So, a patient just called me...

_ · July 2009

asking if she could be seen by one of our docs. She has the list of the docs her health insurance will allow her to see and she's just going down the list calling every one. She's was on the L's by the time she got to me. I had to turn her away too.

Gotta love that "choice" provided to us by the private insurance companies!

Pepe Silvia · July 2009

and now she's free to move on to the M's, right, jlew?

jlew24asu · July 2009

such a touching story. you know, with government run health care, her care isn't guaranteed either.

jlew24asu · July 2009

scb wrote:

asking if she could be seen by one of our docs. She has the list of the docs her health insurance will allow her to see and she's just going down the list calling every one. She's was on the L's by the time she got to me. I had to turn her away too.

Gotta love that "choice" provided to us by the private insurance companies!

why didn't you offer to forgo a paycheck or donate to the cost of her care? if not, you should have suggested she find a new insurance company.

jlew24asu · July 2009

here I have another touching story for you...there are plenty if you'd like to read through the others..

http://patientsunitednow.com/?q=node/429

Andrew D. - Seattle, WA
Submitted by mdemkovich on Tue, 07/21/2009 - 18:16

Trust me you do not want this to happen to America. Read on... My family lived in England for 2 years in 2007-2009 and experienced Socialized Medicine first hand. Meghan (my daughter) was born in England and also got very sick in England. We saw firsthand how a government run system breeds mediocre coverage, doing the bare minimum to help patients in need and not performing vital services because they are too expensive on the system.

A prime example: My daughter was 3 weeks old when she had a seizure. We got her to the hospital where the doctors immediately did a spinal tap to diagnose the problem with VERY limited testing (cost controls). They could only perform limited testing on the spinal fluid due to the lack of proper equipment at the hospital (lack of funding and cost controls). In order to accurately diagnose why my daughter had a seizure they had to send the samples away for testing (again cost controls, the government run systems can only support so much equipment and services at different hospitals) Little did we know the testing is only done once a week, on Fridays, because the system cannot support the expenses to have daily or even hourly testing service and the equipment at every hospital. We entered the hospital on Sunday evening and had to wait until that Friday for results!!

Meghan then had another seizure!! The doctors tried numerous individual things on my little Meghan to try and discover the problem, when if they would have tested the fluid they would have known she had viral meningitis. After a weeks worth of horrible services, demoralizing treatment and arguments with a staff that could only provide basic services we learned what she had and then could properly treat my 3 week old daughter. We felt helpless to do anything but watch my daughter cry endlessly, scared, unfed (another thing they were “trying”) and wait.

The doctors could only do so much with the resources available. It was horrible, and I wouldn’t wish this type of system on anyone. People out there think a system like Canada or England is a good thing for the population, but I have to tell you it is the worst idea, the worst services possible and sure fire way to get the worst treatment available for any of our families and loved ones.

I have more stories like this for the birth of our daughter that outline why this system breeds mediocrity and low levels of services for our people. Don’t Do it America. Don’t Do it...

I have another example of a friend in England who broke her arm in 3 places, and it was “set” using equipment too large for her arm because the system only carries “1 size fits all” for broken bones. She now has limited mobility and loss of senses in her hand because they could not support her smaller arm/body with the properly sized equipment.

WaveCameCrashin · July 2009

:( No matter how many horror stories are out there they will never change their minds until it's too late or they have to go through something like that.

DriftingByTheStorm · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

here I have another touching story for you...there are plenty if you'd like to read through the others..

http://patientsunitednow.com/?q=node/429

Andrew D. - Seattle, WA
Submitted by mdemkovich on Tue, 07/21/2009 - 18:16

Trust me you do not want this to happen to America. Read on... My family lived in England for 2 years in 2007-2009 and experienced Socialized Medicine first hand. Meghan (my daughter) was born in England and also got very sick in England. We saw firsthand how a government run system breeds mediocre coverage, doing the bare minimum to help patients in need and not performing vital services because they are too expensive on the system.

A prime example: My daughter was 3 weeks old when she had a seizure. We got her to the hospital where the doctors immediately did a spinal tap to diagnose the problem with VERY limited testing (cost controls). They could only perform limited testing on the spinal fluid due to the lack of proper equipment at the hospital (lack of funding and cost controls). In order to accurately diagnose why my daughter had a seizure they had to send the samples away for testing (again cost controls, the government run systems can only support so much equipment and services at different hospitals) Little did we know the testing is only done once a week, on Fridays, because the system cannot support the expenses to have daily or even hourly testing service and the equipment at every hospital. We entered the hospital on Sunday evening and had to wait until that Friday for results!!

Meghan then had another seizure!! The doctors tried numerous individual things on my little Meghan to try and discover the problem, when if they would have tested the fluid they would have known she had viral meningitis. After a weeks worth of horrible services, demoralizing treatment and arguments with a staff that could only provide basic services we learned what she had and then could properly treat my 3 week old daughter. We felt helpless to do anything but watch my daughter cry endlessly, scared, unfed (another thing they were “trying”) and wait.

The doctors could only do so much with the resources available. It was horrible, and I wouldn’t wish this type of system on anyone. People out there think a system like Canada or England is a good thing for the population, but I have to tell you it is the worst idea, the worst services possible and sure fire way to get the worst treatment available for any of our families and loved ones.

I have more stories like this for the birth of our daughter that outline why this system breeds mediocrity and low levels of services for our people. Don’t Do it America. Don’t Do it...

I have another example of a friend in England who broke her arm in 3 places, and it was “set” using equipment too large for her arm because the system only carries “1 size fits all” for broken bones. She now has limited mobility and loss of senses in her hand because they could not support her smaller arm/body with the properly sized equipment.

if some little girl has to look down the face of death so that unqualified, unemployed, or unmotivated people can share in the joys of a system of plentiful mediocrity for the masses, then i guess that is the price we have to pay for our freedom to ... uh, er, i mean our ... government mandated privilege of healthcare for all.

why should people who can afford it (rich oppressors who stole their money from the poor) be allowed to buy good health when poor people (you know the ones who have been historically oppressed by the very same system that now is trying to offer them health care, go figure???) get the shaft?

No, i'll tell you it should all be like the 10C ticket lottery.
We should all have a half assed chance at getting what we want \ need.
and to insure that it is truly fair, no one should be allowed much control over their own care,
and determinations about the appropriateness\availability of any given treatment should be left to the accountants in the federalized bureaucracy. Otherwise it just isn't fair, you know.

soulsinging · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

here I have another touching story for you...there are plenty if you'd like to read through the others..

http://patientsunitednow.com/?q=node/429

Andrew D. - Seattle, WA
Submitted by mdemkovich on Tue, 07/21/2009 - 18:16

Trust me you do not want this to happen to America. Read on... My family lived in England for 2 years in 2007-2009 and experienced Socialized Medicine first hand. Meghan (my daughter) was born in England and also got very sick in England. We saw firsthand how a government run system breeds mediocre coverage, doing the bare minimum to help patients in need and not performing vital services because they are too expensive on the system.

A prime example: My daughter was 3 weeks old when she had a seizure. We got her to the hospital where the doctors immediately did a spinal tap to diagnose the problem with VERY limited testing (cost controls). They could only perform limited testing on the spinal fluid due to the lack of proper equipment at the hospital (lack of funding and cost controls). In order to accurately diagnose why my daughter had a seizure they had to send the samples away for testing (again cost controls, the government run systems can only support so much equipment and services at different hospitals) Little did we know the testing is only done once a week, on Fridays, because the system cannot support the expenses to have daily or even hourly testing service and the equipment at every hospital. We entered the hospital on Sunday evening and had to wait until that Friday for results!!

Meghan then had another seizure!! The doctors tried numerous individual things on my little Meghan to try and discover the problem, when if they would have tested the fluid they would have known she had viral meningitis. After a weeks worth of horrible services, demoralizing treatment and arguments with a staff that could only provide basic services we learned what she had and then could properly treat my 3 week old daughter. We felt helpless to do anything but watch my daughter cry endlessly, scared, unfed (another thing they were “trying”) and wait.

The doctors could only do so much with the resources available. It was horrible, and I wouldn’t wish this type of system on anyone. People out there think a system like Canada or England is a good thing for the population, but I have to tell you it is the worst idea, the worst services possible and sure fire way to get the worst treatment available for any of our families and loved ones.

I have more stories like this for the birth of our daughter that outline why this system breeds mediocrity and low levels of services for our people. Don’t Do it America. Don’t Do it...

I have another example of a friend in England who broke her arm in 3 places, and it was “set” using equipment too large for her arm because the system only carries “1 size fits all” for broken bones. She now has limited mobility and loss of senses in her hand because they could not support her smaller arm/body with the properly sized equipment.

I wonder what would have happened if they'd had no health care? Would they have thought it a bad cold and not gone to a hospital at all until it was too late? Or if they were insured, would they have arrived there to have the hospital tell them the tests weren't covered under their insurance plan, so they opted not to have them at all because the cost was too high? Or would the insurance company have mandated that they use the cheaper tests as well? None of these are a stretch.

As far as I can tell... this chidl had his/her disease treated and is still alive. I've no doubt it was terrifying for the family that week, but the ending sounds just fine to me and could have been far worse if the person had no insurance at all or spent that week being shuttled between doctors and claims agents.

_ · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

such a touching story. you know, with government run health care, her care isn't guaranteed either.

With single-payer healthcare, she wouldn't have to stick to a list of only some doctors she's allowed to see. With single-payer healthcare, our docs wouldn't be too overbooked to accept new patients simly because we're the hospital where all the broke people have to be seen.

_ · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

scb wrote:

asking if she could be seen by one of our docs. She has the list of the docs her health insurance will allow her to see and she's just going down the list calling every one. She's was on the L's by the time she got to me. I had to turn her away too.

Gotta love that "choice" provided to us by the private insurance companies!

why didn't you offer to forgo a paycheck or donate to the cost of her care? if not, you should have suggested she find a new insurance company.

A. My paycheck wouldn't cover the cost of her care if she didn't have insurance, and her insurance company won't let her see the docs we have who are accepting new patients.

B. We actually have a program through which we essentially donate the cost of care, but she doesn't qualify for it because she has health insurance.

C. Have you ever tried to just up and "find a new insurance company"? I have literally NEVER known anyone who has been able to do this. Even working in the healthcare industry, I only have two options of health insurance companies... and they're both basically the same.

_ · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

here I have another touching story for you...there are plenty if you'd like to read through the others..

Hey, man, I'm just telling you about my day. And my days almost always involve being unable to help people because the structure of our current healthcare system won't allow it. My point was that the notion that we have so much more "choice" through the private insurance companies is bullshit. That's the point of this thread.

Regarding your story above.... I'm really sad for those people, but I would also like to hear the other side of the story. Meaning, the author can provide a factual account of what happened (if he truly understood what was going on), but for him to NECESSARILY attribute what happened to lack of funding is a stretch. I'd have to hear the docs themselves say treatment decisions were made based on funding issues to know whether or not it's true. Even so, that would sound a lot like our current system in the U.S. (treatment decisions being made based on funding considerations, I mean).

One of my friends who now lives in England and recently had his first child through their system had some complaints about the system - but they were all issues that we have here as well. (He didn't know this because he and his wife have never had a child here before.) Of course, he also told me about how a midwife came to their house every week for their appointments - up to several weeks after the baby was born. That's a luxury that's practically UNHEARD of here, even though it has been proven to improve health outcomes. If only we had it so lucky!

_ · July 2009

prfctlefts wrote:

:( No matter how many horror stories are out there they will never change their minds until it's too late or they have to go through something like that.

Who's "they"?

_ · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

I wonder what would have happened if they'd had no health care? Would they have thought it a bad cold and not gone to a hospital at all until it was too late? Or if they were insured, would they have arrived there to have the hospital tell them the tests weren't covered under their insurance plan, so they opted not to have them at all because the cost was too high? Or would the insurance company have mandated that they use the cheaper tests as well? None of these are a stretch.

As far as I can tell... this chidl had his/her disease treated and is still alive. I've no doubt it was terrifying for the family that week, but the ending sounds just fine to me and could have been far worse if the person had no insurance at all or spent that week being shuttled between doctors and claims agents.

Excellent point. It's all relative.

jlew24asu · July 2009

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

if some little girl has to look down the face of death so that unqualified, unemployed, or unmotivated people can share in the joys of a system of plentiful mediocrity for the masses, then i guess that is the price we have to pay for our freedom to ... uh, er, i mean our ... government mandated privilege of healthcare for all.

why should people who can afford it (rich oppressors who stole their money from the poor) be allowed to buy good health when poor people (you know the ones who have been historically oppressed by the very same system that now is trying to offer them health care, go figure???) get the shaft?

No, i'll tell you it should all be like the 10C ticket lottery.
We should all have a half assed chance at getting what we want \ need.
and to insure that it is truly fair, no one should be allowed much control over their own care,
and determinations about the appropriateness\availability of any given treatment should be left to the accountants in the federalized bureaucracy. Otherwise it just isn't fair, you know.

see, now why can't you focus your brain on the important issues in life. you make a whole lotta sense sometimes

polaris_x · July 2009

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/07/ ... ebate.html

The sponsor of the ad, Patients United Now, is an offshoot of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a privately funded, Washington-based conservative group that believes in limited government and cutting taxes. Among its directors are businessman and conservative activist Art Pope and James C. Miller, a top Reagan administration official.

**************
the problem with this group is they take specific situations and spin it - i saw an interview with one of the people they used and she was like - i just wanted to start a dialogue - there is good and bad with both systems

**************
like i said in a previous thread - UHC has to a) be adopted by the mass majority and b) it has to be well-funded ... we're going on 2 decades of a right wing or centrist-right gov't here and they've slashed funding to health care dramatically ... so, what do you get? a shit system where people fall thru the cracks ...

now, if you are a conservative/right-wing and want health care to be privatized so your buddies in insurance, clinics and what not want to make money - how do you do it? well - you cut funding for this and that and in the end people say - it doesn't work ... meanwhile, here's a private clinic that can do it ...

jlew24asu · July 2009

polaris_x wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/07/07/health-debate.html

The sponsor of the ad, Patients United Now, is an offshoot of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a privately funded, Washington-based conservative group that believes in limited government and cutting taxes. Among its directors are businessman and conservative activist Art Pope and James C. Miller, a top Reagan administration official.

absolutely nothing wrong with limited government and lower taxes.

polaris_x wrote:

the problem with this group is they take specific situations and spin it - i saw an interview with one of the people they used and she was like - i just wanted to start a dialogue - there is good and bad with both systems

so if someone has a bad experience with UHC, its just a spun up story?

polaris_x wrote:

like i said in a previous thread - UHC has to a) be adopted by the mass majority and b) it has to be well-funded ... we're going on 2 decades of a right wing or centrist-right gov't here and they've slashed funding to health care dramatically ... so, what do you get? a shit system where people fall thru the cracks ...

well funded eh? raise taxes, borrow, and print money. thats the only way.

polaris_x wrote:

now, if you are a conservative/right-wing and want health care to be privatized so your buddies in insurance, clinics and what not want to make money - how do you do it? well - you cut funding for this and that and in the end people say - it doesn't work ... meanwhile, here's a private clinic that can do it ...

I believe the government should police the insurance industry, provide subsidies to children, the elderly, and the unemployed. as well as increase funding to public clinics.

decides2dream · July 2009

polaris_x wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/07/07/health-debate.html

The sponsor of the ad, Patients United Now, is an offshoot of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a privately funded, Washington-based conservative group that believes in limited government and cutting taxes. Among its directors are businessman and conservative activist Art Pope and James C. Miller, a top Reagan administration official.

**************
the problem with this group is they take specific situations and spin it - i saw an interview with one of the people they used and she was like - i just wanted to start a dialogue - there is good and bad with both systems

**************
like i said in a previous thread - UHC has to a) be adopted by the mass majority and b) it has to be well-funded ... we're going on 2 decades of a right wing or centrist-right gov't here and they've slashed funding to health care dramatically ... so, what do you get? a shit system where people fall thru the cracks ...

now, if you are a conservative/right-wing and want health care to be privatized so your buddies in insurance, clinics and what not want to make money - how do you do it? well - you cut funding for this and that and in the end people say - it doesn't work ... meanwhile, here's a private clinic that can do it ...

if you can afford it or we're a part of your insurance carrier's 'doctors list'....and we're right back to the the OP.

polaris_x · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

so if someone has a bad experience with UHC, its just a spun up story?

no ... the point is they aren't telling the whole story ... they interviewed the person in the ad i saw and she said that she doesn't dislike our health care system - just that it has flaws ...

jlew24asu · July 2009

polaris_x wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

so if someone has a bad experience with UHC, its just a spun up story?

no ... the point is they aren't telling the whole story ... they interviewed the person in the ad i saw and she said that she doesn't dislike our health care system - just that it has flaws ...

yes it does. so does our current system. and I guess it comes down to which is less worse eh? and what most of those stories from that site show is that UHC will bring down the quality of care over the long run with cost cuts and controls.

_ · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

so if someone has a bad experience with UHC, its just a spun up story?

no ... the point is they aren't telling the whole story ... they interviewed the person in the ad i saw and she said that she doesn't dislike our health care system - just that it has flaws ...

yes it does. so does our current system. and I guess it comes down to which is less worse eh? and what most of those stories from that site show is that UHC will bring down the quality of care over the long run with cost cuts and controls.

The stories aren't valid enough to show anything if they don't even represent the full story the patient told.

Gern Blansten · July 2009

yeah really....we're comparing first hand experiences with a website set up by the health care lobby...of course they are going to have horror stories on there to scare you

The truth is that these systems work better than ours....are we more advanced then them in some areas? Sure, but other countries have a leg up on us too....I have a client who is 35 years old...was diagnosed with liver cancer four years ago....he travels to Germany about every four months for treatment because he can't get that procedure done here in the states

He is at the same place that Farrah Fawcett visited to combat one of the deadlier forms of cancer

So, a patient just called me...

Comments

Categories