Conservapedia: The funniest site in the world
-
Hey, whoever it was upthread who said his dad had an MRI saying he needed immediate surgery--how would you have felt if the US had your country's universal health care and you couldn't get that MRI at all?
Yes, because an ideally run health care system will do the required amount of testing so that not a single person dies of an undiagnosed condition. Brillant.
-
As an American in Canada, I had same day XRays with MRI as the backup plan, no problem at all. Paid out of pocket at the front desk when i left, and it cost in total about the same as my insurance deductible would have been anyway.
As for Frostcat's horrific DMV FUD, guess who decides whether your healthcare is paid for now... yes, little old ladies behind desks for insurance companies that also dont know or give a shit about medical treatment. They compare the submissions with their charts and if its good then its paid, otherwise tough. Ive already had to deal with a "little old lady" that rejected a previously fine claim, because she misread the pharmacy name. Twice we had to call back to point out that they failed at reading. Both times cost me multiple days of treatment.
You seem to think that universal healthcare means that the hospitals themselves will all be staffed by non-medical government workers. You've really bought into the propaganda. Congratulations
-
Yes, because an ideally run health care system will do the required amount of testing so that not a single person dies of an undiagnosed condition. Brillant.
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-07-27/
Also, I nominate you for a whoosh.
-
Both times cost me multiple days of treatment.
Also forgot to mention that the initial claim took over a month to process, so I had to wait a month to even start treatment. It was the 2nd and 3rd months that the re-up on the claim was rejected thanks to reading failures. Finally, after 4 months, things have been going smoothly.
-
Yes, because an ideally run health care system will do the required amount of testing so that not a single person dies of an undiagnosed condition. Brillant.
Like it or not, that is the standard, otherwise the lawyers come out to play. That's probably not helping with healthcare costs.
-
Yes, because an ideally run health care system will do the required amount of testing so that not a single person dies of an undiagnosed condition. Brillant.
But more directly, my whole point is that without the US system, he would not have had the MRI in time (it sounds like) and would have lost the use of the arm, or whatever.
People--and I don't necessarily include abarker here--loooove to bash the US system. Except until they need it. If Canada or whatever's universal health care is so great, then why do Canadians keep coming to the US to get procedures done in a timely manner?
-
Like it or not, that is the standard, otherwise the lawyers come out to play. That's probably not helping with healthcare costs.
Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that English people or whatever don;t suffer from "doctors over-test." What do you do if your mom dies because her doctor missed the problem because he didn't think it was worth doing a particular test? I assume, for the sake of consistency, you go "oh well, stiff upper lip and all that, rot, pip pip cheerio" or whatever.
-
Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that English people or whatever don;t suffer from "doctors over-test." What do you do if your mom dies because her doctor missed the problem because he didn't think it was worth doing a particular test? I assume, for the sake of consistency, you go "oh well, stiff upper lip and all that, rot, pip pip cheerio" or whatever.
But, there are always more tests to do and always more diseases to find. Thousands of people have undiagnosed cancer right now, some will die from it. However, no country can afford to find all of them. Somebody's mother is going to die today. Grow up and make some hard decisions.
-
But, there are always more tests to do and always more diseases to find.
Obviously you don't test forever. Honestly, are you channeling one of the more autistic-acting people, in this thread?
-
Obviously you don't test forever. Honestly, are you channeling one of the more autistic-acting people, in this thread?
Nope. Just mentioning that we're already over the line of how much we should test. The fact that the US has worse health care outcomes than other countries that focus less on diagnostics is pretty strong evidence.
-
Yes, because an ideally run health care system will do the required amount of testing so that not a single person dies of an undiagnosed condition.
In an ideally run system, yes, that is what would happen, to the extent our diagnostic knowledge allows it.
In the real system as it currently exists, you get a mish-mash of people being denied tests and/or treatment because insurance won't pay for it, and people receiving unnecessary tests because doctors are trying to CYA to avoid malpractice lawsuits.
-
If Canada or whatever's universal health care is so great, then why do Canadians keep coming to the US to get procedures done in a timely manner?
You got any hard data? The World Health Organization does and it says that Canadians get better results from their system than we do. Not better value, better results.
-
The fact that the US has worse health care outcomes than other countries that focus less on diagnostics is pretty strong evidence.
Hey, you know what? Don't come here then, if you ever can't get an MRI in a reasonable time in your own shithole country. We might screw up your diagnosis.
-
You got any hard data?
Sorry, only an endless parade of anecdotes of people who came to the US because they couldn't get a procedure done in a reasonable amount of time without coming to the US. Including one right here in this very thread. You know, by the guy whose dad didn't lose an arm because he came to the US.
-
In the real system as it currently exists, you get a mish-mash of people being denied tests and/or treatment because insurance won't pay for it, and people receiving unnecessary tests because doctors are trying to CYA to avoid malpractice lawsuits.
In other words: you've identified one of the sources of why health care in the US is more expensive than it should be. Thank you for your contribution.
-
Don't come here then, if you ever can't get an MRI in a reasonable time in your own shithole country.
I live in New York. I pay way too much and get way too little.
-
Sorry, only an endless parade of anecdotes of people who came to the US because they couldn't get a procedure done in a reasonable amount of time without coming to the US. Including one right here in this very thread. You know, by the guy whose dad didn't lose an arm because he came to the US.
Ahhhh... so no. Please don't tell me that you think that every time someone is successfully treated in this country that you've found proof that our delivery system is just fine. You could have a thousand anecdotes and have every one of them personally reply to this thread and it would still be statistically insignificant.
-
This thread needs more anecdotal evidence.
My daughter got bitten by a tick. It happens. She got the target-shaped rash that can indicate lyme disease.
So we took her to the hospital and got her tested. (We had insurance, if that matters).
It was going to take a few days to get the test results, so we started treatment just in case.
Test came back negative. We were told that the rash is more reliable than the test, and we already had the prescription, so we should continue treatment.
So why was the test ever performed at all?
-
I live in New York. I pay way too much and get way too little.
Hey, guess what? We already knew your second sentence from your first.
-
So why was the test ever performed at all?
In case you're the kind of dumbass who doesn't start the treatment when told?
-
Please don't tell me that you think that every time someone is successfully treated in this country that you've found proof that our delivery system is just fine
Yes, that's what I was trying to tell you. rolls eyes
-
you've identified one of the sources of why health care in the US is more expensive than it should be.
No shit. I don't remember whether that reason was mentioned previous in this topic, but it has never been in doubt.
My point was that an ideally managed system, both of those situations would be avoided. An ideally managed system can never exist in reality, but that is (one of) the goal(s) toward which it should strive.
you've found proof that our delivery system is just fine.
TDEMSYR. Nobody is saying it's fine; nobody but an idiot would think so. We are arguing about how to fix something that is obviously broken, without breaking it in a different way. This particular argument is that there is at least anecdotal evidence that some of the proposed fixes may break one aspect of the system that is (maybe) currently better than systems similar to those being proposed. That is not claiming that our system isn't broken.
-
In case you're the kind of dumbass who doesn't start the treatment when told?
So I wouldn't treat her when she had a rash and no test results, but I would treat her when she had a rash and negative test results?
Seems more likely that I would cease treatment after receiving the negative result.
Why not just say the rash is the best indicator, and not even mention the test to me?
-
Yes, that's what I was trying to tell you.
Ok, somebody is trying to say it isn't broken. Feel free to ignore at least that part of his argument.
-
So I wouldn't treat her when she had a rash and no test results, but I would treat her when she had a rash and negative test results?
Listen, have you seen some of the people who show up at the hospital? Or, really, anywhere?
I dunno. I was just guessing. Maybe they figured you already had the medicine, so you might as well use it. I don't know.
-
Why not just say the rash is the best indicator, and not even mention the test to me?
I can think of two reasons, and neither reflects well on the doctor.
- CYA. Avoid potential malpractice suit by being "thorough" if it is unnecessary.
- Profit.
-
I dunno. I was just guessing. Maybe they figured you already had the medicine, so you might as well use it. I don't know.
If the medicine is safe enough to do that, why give the test at all? Just prescribe the treatment for anyone with the rash.
The only answer I've been able to come up with is, this way they (the Hospital Administration) get to charge for the test.
-
It's not just different, it's wrong.
Here we go. More NUH UH.
You seem to think that universal healthcare means that the hospitals themselves will all be staffed by non-medical government workers.
It depends on the sort of Universal Healthcare that happens, of course. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.
As for Frostcat's horrific DMV FUD, guess who decides whether your healthcare is paid for now... yes, little old ladies behind desks for insurance companies that also dont know or give a shit about medical treatment.
You're just being a centrist concern troll and pretending that anyone opposed to the USG getting more involved in their lives wants insurance companies more involved in their lives. I don't understand why you keep doing this.
The fact that the US has worse health care outcomes than other countries that focus less on diagnostics is pretty strong evidence.
It's evidence, but not strong evidence. Unless you're confusing health care outcomes with cost. Of course, lots of non-economic factors are at play, too.
If you suggest, for example, that our current regime of mamograms is inefficient and we could do just as well with a lot less testing (which is one thing you're arguing for) then you're engaging in a War On Women.
-
Why not just say the rash is the best indicator, and not even mention the test to me?
I have a friend who had this happen to him. Rash, negative test, continue treatment. He had other symptoms, too, and those went away after treatment.
The only answer I've been able to come up with is, this way they (the Hospital Administration) get to charge for the test.
Not to mention lawsuits, etc.
-
cdosrun1 said:
The only answer I've been able to come up with is, this way they (the Hospital Administration) get to charge for the test.Not to mention lawsuits, etc.
Might be a failure on my part- US legal system is screwed up enough. But I don't really see how performing the test, a test so inaccurate you're going to ignore the results, protects anyone.
It seems like telling people the test came back negative could result in them terminating treatment early- Either because they are concerned about side effects or because they just don't bother any more.
In fact, it seems you provide better health care outcomes by charging for the test, throwing away the blood sample, and then saying "Yep. Came back positive". Use the money to research a better test, then provide the test to the Germans royalty free.
I'm not saying eliminating the test for lyme disease will fix the US health care system- but in my (extremely) inexpert opinion that fixing the attitudes that lead to performing this test, will go a long way to fixing the system as a whole.
-
I'm not saying eliminating the test for lyme disease will fix the US health care system- but in my (extremely) inexpert opinion that fixing the attitudes that lead to performing this test, will go a long way to fixing the system as a whole.
Definitely. I recall seeing something similar with respect to treating some sort of heart condition. At some point in time, a "Best Practice" (not the actual term, but gets the point across) in the industry was decided upon. Later studies showed that there were better ways to deal with it.
Doctors still followed the old thing, even when they knew about the better ways, for various reasons, including insurance (patient's and malpractice) and some other stuff. It can be very difficult for evidence to pierce the veil of common practice, for lots of reasons.
I imagine this tendency protects us in some cases, where some faddish thing supported by a bad (by chance or design) study until it can be confirmed. But it also holds us back in others.
-
It depends on the sort of Universal Healthcare that happens, of course. Maybe it will, maybe it won't
seriously? that's too laughable. <sarcasm> Those government staffers sure made for great doctors in Canada. </sarcasm> In case you're confused, no, they don,t use govt staff hospitals as doctors in Canada.
anyone opposed to the USG getting more involved in their lives wants insurance companies more involved in their lives
I don't think you want it. It's just hard to believe that the people against a different payment system could truly believe what you have reaffirmed above. I just gave you guys your favorite piece of proof, the anecdotal kind, about how the insurance companies are doing the exact same bullshit you think you're trying to save us from.
-
-
seriously? that's too laughable. <sarcasm> Those government staffers sure made for great doctors in Canada. </sarcasm> In case you're confused, no, they don,t use govt staff hospitals as doctors in Canada.
Huh? I thought by "staffers" you meant the people who weren't doctors, as in the administrators. Since we were talking about who was in charge.
I just gave you guys your favorite piece of proof, the anecdotal kind, about how the insurance companies are doing the exact same bullshit you think you're trying to save us from.
And you still can't get your strawman out of your head?
ok you got me there
I know. Your trolling is like the perennial "centrist" idiot who thinks he's wise because he refuses to decide, or really thinks cutting the baby in half is a good idea.
-
I just gave you guys your favorite piece of proof, the anecdotal kind, about how the insurance companies are doing the exact same bullshit you think you're trying to save us from.
Not sure why I'm doing this, but hey, slow morning.
What I haven't seen is how moving to a single payer system fixes anything.
Right now, we have a system where, for various reasons, medical care costs too much. Part of the reason this system evolved is because the method of paying for medical care doesn't expose the consumer to the real cost- and especially not in a manner where the consumer can make informed decisions regarding that cost.
Your proposal further insulates the consumer from that cost. In my (and others) minds, this seems more likely to worsen the underlying issue.
In theory, the Federal Government might take over and start making those sort price comparisons. Examining our current publicly funded (Yet not, as you point out, universal) health care options show that this does not happen today. In fact, legislation has been passed specifically preventing that kind of negotiation.
As such, my own personal attitude is that the liberals can dick around with single payer all they want- wake me up when they stop wanting to fix Health Care Insurance and start actually wanting to fix Health Care. If Health Care costs 25% of GDP (Yes, I know it doesn't... yet), doesn't matter if you pay for it out of taxes or insurance premiums, it's still a problem.
None anecdotal evidence available on request, but I'm not going to cite every damn sentence- Tell me which specific point you disagree with.
-
the method of paying for medical care doesn't expose the consumer to the real cost- and especially not in a manner where the consumer can make informed decisions regarding that cost
I have to say I find the idea of a consumer making informed decisions regarding medical costs immensly funny. This is because:
-
The more expensive the procedure, the more likely that we're dealing with a "what's your life worth to ya?" situation,
-
There's a cost floor to medical costs - especially the aforementioned life-saving procedures.
-
-
I have to say I find the idea of a consumer making informed decisions regarding medical costs immensly funny.
It's difficult for people to consider things from outside of their perspective.
The more expensive the procedure, the more likely that we're dealing with a "what's your life worth to ya?" situation,
Possibly. But even so, there are many types of surgery (and that's a big chunk of the super expensive stuff) that aren't life / time critical. And obviously, like with anything else, there are different ways to compete. We recently shopped around for an orthopedic surgeon, and went with the most expensive (since he doesn't really participate with insurance) because we trusted him to do the best job.
But there's also the stuff like the Lyme disease test.
There's a cost floor to medical costs - especially the aforementioned life-saving procedures.
I don't get what you're trying to say. There's a cost floor to pretty much everything.
Your argument seems to me to boil down to not even being able to imagine people figuring out how to make things work without someone telling everyone what to do.
EDIT: Oh, in case @aapis is still following, I'll put it in terms he can understand: NUH UH!
-
I don't get what you're trying to say.
This does not surprise me. For some strange reason, these things seem hard for you.
I'll try to make it simple:
Ad 1: Price gouging on medical services is easy, because of how important these services are.
Ad 2: Even if you're dealing with a service provider that isn't buggering you up the bum, most crucial procedures are beyond the means of the average Joe - were he to pay for them from his own funds.
-
This does not surprise me. For some strange reason, these things seem hard for you.
I'll try to make it simple:
Ad 1: Price gouging on medical services is easy, because of how important these services are.
Ad 2: Even if you're dealing with a service provider that isn't buggering you up the bum, most crucial procedures are beyond the means of the average Joe - were he to pay for them from his own funds.
Both of these statements seem true of our current system, and the second, of any system I can name off the top of my head.
Doesn't mean that the consumer not making the choice didn't help contribute to our current problems- But then, you didn't disagree with my statement that it did, just pointed out that fixing it wasn't easy. Agreed.
-
I'm simply pointing out that a lot of the time the consumer doesn't have much of a choice. There's a limit to how cheap medical services can be and at the same time, you're often dealing with a situation where going without means not going on for much longer.
Funnily enough, state-funded healthcare generally gets around both problems - perhaps in the most elegant way possible - but I'll let @boomzilla figure that one out.
-
I'll try to make it simple:
Ad 1: Price gouging on medical services is easy, because of how important these services are.
Ad 2: Even if you're dealing with a service provider that isn't buggering you up the bum, most crucial procedures are beyond the means of the average Joe - were he to pay for them from his own funds.
The problem is that none of that is what I'd describe as a "cost floor." Also, you're wrong:
Ad 1: Sure, price gouging happens in many industries. There's actually evidence that prices can / will come down in medical services. Some was even pointed out in this thread.
Ad 2: So what? So are things like cars or houses, and yet people figure out how to buy them all the time. They figure out how to pay for medical stuff, too.
I'm simply pointing out that a lot of the time the consumer doesn't have much of a choice.
That's true sometimes, and for a lot of stuff. Like getting ripped off on the price of food in an amusement park. That doesn't mean that we should just give up and enjoy the suck.
-
How are you people still pretty much on topic?
-
Funnily enough, state-funded healthcare generally gets around both problems - perhaps in the most elegant way possible - but I'll let @boomzilla figure that one out.
And what are the tradeoffs? Are you simple minded like @aapis and think there aren't any?
We have very different ideas about what "elegant" means.
-
Funnily enough, state-funded healthcare generally gets around both problems - perhaps in the most elegant way possible - but I'll let @boomzilla figure that one out.
I don't see this as a true statement in the US. In fact, it's currently illegal for Medicare (one of the state funded healthcare options in the US) is specifically barred from making these sort of decisions around prescription drug prices. The VA (Another state funded health care option) has had a huge raise in per-patient spending with level of care declining.
As I'm not Boomzilla, can you explain to me (perhaps using small words) how state funding inherently fixes this problem?
-
seriously? that's too laughable. <sarcasm> Those government staffers sure made for great doctors in Canada. </sarcasm> In case you're confused, no, they don,t use govt staff hospitals as doctors in Canada.
You seem to be assuming that Universal Healthcare, if implemented in the U.S., would be similar to Canada's implementation. To say that is an invalid assumption would be the understatement of the year. Unless we replace everyone in Washington, Universal Healthcare would essentially be implemented by the same people who got us into this mess, and is therefore guaranteed to be a steaming pile of WTF.
As I'm not Boomzilla, can you explain to me (perhaps using small words) how state funding inherently fixes this problem?
It's quite simple, really.
Government is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. How could it not be fixed if government addresses it?
You may wonder how that sort of belief continues given that a trip to almost any inner-city public school should be enough to dispel it. The answer lies in the three attributes I listed and the other entity these attributes have historically been ascribed to. Religions are generally impervious to facts.
-
I don't see this as a true statement in the US
Because the US doesn't have state-funded healthcare and what it does have is a joke.
As I'm not Boomzilla, can you explain to me (perhaps using small words) how state funding inherently fixes this problem?
I'll probably have to, but not just yet. Hint: disinterested third party.
-
Because the US doesn't have state-funded healthcare and what it does have is a joke.
And, let's be honest, the knowledge of our actual system and its financing held by most people outside of the US is a joke. Again, several good demonstrations of that in this thread.
-
Because the US doesn't have state-funded healthcare and what it does have is a joke.
Can I ask you why you feel the US doesn't have state funded health care?
My family receives VA Benefits. The state absolutely funds it. And it provides (limited) health care. Why do you feel this doesn't count?
-
@GOG said:
Because the US doesn't have state-funded healthcare and what it does have is a joke.
And, let's be honest, the knowledge of our actual system and its financing held by most people outside of the US is a joke. Again, several good demonstrations of that in this thread.
But let's ask, why do foreigners think the public systems we have are jokes? The most commonly expressed opinion seems to be that it's because they don't cover enough people. But I'd be interested to hear something substantive about them beyond the NUH UH of "doesn't fit universal coverage standards."
-
Why do you feel this doesn't count?
It's all a matter of definitions. VA is a special agency for a select (and small) part of the population. Technically it is a form of state-funded healthcare, but it doesn't speak much to the US healthcare system as a whole.
