I used to think I was lucky.Follow

Change never comes from inertia.

I typo-ed. Now it's permanent.

Interesting comment from a guy who's just guessing... The "fact" is that only 9% of people living in the US (that includes illegals btw) need assistance paying for health insurance (ie: They can't actually afford it on their own). This does not mean that all of them cannot afford *any* health care. Just that they can't purchase health insurance without assistance.

But hey. Quoting 16% sounds better than 9%. Which was my point...



ok

Or this

And this

Or this

Is there anyone who isn't aware that long delays to get diagnosed is a major problem in the UK NHS? That's what I was talking about. While there is some rationing of care as well, the biggest problem is that tests for less common conditions (although you'd think the breast cancer stuff would be more common, but go figure) sometimes takes so long that the problem has advanced to an incurable state (or even fatal).





Sure...

Edited, Aug 25th 2009 12:59pm by gbaji

Because I'm in a better mood today than I was yesterday, I'll pleasantly point out that the delays they are talking about there is to do with genetic test results. Its relatively new, and is in the process of being hugely expanded to cover all women FOR FREE. Imagine that...

Actual breast cancer results are returned on the same day in most cases. In fact most surgeons now begin an operation as a lumpectomy, the lump is sent for testing, whilst the patient is asleep, and when the results come back owithin the next 15 to 20 minutes (its called frozen section), the surgeon then decides wether to close, or proceed further. (He doesn't need to wake you up to see if you have the right insurance cover either!)



It just goes to show that, as usual, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.


In fact, I have an idea.

Why dont you, gbaji, if you are really against free health care in the US, stop trying to use other countries health systems as an example and save your pathetically misinformed arguments for what is happening in your own backyard.?

For those of us who have worked in public health services for decades and know them inside and out, their advantages and disadvantages and the massive amount of good that has been achieved for individuals, families and communities wich by far makes up for the relatively small sums that we, as individuals need to pay to maintain them, your poisonous rhetoric, lies, innuendo and misinformed opinions about them is as offensive as it is wrong.

Stick to what you know about dude. (Everquest for example) You obviously know less than nothing about public health services in other countries.

Yes. Because it takes typically about 2-3 times longer in Europe to get diagnosed properly than it does in the US. They don't have to deny care. They just put you through a run-around getting the care you need if it's not on the common check list of standard government approved illnesses (and sometimes even when it is). You come in with the flu, you get a shot lickity split. You come in with a broken bone, no problem! You come in with some odd symptoms, which could be lupis, or could be some form of cancer, or it might be shingles, or it might be... well. You'd better hope its not something that will get significantly worse in the 6-18 months it'll take them to figure out what you've got and treat you.


I apologize if I wasn't completely clear, but this is *exactly* what I was talking about. Total time from when someone walks in the door until they receive treatment for the health problem they have includes diagnosis. Something which socialized medical systems tend to be poor at. Quite possibly because of the very issue of payment I mentioned earlier. Good diagnosticians are in high demand. They'll tend to gravitate to places like the US, where they can get paid more. What's left is the "lowest common denominator" medicine which you'll typically get in the UK. It's wonderful if you never get sick with something unusual. It's pretty horrible if you do.


I was making the point that there are trade offs with both systems. I stand by that point.

Provide proof that the delay in diagnosis is the government's fault in the majority of the situations.

Also, please revise your "6-18 month" guess, removing time for treatment. We've already covered that you can't find where that is an issue.



It's not that you weren't completely clear, it's that you said something completely different, got caught, and now you're backpedaling like it's your job.



Citation.

EDIT: lol4kget

Edited, Aug 25th 2009 7:54pm by CBD

I'm not sure where gbaji gets his numbers, but then it seems in his fantasy world 5 doctor visits a year seem a lot for healthy humans.

It's not hard to determine how many doctor visit an very healthy person should have each year. Age and gender need to be factor in aw well, as it's often normal for males to put off getting their annual check ups, while women tend to have at least 2 annual exams due to needing to see a GYN/OB for annual pelvic exam. Eye and dental exams add 2 or more visits a year.

While one shouldn't need to see a doctor for most minor illnesses, one can expect to have to take a child more then once a year for various childhood illnesses and occasional accidents.

After certain age one will also need every few years if not annually, to be screened for various illnesses. Even with a decent insurance plan the cost add up fast if you're face with anything major.

Now factor in that few people are lucky enough to have perfect health all though their life. Plus there are things healthy people often face that can increase their number of doctor visits any given year, such a pregnacy.

Develop or be born with an chronic illness and one's lucky to only have to see a doctor 3 or 4 times a year. Be mentally ill and it's easy to have to be seen 15 times a year, which makes the coverage that many insurance plans ofter for psychiatric appointments far too little if one needs medication and therapy.

So enjoy your good health while it lasts because like most Americans, you're just one medical crises away from financial ruin. Plus can it be the reason so few Americans see a doctor more then 5 times a year is the fact they can't afford it.

Even with Medicaid and State covering most of my medical care, there are some standard treatments for chronic pain, which I go without since they aren't covered for adults. One visit to a pain management clinic costs over one third of my monthly check. My medications under Jonwin's medical insurance would be more then his monthly income.

The facts just add up that most Americans would be far better off under a single payer system of health care.

As i've pointed out a few times now, he pulls them straight out of his ***** obviously.

This entire paragraph is fictional, for example :




And this one is not only fictional, its absolutely offensive to all of us second rate practioners who are too incompetant to get employment in the US...



Question gbaji. Has it occured to you that a fairly large proportion of the doctors who come to the US, do so, because they know they can make huge amounts of money from the system you have there rather than any percieved desire to work at the bleeding edge of medicine??

No? thought not....


I'm not sure why gbaji is making this stuff up. I mean, by all means formulate (make up) your own opinions, but making up *facts* that have no basis in reality is just laughable.

FYI, if you're interested and never have, you can now watch Sicko at FreeDocumentries.com

This thread seemed as good a place as any to let folks know. I make no claims for content on the rest of the site which seems to range between "pretty good" and "fringe wackiness"

Edited, Aug 25th 2009 8:04pm by Jophiel

Also availiable here.

Well worth a watch imo.

Aparently, because my wife and I choose to live and work somewhere other than the USA, I am incapable of thinking very hard....

Proof? It's a government run health care program. It has a poor record of diagnosis times. Where else should we be looking? The patients? This is diagnosis time *after* they've showed up to the first doctor. The doctors? Maybe. But they're part of the system. It's no different than blaming the insurance companies for the fact that some patients are denied coverage. In fact, that's the exact point I was responding to. In both cases, there is a desire to cut costs, which ultimately affects quality of service. In the US, under some conditions, your private insurer may not pay for a specific procedure. In the UK, under some conditions, the government run health system may take an abnormally long amount of time to figure out what is wrong with you.


I was merely pointing this out as a counter to the flaws with private health care. You're not really "comparing" two things unless you actually look at the good and bad of both. A whole lot of people seem to want to only look at the bad aspects of private health care, while ignoring the problems with government run health systems. All I was trying to do was point out that they are far from perfect.



I provided four separate links to four separate types of illnesses in which delays caused problems for patients in the UK NHS. My statement was not a guess. It was an approximation of the delays present in the four articles:

Infant tumors: 3 months.
Cancer in teens: 4 months.
Arthritis: 9 months.
Genetic breast cancer tests: 2 years.

The larger point being that in all four cases, the delays were directly attributed to significant health impact for the patients.

You kinda lose the right to demand I provide "proof" and "cites" if you refuse to read the links I provide.