Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:01 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 238 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Healthcare In The U.S.A
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 8:35 am
Posts: 1068
Location: Sweden
Wouldnt it be cheaper to get medical treatment by going to Canada(or any other country close by) then getting it in the U.S and if so have any of you done that ?

_________________
There WILL come a time when everybody in the world they will be free to sing and dance and love : )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3529
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
I saw Sicko by Moore.
One reason to be glad to live in Canada.
But we are so lame on other topics...
Heaven's not on Earth

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:06 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Ontario, Canada
it's horrible that the U.S don't have proper health care. It's something that needs to change.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 5388
Location: CT coast, USA
Rough numbers and some thoughts...

300 million Americans.

Almost 50 million uninsured.

Another 50 million under insured.

When baddy grew up, it wasn't this way.


The US is the only industrialized nation (besides South Africa), without nationalized health care.

Americans pay TWICE AS MUCH as the next highest paying nation (Canada), for their health care, and not everyone's covered.

Americans pay the insurance companys twice as much as any other nation that has everyone covered, yet 1/3 of us are under or not covered at all. We pay double, and we get way less.... the American Way, a reflection of the third or fourth or so biggest lobby.

Now a special baddy note cuz it's election season and it's possible that 4 in 10 of our forumers are hoping Obama is going to help them with his "smooth" use of the word "universal."

Here's a very short Flash video of Democratic Congressmen Kucinich looking right at Obama and telling te American people that Obama's health care plan is "letting the insurance company's stay in charge." If you are voting for Obama and concerned about letting the insurance companys stay in charge, I highly suggest you click the above link.

Dennis is correct I believe, that Edwards, Hillary and Obama "letting the insurance companys stay in charge" isn't going to help any of us, we're already getting royally screwed and people are dropping off insured roles like flies.

Some may say my typing out these truths about Obama is "helping McCain win," I see it as the truth of the situation supporting third party candidates, (of which some Democrats fear and ridicule). I talked up and sent money to Kucinich, Gravel, Paul and now Nader. Nader is my candidate now not only because he is very strongly for what Americans want, but also because the money machine has pushed the other candidates out from the "money partys" leaving only the assholes as their nominees for us to "choose" from. It was a forced choice, (Obama and Hillary 20 and 23 minutes in the debates, Kucinich 4 minutes then out). Those with power are not about to allow any change in the status quo.

Nader is for single payer, not for profit health care for all. Ron Paul, who I supported very strongly is not for gov't health care, but I supporteded him strongly this way because his direct printing of money would have directly phased out the Fed, this single action coupled with other actions would (in my estimate), have meant at minimum a doubling of the standard of living in the US, meaning affording health care would have become a non-issue.

We aren't getting any help on health care from either McCain or Obama, although I've realized this for some time, knowing ahead means there's no disappointment. My thoughts on voting for President center on an issue that above health care anyway, health care is not the main reason we cannot allow McCain or Obama to win. It's irrelevant that the lesser evils are lining up behind their supposed lesser evil candidates, that does not change the fact that if either of them win, we are fucked...that's just the reality of the situation.

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Last edited by baddy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:22 pm, edited 9 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:40 am
Posts: 3493
Location: The Blue Light
sesroh wrote:
it's horrible that the U.S don't have proper health care. It's something that needs to change.


It's not the healthcare that sucks. We have lots of fine doctors and hospitals in this country. It's the distribution and the fact that the insurance co's have us all by the short hairs.

National health has its own problems. Long waiting times and shortages of doctors. I think I could say I have experienced some of the side effects of that system as well.

But in the long run, I would rather have the ability to have my routine tests and some health care along with waiting time for expensive procedures and have that not dependent on what my work status is, rather than the situation as it is.

_________________
Country music + Black music = Rock and Roll


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
One thing the numbers don't address are the people that opt out of health care that could be provided by the job they choose not to have !

There are many , many young kids that are of working age that simply don't want to pay into their employer assisted medical plans.

There are even more young people that only work part time at temporary jobs simply because they can't get out of bed in the morning.

These are their choices and I would rather not be forced to pay for those who won't help themselves.

There is not a hospital in the US that is allowed to refuse anyone that comes into an emergency room.

Much of the high costs of medical plans comes from the people that treat the emergency room as their own personal doctor ... especially when they have a toothache , fever or hangnail. Those people simply do not belong in an emergency room !

The other part , and the worst part IMO , is the pharmicutical companies being in bed with the doctors on staff at any given hospital.
Remember , hospitals are mainly for profit , not care.

Keep the health care the way it is -- with all it's faults , it infinetly better than socialized medicine. Unless , of course , you are the dipper depending on all the fillers . :x

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:47 pm
Posts: 357
Location: Mons Venus
pedro1 wrote:
One thing the numbers don't address are the people that opt out of health care that could be provided by the job they choose not to have !

There are many , many young kids that are of working age that simply don't want to pay into their employer assisted medical plans.



One can hardly blame them.

When I starting working after college, I was a single and very healthy young person. I had to pay the same premium for health coverage as the fat middle-aged male who smoked cigarettes. He also had family coverage for his fat wife and four piglets. I think he had to pay a small premium for family coverage.

The concept is adverse selection, and it's perfectly rational.

I did not visit a doctor from the age of 19 to 42, with the exception of an emergeny room visit due to a car crash (I was a passenger and covered under the driver's auto policy). I had physicals at 17 and 18 and 19, and each time I only went because of mandates. Army, Private Employer and University.

Insurance would have been a pretty crappy bet for me. Now that I'm a sickly old fuck I'll take the odds these bookmakers provide.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
So , you want the goverment to take money out of your pocket to spend on people like you used to be ???

Hell , if you have that much cash on hand , I'll send you my address -- cash is always nice to get in the mail. :wink:

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:47 pm
Posts: 357
Location: Mons Venus
pedro1 wrote:
So , you want the goverment to take money out of your pocket to spend on people like you used to be ???

Hell , if you have that much cash on hand , I'll send you my address -- cash is always nice to get in the mail. :wink:


In my advanced age I'm starting to look at healthcare as a complete market failure. [ edit, holy shit here come the flames, it's all the fault of the government in the first place! I think it's the nature of the product. The demand for health is almost completely inelastic.]

They produce nice stuff, these healthcare providers, but the distribution of this necessity is as wretched as housing. At least with housing, there is a basic level of shelter that can be considered adequate. Every advance in healthcare redefines adequacey.

I'd nationalize the whole thing through insurance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
dipshit wrote:
I'd nationalize the whole thing through insurance.



Show me just ONE goverment program that WORKS and is at , or , under budget!

Until I see that , I'll leave the health care in the private sector , where there is at least a little competition to bargin with.

Unless you want to pay my primeums ??? :wink:

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:47 pm
Posts: 357
Location: Mons Venus
pedro1 wrote:
dipshit wrote:
I'd nationalize the whole thing through insurance.



Show me just ONE goverment program that WORKS and is at , or , under budget!

Until I see that , I'll leave the health care in the private sector , where there is at least a little competition to bargin with.

Unless you want to pay my primeums ??? :wink:


Governments have historically been pretty good at killing people.
They're not terrible in the healthcare area.

I wonder... Would we really have a radical muslim problem if it weren't for antibiotics coming in before a change in total fertility? Was this a private sector issue?

To me it is all a matter of fairness. I'm willing to share something I consider to be in relative fixed supply, and something so vitally important. I have plenty of healthcare, and a lot of it comes from the public sector. If I were an ordinary shithead, I'd just vote republican and stay on this gravytrain.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:03 pm
Posts: 6469
Location: Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
I'm Union and have the best Healthcare you could have.
I wish everyone could share in this.

_________________
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:07 pm
Posts: 5716
Location: Closer than I Appear
My considered opinion on Healthcare in the US is that America really overutilizes healthcare services, making everyone's premiums go up. A lot of it is the physicians' fault - a patient comes in with a cold, and instead of sending him home saying "it's just a virus, it'll clear up, and there's nothing I can do to magically cure it", the doctor does a chest xray, urinalysis test, and prescribes antibiotics, all of which are unnecessary, costly, and potentially harmful to the patient. The patient, of course, often insists on this level of care, because they don't feel like their trip to the doctor is worthwhile unless they feel like they've been examined thoroughly (never mind that the tests rarely provide any useful information), and unless they walk out of the office with a prescription in their hands. And the cost to the patient? Usually just a $20 copay, and the insurance picks up all the other stuff. So there's no disincentive for the patient to receive all that care, and the doctor obviously has the incentive to provide it because it generates revenue and keeps the patient "satisfied".

Any attempts to curb costs by disincentivizing physicians from performing unnecessary services is often perceived as "evil" by both doctors and patients (one reason why "HMO" is a 4-letter word). There are clear clinical guidelines for treating certain diagnoses, and quite often less care is better care - but the "me first" philosophy we have means that people will still overconsume, and to hell with the consequences.

_________________
Let's hear it again for the London Philharmonic Orchestra!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:14 am
Posts: 20659
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
feetlightup wrote:
...The patient, of course, often insists on this level of care, because they don't feel like their trip to the doctor is worthwhile unless they feel like they've been examined thoroughly (never mind that the tests rarely provide any useful information), and unless they walk out of the office with a prescription in their hands...

"A day without drugs, is like a day without sunshine."
----Dr. Johnny Fever

_________________
You're probably wondering why I'm here
(not that it makes a heck of a lot of a difference to ya)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:40 am
Posts: 3493
Location: The Blue Light
What spells relief? P-L-A-C-E-B-O

_________________
Country music + Black music = Rock and Roll


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
dipshit wrote:

Governments have historically been pretty good at killing people.
They're not terrible in the healthcare area.

I wonder... Would we really have a radical muslim problem if it weren't for antibiotics coming in before a change in total fertility? Was this a private sector issue?

To me it is all a matter of fairness. I'm willing to share something I consider to be in relative fixed supply, and something so vitally important. I have plenty of healthcare, and a lot of it comes from the public sector. If I were an ordinary shithead, I'd just vote republican and stay on this gravytrain.



What the hell are you talking about in the highlighted area ???? :?


As far as your ' fairness ' statement.....when the next administration starts taking your money to fund all the new programs for the ' ecconomicaly challanged ' , are you going to be ok with that ?

By the way , according to most of the stats I have read , it's the Republicans that give the most to charity , while the Dems have most of the money.. .. I'm just an ordinary shithead and I'm still waiting for the gravy train to come rolling by my house. :P

Feets brings up some great points --- maybe if people had to pay for the services they get , they might learn to be a little frugal. I'm opposed to the working class funding those who simply don't want to work. I see way to many people who should be working , but find it easier to work the system. When the goverment rewards bad behavior , what is the stimulus to be a productive part of society ???

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
I know I'll get flamed for this , but seeing as how Dipshit hates Reps so much , thought I'd share some info on the Dem controled cities in the US.

Considering that the Dems have been in power for the past 2 years in the Federal goverment , I'd like to comment on the " CHANGE " factor in the upcoming election.

As for it ( CHANGE ) , Hell Yeah -- bring it on :wink:



Nearly a third of the residents of Detroit and Buffalo live below the poverty line.

Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.
Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.
Implementing policies that increase poverty broadens Democrats' voter base. This creates a vicious cycle that has created the Democrat stranglehold on so many large cities. The more Democrats you have in office, the more socialist policies, the more poverty, the more poor people electing Democrats so as to get their free handouts. This loop has reduced great cities like Detroit into Third-World wastelands and promises to do the same to the country as a whole.

Benjamin Franklin, who would be unlikely to win a mayoral election against Detroit's felonious Kwame Kilpatrick said :

I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it.
The more people who take initiative, the more people there are with money, the more vote against socialists, the more the government stays out of the way, the more initiative pays off.

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:47 pm
Posts: 357
Location: Mons Venus
feetlightup wrote:
My considered opinion on Healthcare in the US is that America really overutilizes healthcare services, making everyone's premiums go up. A lot of it is the physicians' fault - a patient comes in with a cold, and instead of sending him home saying "it's just a virus, it'll clear up, and there's nothing I can do to magically cure it", the doctor does a chest xray, urinalysis test, and prescribes antibiotics, all of which are unnecessary, costly, and potentially harmful to the patient. The patient, of course, often insists on this level of care, because they don't feel like their trip to the doctor is worthwhile unless they feel like they've been examined thoroughly (never mind that the tests rarely provide any useful information), and unless they walk out of the office with a prescription in their hands. And the cost to the patient? Usually just a $20 copay, and the insurance picks up all the other stuff. So there's no disincentive for the patient to receive all that care, and the doctor obviously has the incentive to provide it because it generates revenue and keeps the patient "satisfied".

Any attempts to curb costs by disincentivizing physicians from performing unnecessary services is often perceived as "evil" by both doctors and patients (one reason why "HMO" is a 4-letter word). There are clear clinical guidelines for treating certain diagnoses, and quite often less care is better care - but the "me first" philosophy we have means that people will still overconsume, and to hell with the consequences.


Doesn't it have a lot to do with the lawyers? I know doctors are fearful of liability, and malpractice insurance is expensive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:47 pm
Posts: 357
Location: Mons Venus
pedro1 wrote:

What the hell are you talking about in the highlighted area ???? :?



I'm glad you caught it.

The way I see it, if a society has a fertility rate similar to a society in the middle ages, that fertility rate is partly a function of the expectations of how many children will survive childhood.

In the United just a few generations ago, many children did not live to adulthood. It was pretty normal for children to die, and families had high fertility rates. Now most children survive to adulthood, and we have significantly lower birth rates.

In less developed parts of middle eastern countries the birth rates have not delclined despite a severe and sudden drop in the infant mortality rate. The drop in infant mortality can be largely attributed to antibiotics, IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:47 pm
Posts: 357
Location: Mons Venus
pedro1 wrote:
I know I'll get flamed for this , but seeing as how Dipshit hates Reps so much , thought I'd share some info on the Dem controled cities in the US.

Considering that the Dems have been in power for the past 2 years in the Federal goverment , I'd like to comment on the " CHANGE " factor in the upcoming election.

As for it ( CHANGE ) , Hell Yeah -- bring it on :wink:




I'm only talking about healthcare insurance. I'm not up for totally socializing medicine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
dipshit wrote:



In the United just a few generations ago, many children did not live to adulthood. It was pretty normal for children to die, and families had high fertility rates. Now most children survive to adulthood, and we have significantly lower birth rates.


Add in vaccines , a need for both parents working and less catholics :wink:

dipshit wrote:
In less developed parts of middle eastern countries the birth rates have not delclined despite a severe and sudden drop in the infant mortality rate. The drop in infant mortality can be largely attributed to antibiotics, IMO.


Those people over there think a condom is a finger gel bandage to play the bongos better :lol:
They have the medicine , now they need the education.


dipshit wrote:
I'm only talking about healthcare insurance. I'm not up for totally socializing medicine..


Hmmm , haven't seen that plan . Good luck with it :wink:

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:47 pm
Posts: 357
Location: Mons Venus
pedro1 wrote:
[


Things are only worth what other people would pay. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:07 pm
Posts: 5716
Location: Closer than I Appear
dipshit wrote:
feetlightup wrote:
My considered opinion on Healthcare in the US is that America really overutilizes healthcare services, making everyone's premiums go up. A lot of it is the physicians' fault - a patient comes in with a cold, and instead of sending him home saying "it's just a virus, it'll clear up, and there's nothing I can do to magically cure it", the doctor does a chest xray, urinalysis test, and prescribes antibiotics, all of which are unnecessary, costly, and potentially harmful to the patient. The patient, of course, often insists on this level of care, because they don't feel like their trip to the doctor is worthwhile unless they feel like they've been examined thoroughly (never mind that the tests rarely provide any useful information), and unless they walk out of the office with a prescription in their hands. And the cost to the patient? Usually just a $20 copay, and the insurance picks up all the other stuff. So there's no disincentive for the patient to receive all that care, and the doctor obviously has the incentive to provide it because it generates revenue and keeps the patient "satisfied".

Any attempts to curb costs by disincentivizing physicians from performing unnecessary services is often perceived as "evil" by both doctors and patients (one reason why "HMO" is a 4-letter word). There are clear clinical guidelines for treating certain diagnoses, and quite often less care is better care - but the "me first" philosophy we have means that people will still overconsume, and to hell with the consequences.


Doesn't it have a lot to do with the lawyers? I know doctors are fearful of liability, and malpractice insurance is expensive.


Good point, I suppose (malpractice insurance cost is a real concern), but what tests like xrays and labs are supposed to do is CONFIRM a diagnosis. The doctor examines the symptoms, draws upon his training to make a guess as to what's going on, and then perform tests to confirm or deny the diagnosis. But if the patient obviously has a common cold (or exhibits all the symptoms of a common cold), then there really is no reason to perform unnecessary tests to try and "find" something else wrong with the patient. Let's say the patient actually did have some horrible disease, but didn't disclose verbally nor exhibit any outward symptoms of the disease, and the doctor didn't test for it.... as long as the doctor documented carefully all that he saw and was told, I don't think any malpractice suit would pose him any real danger.

_________________
Let's hear it again for the London Philharmonic Orchestra!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:47 pm
Posts: 357
Location: Mons Venus
feetlightup wrote:
dipshit wrote:
feetlightup wrote:
My considered opinion on Healthcare in the US is that America really overutilizes healthcare services, making everyone's premiums go up. A lot of it is the physicians' fault - a patient comes in with a cold, and instead of sending him home saying "it's just a virus, it'll clear up, and there's nothing I can do to magically cure it", the doctor does a chest xray, urinalysis test, and prescribes antibiotics, all of which are unnecessary, costly, and potentially harmful to the patient. The patient, of course, often insists on this level of care, because they don't feel like their trip to the doctor is worthwhile unless they feel like they've been examined thoroughly (never mind that the tests rarely provide any useful information), and unless they walk out of the office with a prescription in their hands. And the cost to the patient? Usually just a $20 copay, and the insurance picks up all the other stuff. So there's no disincentive for the patient to receive all that care, and the doctor obviously has the incentive to provide it because it generates revenue and keeps the patient "satisfied".

Any attempts to curb costs by disincentivizing physicians from performing unnecessary services is often perceived as "evil" by both doctors and patients (one reason why "HMO" is a 4-letter word). There are clear clinical guidelines for treating certain diagnoses, and quite often less care is better care - but the "me first" philosophy we have means that people will still overconsume, and to hell with the consequences.


Doesn't it have a lot to do with the lawyers? I know doctors are fearful of liability, and malpractice insurance is expensive.


Good point, I suppose (malpractice insurance cost is a real concern), but what tests like xrays and labs are supposed to do is CONFIRM a diagnosis. The doctor examines the symptoms, draws upon his training to make a guess as to what's going on, and then perform tests to confirm or deny the diagnosis. But if the patient obviously has a common cold (or exhibits all the symptoms of a common cold), then there really is no reason to perform unnecessary tests to try and "find" something else wrong with the patient. Let's say the patient actually did have some horrible disease, but didn't disclose verbally nor exhibit any outward symptoms of the disease, and the doctor didn't test for it.... as long as the doctor documented carefully all that he saw and was told, I don't think any malpractice suit would pose him any real danger.


A recent case in my household:

Boy comes home from school limping. Ouch, can't tell where it is, but it hurts... ow ow ow...

Mom says... bring him to emergency medical care...

EMC does an x ray

The on duty physician, totally pussified by all the lawyers says... well I see this, that and another thing... it's inconclusive, get some tests...

Mom takes him for MRI and a few grand more of studies OUT OF POCKET for the doctors to say "let's wait and see".

Everything seems fine two years later.

The kicker.. the next morning AFTER the orignal incident my son felt fine, and never complained about his knee again.

Doctors are such fucking pussies, they could have said this at the start. But the lawyers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:41 pm
Posts: 15445
Let's not forget the *SPAM* companies that insist on a 7 or 10 year wait before the medicines they create are allowed to be made into generics. Ever have a surgery? Why is it that you have to pay the surgeon, the surgeon's assistant, and the anesthesiologist separately? The doctors and hospitals are not totally blameless either. We've had two beautiful new hospitals go up in my area this year, and it doesn't look like any expense was spared in the marble hallways and the granite counters at the desks. It's a more complex problem than just the insurance companies.

_________________
One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 238 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group