We aint SO bad... (American Medical System, Part Deux)

W

woahitsbriannat

New member
Feb 25, 2008
26
0
1
DENVER — Three hospitals taking care of people wounded in the Colorado theater shooting said Wednesday they will limit or completely wipe out medical bills for the victims.

Some victims, many of them young, are uninsured and face mounting hospital bills.

Children's Hospital Colorado announced it would use donations and its charity care fund to cover the medical expenses of the uninsured. For those who do have insurance, the hospital says it will waive all co-pays for shooting victims it is treating.

"We are committed to supporting these families as they heal," according to a statement from the hospital, which treated six shooting victims.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48328035#.UBFtHfWtTAU
 
Hmmmm...at risk of starting things up again.
If you had the NHS (or similar) then they wouldn't need to take such measures.
I thought this sort of thing would annoy you Mike because the people with no insurance (the people you don't want to support) are actually getting better treatment (not having to pay anything) than the people that do have insurance.

I think this is one case where we are so different and coming from such different angles that we'll never really meet in the middle.
Where you see something good I see something avoidable.
 
I see something good being done - however it's also something which I don't believe should be necessary.
 
Avoidable is past tense and does little to help people with bullet holes in their faces. THIS does. Isnt that really the most important thing? Yesterday, everyone was upset that these people might be stuck with medical bills... TAA DAAAA.. now their not and you're STILL jabbing fingers. LOL, I think you're right, PA. But it was worth a shot - no pun intended.
 
Fair enough. But I still get better medical care than you do so I wont complain. Yours might be cheaper, but theres usually a REASON something is cheaper


AAAAAAAND I win.


*EDIT: That was a joke. I just forgot the smilies.
 
I see what you're saying, but you're still not taking things in context, but rather still doing a comparison of "us vs Them". In the blog "Blue Genes" posted out of the UK, the writer states:



So, we have to dismiss the ours is better way of thinking because, as the rednecks say, that dawg wont hunt. So rather, we need to look at this in terms of what IS in place and how it can serve best those few who deserve most.

America, as a rule, is anti anything remotely "social" but we tip-toe that way when no one is looking. We were founded on the belief that every man has the same right to make what ever life he chooses and then to live within those means. So a nation-wide, social approach is foreign to us at our very core. Granted, now that there are less actual Americans and more "people who just run shops here" its not as strong, but it still exists.

The blog also goes on to say in one place: "we actually provide more care to more people at the same cost." but fails to mention the part earlier where they skip across: "Its disadvantages are: patchy funding depending on region for high-tech treatments that have a poor cost-effectiveness or are purely elective (the ‘postcode lottery’), wards with little privacy, and high rates of hospital-acquired infection."

So, in effect, you provide more care, of potentially lower quality, to more people at the same price we charge for the best care out there. And on top of it all, we spread the risk of hospital acquired infection, like spreading jam on toast. What good is treatment for the masses if the masses all come down with staff infections which require MORE treatment? According to the blog, some areas don't possess the tools to perform the more high-techy procedures. You can go to any place in the country and find adequately funded and supplied clinics, pharmacies, and Emergency care facilities.

Our system may be foreign, but only in so far as people are expected to toe the line. In return, they get the best bang for the buck. If you can't pay, there are programs out there designed to HELP so that you can STILL get the best bang for the buck. The only difference, really, is that where our system is privatized, yours is government run.

If someone here doesnt have insurance, they may qualify for medicaid or some other programs. The percentage of folks that don't qualify for that, often pay for their own healthcare insurance privately or find alternate methods of payment to the hospital directly. But in the end, they ALL GET TREATED, just like you.

I realized, we're going back and forth over billing practices essentially. Thats bureaucracy, not medicine, PA. Thats bean counters, not doctors.
 
You know, I hate to say this Mikey but (I'm not American and I'm not British) I would take a British doctor over an American doctor 9 times out of 10. Yes the best can be very good but the poorer end of the scale can be atrocious (that is my perception after having done training with doctors in 3 different countries). I don't really want to come across with truisms but I would rather trust the analytical skills developed by doctors here in the NHS than hope I was lucky enough to get one of the better ones available privately in the US.

You can't be sure of the ''bang for your buck'' and that leaves the consumer in an odd place.

I think too many times that technology is relied upon when common sense might be the better option.

Just my opinion but hey, that's what all this is about anyways. If you are happy then great, I just hope you never end up in an area where there is a shortage of good docs.

Just sayin'

LFD
 
This may shock you but I agree with a good bit of that.

Here's a joke. What do you call a man who graduated LAST in his class in medical school?



Doctor.

You can never be sure. You really cant. I have had some STELLAR doctors and, likewise, I've had some doctors I swear were really Janitors... or psych patients who'd stolen a lab coat. But I suspect thats true nearly anywhere to some degree or another.

Oddly, most of the doctors I see here today are NOT native Americans. Thats not a dig against anyone, just a statement of fact. When I say native, I guess I mean fat, balding caucasians with last names like smith. Although, the doctor who's treating my knee is BRILLIANT and he's a born and bred American. However, he's a specialist so that probably doesnt help matters.

I think Doctors, much like mechanics (hang with me a minute), are similar in that you pretty much reap whatever THEY SEW. They all look the same when you line them up in rows. Mechanics look like other mechanics, Doctors like other doctors. You really can't tell at a glance or even a brief conversation. I tend to go by word of mouth or, and I HAVE done this, I interview. I do. I ask questions about education, experience, failures and successes. A good doctor, as well as a good mechanic, will take the time and talk to you. A bad one wont. I've had a doctor tell me he didnt have the time or the inclination to dictate his biography to me and unless I had a pressing medical issue not to waste his time. Needless to say I left hard upon the close of his sentence. And wouldnt you know it? Not three months later, his office closed under malpractice allegations. Coincidence? Maybe.

Anyway, I don't think the Brits have cornered the market on good doctors, and we haven't cornered the market on fat bald Caucasian ones. But I DO agree with much of what you said
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top