Real British Healthcare Headlines

[30A Skunkape]

World Health Organization Didability Adjusted Healthy Life Expectancy Table (HALE)

USA ranks 24th in life expectancy.

USA ranks 1st in costs.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Not really like shooting fish in a barrel at all. Your first citation shows that the US lags behind countries that generally have homogeneous populations of genetically 'well' people who do not tend to be obese and cram fast food down their gullets. The American melting pot includes populations that at their baseline are at higher risk for developing hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc. If Australia, Andorra and Monaco had to deliver care to people of African and Hispanic descent, their rankings would slip, too.

Health system attainment and performance in all Member States

Yikes it gets worse....USA is 72nd.

The above citation is worthless as the rankings are compiled based on 'eight measures', and there is no explanation of any of them. I do note that the US in #1 in a measure called 'responsiveness', and that is what people here do not want to lose. As is noted in the very link you provide, don't be tempted to look at ranks of health systems as you would the college football top twenty, it is too complex and subject to variables that are impossible to plug into a formula. From your citation ...the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task....

 

[Daugette_Matt]

When my wife was a kid (1970) she broke both of her arms. Her mom, a mother of 4 took her and all her brothers to her piediatrition ( I can't spell it) on a saturday. The doc set both of her arms, and put them in casts. Her mama wrote a check to the doc and that was it. Of course more visits afterwards. But her doctor handled the whole thing by herself without endless costs and tests.
No emergency room. No team of specialists. No MRI CAT scan not even an x-ray. Just a good doc who knows her patients and is competent and CARES.

An accident like that today, there is no way anyone would be able to see their doctor on a saturday as an emergency. No way that could be handled in office, and no way anyone could just up and pay for it with cash on hand. and incase you were wondering, both of my wifes' arms work fine. She is not deformed or limited in any way. She had a good doctor who knew her history, knew her job, and did what needed to be done. The docotor took the responsibility for the whole thing.
That is what the "world's best healthcare" should be about.
Yes there are conditions that require a lot of special drugs, treatments, extended stays, and very high bills. but normal everyday stuff should be affordable.
There is no way a doctor would even try to do what my wife had done when she was a kid. Maybe if doctor/patient consultations were more than 4 minutes the docotors would feel more comfortable using all their training and skill to help their patients get through the everyday achs, pains, and boo boos of everyday life.

 

[Bob]

MRI's are expensive because the scanners are expensive to purchase, and they are also very expensive to operate. It's not a situation where you buy it and then it doesn't cost you anything to use. Did you know the magnets in MRI machines are super cooled?

Some drugs cost a lot becuase they are extremely expensive to develop and are used to treat very rare ailments.

do the 95 dollar tylenols treat headache induced by hospital bill viewing?

 

[30ashopper]

do the 95 dollar tylenols treat headache induced by hospital bill viewing?

I've never heard of such a thing happening, but I am familiar with the problem excessive fees for things in hospitals. Two of the causes - legal issues and the costs of insuring a hospital and it's staff, and second the fact that hospitals must provide care regardless of whether or not they will get paid by those they treat.

Obama's mandate should help with the second problem - we might see some percentage drop of fees for treatment due to this, but likely not much. The mandate is coupled to restrictions of non-refusal, so it's really aimed at evening those costs out.

People who get subsidized care through Obama's plan will also see a signifigant reduction in costs as someone else will be footing the bill for them.

Tort reform however doesn't appear to be something Obama's interested in doing, so unfortunately the first problem will remain.

 

[30ashopper]

When my wife was a kid (1970) she broke both of her arms. Her mom, a mother of 4 took her and all her brothers to her piediatrition ( I can't spell it) on a saturday. The doc set both of her arms, and put them in casts. Her mama wrote a check to the doc and that was it. Of course more visits afterwards. But her doctor handled the whole thing by herself without endless costs and tests.
No emergency room. No team of specialists. No MRI CAT scan not even an x-ray. Just a good doc who knows her patients and is competent and CARES.

An accident like that today, there is no way anyone would be able to see their doctor on a saturday as an emergency. No way that could be handled in office, and no way anyone could just up and pay for it with cash on hand. and incase you were wondering, both of my wifes' arms work fine. She is not deformed or limited in any way. She had a good doctor who knew her history, knew her job, and did what needed to be done. The docotor took the responsibility for the whole thing.
That is what the "world's best healthcare" should be about.
Yes there are conditions that require a lot of special drugs, treatments, extended stays, and very high bills. but normal everyday stuff should be affordable.
There is no way a doctor would even try to do what my wife had done when she was a kid. Maybe if doctor/patient consultations were more than 4 minutes the docotors would feel more comfortable using all their training and skill to help their patients get through the everyday achs, pains, and boo boos of everyday life.

Two words, "tort reform". If her doctor tried that today and messed up, he'd get sued into oblivion.

Another comment I'd make - an x-ray or MRI before setting a broken arm isn't always a "bad thing"! We should be very thankful for the advances medical science has made over the last forty years.

 

[Matt J]

Would the personal injury goons, er, lawyers please raise their hands?

 

[Miss Kitty]

Would the personal injury goons, er, lawyers please raise their hands?

They can't. They are holding their weighted down wallets in one hand and the ambulance door with the other. :roll:

TORT REFORM!

 

[30ashopper]

Republicans have long argued that the system is weighted against doctors. They say that limitless damage awards lead to crushing insurance costs for doctors, who pass them along to patients, and that physicians are practicing defensive medicine, which drives up health care costs through unnecessary treatments. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) argues that reforming this system will help drive down health care costs and expand coverage.

“We cannot possibly reduce the cost of health care in this country without reducing defensive medicine,” he said.

According to one GOP Senate aide, defensive medicine accounts for a third of health care spending.

Also, Republicans say, the burden of medical malpractice insurance costs drive doctors, especially obstetrics and gynecology physicians, out of practice, leading to less access to this type of care.

Democrats reject this argument, countering that the current system is necessary to protect patients from medical mistakes that can cause them irreparable harm.

“I honestly really don’t see this as a health care issue,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). Instead, the Senator, a former Rhode Island attorney general, argued that medical malpractice is more of an “intruder” into the debate to protect insurance companies, hospitals and doctors from being accountable for their mistakes.

Both parties have already gotten into scuffles in the HELP Committee over the issue as Democrats have fought back two malpractice amendments. Many more amendments on malpractice are expected in the committee and on the Senate floor.

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), HELP’s ranking member, withdrew an amendment giving grants to states for the development, implementation and evaluation of alternatives to current tort litigation. A Gregg amendment to cap damage awards against ob-gyn doctors was defeated mostly along party lines.

Gregg had argued that medical liability lawsuits were having a “devastating effect on women and children and pre-natal care.”

But Whitehouse and other Democrats were not convinced. Whitehouse responded that while many Republicans complain about massive settlements, “the settlements are massive because the errors are massive.”

Gregg conceded in an interview that while Republicans will continue to raise the issue and offer amendments, “we won’t win.” Republicans simply lack the numbers to overcome Democrats’ opposition to such reforms.

“The trial bar has an iron-clad grip on the Democratic caucus,” he said.

GOP Pushing Malpractice Reform - Roll Call

Obama so far doesn't appear to be interested in much reform in this area either. Time will tell I guess.

 

[Matt J]

GOP Pushing Malpractice Reform - Roll Call

Obama so far doesn't appear to be interested in much reform in this area either. Time will tell I guess.

It is scary the number of ambulance chasers in the Democratic Party. In fact it's one of my biggest gripes about the party. I understand protecting people from big business or holding people/business liable for misdeeds, injuries, etc. However I disagree that the person performing the legal services is entitled to a jewel encrusted solid gold house.

I'm with Miss Kitty.

TORT REFORM!

 

[Winnie]

MRI's are expensive because the scanners are expensive to purchase, and they are also very expensive to operate. It's not a situation where you buy it and then it doesn't cost you anything to use. Did you know the magnets in MRI machines are super cooled?

Some drugs cost a lot becuase they are extremely expensive to develop and are used to treat very rare ailments.

It doesn't cost everybody $4,000. It costs the uninsured more than the insured. That is a BIG problem that could be fixed.

One of the things I don't like about the plan is requiring everyone to be insured. Like President Obama told the AMA, preventive steps are part of the solution.

The current plan sort of penalizes a person for working out and staying away from junk food. A person in their 20's that is not overweight and avoids all the "bad for you" pitfalls, could easily get by with little insurance coverage if any. Maybe a catastrophic plan only.

If the government mandates the amount of coverage you must have, it would have to be at a level that protects the average American who does not make all the healthy choices. Poor, healthy 24 year old, gym-rat John will have to help pay for 35 year old, junk food junkie, chain smoking, couch-potato Jane to have the same coverage. I see no built-in financial incentive to eat clean, moderate vices, and exercise.

Of course, they may yet get around to that. Maybe it's already in the details. There needs to be some level of personal responsibility. Good behavior should be encouraged and bad behavior discouraged.

I did read today that the White House is open to not having a public health-insurance plan.