|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Health Care Politics Thread

Default Health Care Politics Thread

November 24th, 2011, 00:15
Despite what you may think, I don't support the concept of a theocracy either; I believe in balance with all aspects working together. Idealistic?? Yes, but without some ideals, what do we have????

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#1261

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,249
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

November 24th, 2011, 12:38
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Now I'll put on my asbestos suit. The base issue in the US comes out of your policy of separation of Church and State!! 'Church', however you define it, for whichever religion or cult is, historically the basis of morality, giving, care, and originally, education. When you cut that out of the decision making process (gov't) and marginalise it in many people's lives, you can expect to have major issues.
Then why aren't Sweden having these issues? Nowhere else is morality so separated from religion as in Sweden.

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#1262

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

November 24th, 2011, 14:05
Here, Germany, is the absolute DREAM of any pharmaceutical company : he prices are the highest ones in europe - or perhaps even throughout the world - because the companies can set the prices like they want to. No-one's controlling them. Which has led to incredibly high "moon prices", as we call them here.

“ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.“ (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#1263

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,608

Default 

November 29th, 2011, 02:21
Why I hate the whole medical care thing, part 906…

After months and months of wrangling with my "insurance" company they finally agree to start paying for things. They kept sending us these forms requiring us to verify that my wife and kids didn't have some other coverage. Why would I spend extra for them to be covered under my policy if she had her own insurance? And even if I lied when I signed up why wouldn't I just lie again? And after us sending in multiples before why did they keep on sending us more? This was a total waste of time on our part and money on theirs. Grrr.

Then on Wednesday last week the medical group where we go calls and tells us we owe them almost $4000. Huh? I missed the call (I was at work) and I couldn't make out their call back number but on Friday I was in their neighborhood so I stopped by. The nice lady at the desk said we owed $120. What about the $4000? She had no idea. So I paid and while I was there I signed up for their on line service so I didn't have to rely on mailed statements to figure out what was going on.

So tonight I signed on to check up on every and see that I still owe $26. Why? I have no clue with all the payments we made earlier and payments made by the insurance company and deductions and credits for various things. The charges make no sense; one was for -$8. I should have done that a bunch more times!
BillSeurer is offline

BillSeurer

BillSeurer's Avatar
Eternal Supreme Dictator

#1264

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 1,725

Default 

December 2nd, 2011, 19:50
Originally Posted by BillSeurer View Post
Why I hate the whole medical care thing, part 906…

After months and months of wrangling with my "insurance" company they finally agree to start paying for things. They kept sending us these forms requiring us to verify that my wife and kids didn't have some other coverage. Why would I spend extra for them to be covered under my policy if she had her own insurance? And even if I lied when I signed up why wouldn't I just lie again? And after us sending in multiples before why did they keep on sending us more? This was a total waste of time on our part and money on theirs. Grrr.

Then on Wednesday last week the medical group where we go calls and tells us we owe them almost $4000. Huh? I missed the call (I was at work) and I couldn't make out their call back number but on Friday I was in their neighborhood so I stopped by. The nice lady at the desk said we owed $120. What about the $4000? She had no idea. So I paid and while I was there I signed up for their on line service so I didn't have to rely on mailed statements to figure out what was going on.

So tonight I signed on to check up on every and see that I still owe $26. Why? I have no clue with all the payments we made earlier and payments made by the insurance company and deductions and credits for various things. The charges make no sense; one was for -$8. I should have done that a bunch more times!
Totally not wasteful, bureaucratic, or Byzantine!
Captain Buzzkill is offline

Captain Buzzkill

Captain Buzzkill's Avatar
Sentinel

#1265

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 476

Default 

July 23rd, 2012, 19:49
Thread necro, but this is clearly the right place for this little tidbit:
========
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18

And now for the last statistic:

National Health Insurance?

U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#1266

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,197

Default 

July 23rd, 2012, 19:54
Interesting statistics. DTE, I'm surprised you would post anything produced by the UN? I thought you didn't think they did anything right?

I'd like to see the source for those numbers!
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#1267

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,645

Default 

July 23rd, 2012, 19:59
Not a fan of the UN by any stretch, but it does put a dent in the "biased source" gambit to grab a source near and dear to the other side. It's a chain-email excerpt, so I'll have to do a little digging to verify it. Really, the whole "fact check" thing should go before the "post" thing, but I'm a bit pressed for time and sometimes it's fun to fart in the elevator as you're getting off.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#1268

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,197

Default 

July 23rd, 2012, 20:11
Just curious about the assumptions, but I won't hold my breath, I'll just exit, too.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#1269

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,645

Default 

July 23rd, 2012, 20:55
Nope, it's garbage. UN International Health Organization doesn't even exist. Chain email fail, pre-post fact check fail. And there was much sadness.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#1270

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,197

Default 

July 23rd, 2012, 21:36
EDIT: OOPS! It took some time for me writing this. so I didn't see the post above befor posting what I did. Sorry. You may safely ignore the following longish rant (which I don't bother to delete)

Not taking part in a what's best discussion, but I have 3 comments (to some degree based on my education)

1. I find it very hard to believe there's that huge difference in cancer survival between countries of similar social and economic status. I just checked the overall 5 year survival rate in Norway, it's now 65%.

I've tried to find similar data for the UK, but haven't found any general data. I found this article on a www.dailymail.co.uk about US vs UK breast cancer survival rates, which claims a huge difference between 5 year survival rates in US (85%) and the UK (74%). The data given for the UK iin the article is lower than what we find on info.cancerresearchuk.org, which lists 5 year survival rate after the year 2000 at 83%. For cancers detected in 1996-1999 survival rate was around 77%. I don't know what period the US results come from, but the UK results are definitely too low.

Like many cancers (not all) prognosis for breast cancer have improved steadily during the last 30 years, it's therefore very important to compare comparable periods. And while we're at it: How are national results calculated, especially: how many of the cancer patients are included? In Norway almost every patient with cancer is reported to a national database, which allows for (not necessarily guarantees) reasonably accurate statistics. If there are national differences here, national statistics will be biased. I don't know if these issues are relevant, but I certainly would like to know.

One more interesting thing is that the daily mail newsbit reports a 5 year survival rate in very early cancers of 97% in the us vs 77% in the UK. The UK results are too low, given the (probably more) correct overall survival rate cited above, but still there seems to be a difference. Now, according to the article in the US routine breast scanning starts at the age of 40, while in Britain the onset is at 50, and scans are performed every year/every second year in the US, every third year in UK. The article doesn't say how many of the women actually show up and get their scans, which would be interesting to know. But. As I (I think) mentioned in the rather longish article about diagnosing in the things you don't need to know, thread, there is reason to believe that around 30% of women diagnosed with very early cancers from breast scans have only temporary changes in their breasts. Unfortunately we really can't know who is who here, but survival data from early cancers will be higher where breast scans are performed earlier and more often because more women that really didn't need treatment are included. I can't say that all the difference is caused by this, but some of it will be.

What? You didn't read that post?

OK, yet another longish rant, but what I wanted to illustrate that there are a lot of variables to account for when comparing survival data between nations. There are other factors than the ones I mentioned, but I'll stop here.

2. Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months
How is "needing hip replacement" determined? Quite a number of factors may affect this decision, but since the nationale vs private health insurance is a subject, are us-patients without insurance who cannot afford surgery included?

One example which illustrates this: When I finished med. school in 1980, by-pass operations for angina were becoming routine. But there were long queues. We had fairly strict criteria for determining who could benefit from surgery. It was not for patients who responeded (fairly) well to conventional therapy, it was not for people above the age of 70 (higher risk of surgery), and not for those who hadn't quit smoking (because the new arteries would soon be obstructed). 20 years later, the capactity had increased significantly, but - surprise, surprise - there were still queues. Well, we didn't put as much faith in conventional treatment as we did, we no longer excluded the elderly, and we also found that smokers could benefit from surgery. All in all we had significantly relaxed our criteria for including patients in those who needed surgery. The need adapted to the capacity.

Which leads us to:

3. The number of MRIs.
Here in Norway the number of MRI's have increased tremendously during the last 15 years. When I started working as a resident in radiology (1998), we had 2 machines in a region counting 450 000 people. Now there are at least 10 (I've lost count). At the same time we have started using MRI for many conditions where we didn't consider it before. For a large part this is rational. Replacing CT scans with MRI, where MRI produce just as useful images, makes sense since CT scans are high radiation dose exams, MRI is not. Additionally, better equipment, better protocols have extended the number of examinations for which MRI is an approvement.

At the same time, doctors these days rely far less on their clinical skills than they did when I was a young doctor, which means that we peform many, many very unneccessary examinations, and the gains are therefore marginal, and at a very high cost.

A very rough (hopefully somewhat educated) guess from me is that around 30 MRIs/million make sense, more than that is overkill.

dr, who? Yes, pibbur who.

d++a58e++TU4567'!S'!89!AW!ML!uC++++u+++uF+++nR——nS ++++wC—-o++++wS——uLB++++
Last edited by pibbur who; July 23rd, 2012 at 22:20.
pibbur who is offline

pibbur who

pibbur who's Avatar
Number 13

#1271

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 859

Default 

July 23rd, 2012, 21:38
@DTE

I told those people to stop emailing me and put them on my spam list. :O
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#1272

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,645

Default 

July 3rd, 2013, 18:52
Thread necro for a "brilliant" policy that appears to be getting a stake in the heart…

I have just one thought- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-de…065920647.html

President Barack Obama's health care law, hailed as his most significant legislative achievement, seems to be losing much of its sweep.

On Tuesday, the administration unexpectedly announced a one-year delay, until after the 2014 elections, in a central requirement of the law that medium and large companies provide coverage for their workers or face fines.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#1273

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,197

Default 

July 3rd, 2013, 21:17
Single payer here we come! The insurance company handout was a stupid idea from the right anyway.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#1274

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,645

Default 

December 19th, 2013, 18:33
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamac…091500078.html

The nature of these unintended consequences changes dramatically when complex “solutions” turn out to be poorly designed and incompetently administered.

The rollout of the Affordable Care Act has provided many real-world examples of this, but perhaps none so “unintended” as the consequences discovered by the Seattle Times this weekend. Carol Ostrom, The Times’ health reporter, told the story of 62-year-old newlyweds Sofia Prins and Gary Balhorn, who weren’t exactly the models of wild, starry-eyed romantics.
Here’s where the law of unintended consequences comes into Obamacare. Thanks to the exchange programming, consumers are getting enrolled in Medicaid whether they understand what that means or not, and in much greater numbers than before. (In the first month, nearly 90 percent of all the enrollees in the federal and state exchanges were Medicaid applicants.)

Unless they look at the fine print in the paperwork in Washington and other states with similar asset-forfeiture regulations, any assets they own will not pass to their heirs but to the state instead.
Perhaps, Ms. Pelosi-ov, you should have read the law BEFORE you passed it.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#1275

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,197

Default 

December 19th, 2013, 18:48
Didn't Politifact give Obummer their 'whopper of the year' award or something similar?

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#1276

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,271

Default 

December 19th, 2013, 20:23
It's a decision made at the state level, not federal level. The federal law enables a state to make the choice on whether to do "asset recovery". Pretty shitty, nonetheless.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#1277

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,645

Default 

December 27th, 2013, 01:53
Originally Posted by Ubereil View Post
Then why aren't Sweden having these issues? Nowhere else is morality so separated from religion as in Sweden.

Übereil
Don't we have those issues? Really!?
TopCat is offline

TopCat

Watcher

#1278

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 51

Default 

December 27th, 2013, 19:34
Something needs to happen to shake up the healthcare system here. Its nuts. I don't think the new law is the correct answer but at least someone is trying something.

I broke my shoulder in a bad way a few months ago and had to get screwed back together so I have recent experience. It was actually one of the softer mountain bike falls I have had and I guess I just landed just right for the damage to happen.

I have health insurance with a medium level deductible to keep the monthly payments down. I have zero knowledge if what I am being billed is correct or not for all the crap I went through. Everyone wants a check. I have easily paid out a grand over my deductible but its impossible to get any kind of detailed info from all the companies and insurance. Whats even crazier is that two places submitted crazy high bills for certain things that was of course denied by the insurance company. When I called the companies about this they stated that they do it to be able to write off the amounts and that they will not actually bill me for it. All kinds of accounting games are being played. The whole experience has been nuts. I have been annoyed many times throughout this experience and expect to be annoyed more as I'm still in physical therapy to get my shoulder range of motion back.
Toff is offline

Toff

Toff's Avatar
Sentinel

#1279

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 406
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Health Care Politics Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:24.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch