life threatening typically I don't think you have to wait, but you will if they determine your injury is non-life threatening and it is busy. There is lots of talk about how a large portion of the population doesn't have a regular family doctor. Personally I don't have a family doctor, not because of any kind of shortage, but because I am in good health, and am too lazy to find one, since the odd time I need a doctor I am fine with a clinic. So I think those figures are exaggerated.

There is also a lot of talk about long wait time for optional surgery. Like if you need shoulder or hip surgery because of an injury you sometimes have to wait quite awhile. This is unfortunate (especially with our aging population) but it more due to our small population and not enough medical schools. A similar problem is that people that don’t live in major cities sometimes have trouble getting doctors to live in their towns. The governments are trying to address this, I know new medical schools are opening up, including some away from major urban areas, to increase the number of doctors as well as the number in outlying areas.

that is true even here, to a degree I think.

er's do that here and it does make sense that if the staff is preoccupied with other people who are in serious danger that they should be helped before my with the possible exception of maybe some strictly on staff pediatric dr's/staff to help kids because they freak out totally when they have to wait and watch all the scary stuff there.

it sounds like your healthcare is working

writersu

chopitdown wrote:

malpractice info US v canada

The extra cost of malpractice lawsuits accounts for some of the difference in health spending in the two countries. In Canada the total cost of settlements, legal fees, and insurance comes to $4 per person each year, but in the United States it is $16.[67] Average payouts to American plaintiffs were $265,103, while payouts to Canadian plaintiffs were somewhat higher, averaging $309,417.[68] However, malpractice suits are far more common in the U.S., with 350% more suits filed each year per person. [67] While malpractice costs are significantly higher in the U.S., they make up only a small proportion of total medical spending. The total cost of defending and settling malpractice lawsuits in the U.S. in 2001 was approximately $6.5bn, or 0.46% of total health spending.[69] Critics say that defensive medicine consumes up to 9% of American healthcare expenses.[70][71] In the same year in Canada, the total burden of malpractice suits was $237 million, or 0.27% of total health spending.[67]

emphasis mine...but i think the biggest difference is what's bolded.

wow, you know the facts......thank you so much because I got a bit lost at the number facts but are you kind of agreeing that some of our expense is wasted on malpractice? Granted it may not at all account for all of it but it does sound like it accounts for a lot of it. Right? Or did I misunderstand?

chopitdown

writersu wrote:

wow, you know the facts......thank you so much because I got a bit lost at the number facts but are you kind of agreeing that some of our expense is wasted on malpractice? Granted it may not at all account for all of it but it does sound like it accounts for a lot of it. Right? Or did I misunderstand?

i agree that malpractice ins does add some to our cost of healthcare. There is money to be made from healthcare both in it (physicians, allied health providers) and protecting / prosecuting it (attorneys). As long as there is money to be made from suing over an accident, health care issue, the premiums will be high as will the cost of health care. Most suits don't go to trial though. Most physicians choose to settle out of court for X amount of money b/c it would be cheaper and their name isn't run through the mud. I took a bioethics class (with a JD/ PhD) and one of the topics we covered was this. Most lawyers will just call up a doctor and say patient "x" is hurting b/c of a procdure; we're going to sue you but we're willing to settle out of court for "y" amount of money. The doc would be a fool to not write the check if there is any hint that he could be help responsible in a court of law and the cost from going to court, hiring a lawyer for the case, punitive damages would be much greater than the amount the injured party is willing to take. The cost to the physician has to get passed along to someone, and it's often the consumer in businesses. I'm not sure if they'd be nec more protected, but my guess is if we went universal healthcare the gov't would set limits on all sorts of damages and would hopefully guard the physician a little better.

ajedigecko

Kel Varnsen wrote:

It could be better but it is not as bad as some people make it out to be. If you got to a clinic you can some times wait up to an hour (maybe 2) if you don't have an appointment (although if it is not busy you won't have to wait at all). If you go to an ER for something life threatening typically I don't think you have to wait, but you will if they determine your injury is non-life threatening and it is busy. There is lots of talk about how a large portion of the population doesn't have a regular family doctor. Personally I don't have a family doctor, not because of any kind of shortage, but because I am in good health, and am too lazy to find one, since the odd time I need a doctor I am fine with a clinic. So I think those figures are exaggerated.

There is also a lot of talk about long wait time for optional surgery. Like if you need shoulder or hip surgery because of an injury you sometimes have to wait quite awhile. This is unfortunate (especially with our aging population) but it more due to our small population and not enough medical schools. A similar problem is that people that don’t live in major cities sometimes have trouble getting doctors to live in their towns. The governments are trying to address this, I know new medical schools are opening up, including some away from major urban areas, to increase the number of doctors as well as the number in outlying areas.

thanks for this insight. as i was watching the movie, i kept asking myself, there has to be something bad with the process. albiet, i do not think the above situation is bad, at all.

writersu

chopitdown wrote:

i agree that malpractice ins does add some to our cost of healthcare. There is money to be made from healthcare both in it (physicians, allied health providers) and protecting / prosecuting it (attorneys). As long as there is money to be made from suing over an accident, health care issue, the premiums will be high as will the cost of health care. Most suits don't go to trial though. Most physicians choose to settle out of court for X amount of money b/c it would be cheaper and their name isn't run through the mud. I took a bioethics class (with a JD/ PhD) and one of the topics we covered was this. Most lawyers will just call up a doctor and say patient "x" is hurting b/c of a procdure; we're going to sue you but we're willing to settle out of court for "y" amount of money. The doc would be a fool to not write the check if there is any hint that he could be help responsible in a court of law and the cost from going to court, hiring a lawyer for the case, punitive damages would be much greater than the amount the injured party is willing to take. The cost to the physician has to get passed along to someone, and it's often the consumer in businesses. I'm not sure if they'd be nec more protected, but my guess is if we went universal healthcare the gov't would set limits on all sorts of damages and would hopefully guard the physician a little better.

is it hard to sue though? I have seen some people who have thought they were in the right about a dr not doing their job and yet it seemed pretty hard to prove unless it is really obvious. Is it true? It seems like the savvy people who kind of know how to work the system or their lawyers, know what to do to get the money. Am I misinformed? you seem like you know better about the real facts of this.

Kel Varnsen

ajedigecko wrote:

thanks for this insight. as i was watching the movie, i kept asking myself, there has to be something bad with the process. albiet, i do not think the above situation is bad, at all.

There is lots of room for improvement, but I think if we had a US level tax base, population density and number of medical schools, we would be laughing. I mean I think there are under 20 Canadian medical schools.

chopitdown

writersu wrote:

is it hard to sue though? I have seen some people who have thought they were in the right about a dr not doing their job and yet it seemed pretty hard to prove unless it is really obvious. Is it true? It seems like the savvy people who kind of know how to work the system or their lawyers, know what to do to get the money. Am I misinformed? you seem like you know better about the real facts of this.

it's easy to sue, harder to win, in a court of law. It gets into proving negligence and that's not always easy. But look at the life of a physician / surgeon. YOu see 30-40 (often times more) patients a day (work 6am-7pm at times, operate 2-5 days a week, you're on call...often times it's easier to write the checks on the questionable cases than invest the time to prove your innocence. If you have a claim against you you, even if you're not guilty, you still have to take time off to talk to a lawyer, give depositions etc... Those are days you aren't able to perform surgery or see patients thus loss of revenues and you incur expenses. if you can bring in 2-3K a day and it costs a couple thousand for your lawyer that's about 5K that you've lost...I'd write the check for even more than that so I'm not stressed about the time involved and if the suing lawyer gets you before the claim is filed...it doesn't count against your record, I think. Also, since litigation is used physicians are doing a lot of cover your ass medicine...order a lot of tests, b/c if you don't order a test and find something you could be sued for not ordering it and not finding it (more cost to ins company and to consumers). The saavy people will always figure out how to get their money...there are bad doctors who need to be punished but there are also lawyers and patients who need to be reigned in as well. We expect perfection from physicians but it's not realistic. The easiest way to avoid lawsuits has been shown to say, I'm sorry and how can I make it right. A majority of times that is all people want.

slightofjeff

I oppose universal health care because Michael Moore is for it.

And yes, I am being sarcastic. But only kind of.

smg9779

slightofjeff wrote:

I oppose universal health care because Michael Moore is for it.

And yes, I am being sarcastic. But only kind of.

Please elaborate.

slightofjeff

smg9779 wrote:

Please elaborate.

If Michael Moore is for something, it's a good sign I should probably be against it. He and I are further apart ideologically than Newt Gingrich and Vladimir Lenin.

steve_inhiding

I may be way off the mark, but please discuss my idea (or at least humour me).

A lot of people talk about the fact that the US is one of the richest nations on earth, yet the only industrialised nation without universal healthcare. Do you think the US would be one of the richest industrialised nations still if they'd implimented (sp) universal healthcare in '45 or so (along with Canada, the UK, Europe, Aus, NZ) or that the lower taxes because of the decision against it help spur the economy?

Whaddya reckon?