By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Healthcare isn't a business, it's peoples lives

Kasz216 on 26 April 2009
akuma587 said:

I heard a pretty good article on NPR today talking about something like this.  They were talking about a pretty good idea of having an independent commission (which can be defined in a lot of different ways) decide what procedures are necessary based on their effectiveness rather than having government officials or insurance companies make that decision.  I thought it was a pretty good idea, and a politically palatable one for most people.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103458129

The problem is... that tends to not work well. 

Decisions like that are far too "case by case" basis.  So you end up with what they have in the UK.

Different commissions for each region.

The problem being this leads to unequal and uneven treatment among areas... making healthcare even more arbitrary and a "postcard lottery" for treatment.

It would probably be state based.



Around the Network
akuma587 on 26 April 2009

The fact is that it is already happening and going to happen in the future.  The main question is who is going to be in charge of doing it.  I see something similar to this as the only "acceptable" solution.

And it is true that there is substantial evidence that one of the biggest drivers of cost in medicine in America is people seeking treatment and medicine that they don't actually need.  People tend to think that if it is more expensive that they probably need it (which is pretty common in American culture).  This is from the CBO.  You can click the link to see a guy critique what they have said.


U.S. spends $700 billion on unnecessary medical tests

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/11/07/us-spends-700-billion-on-unnecessary-medical-tests/


November 7, 2008 in Health Insurance, Public Policy

“Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that 5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product-—$700 billion per year –goes to tests and procedures that do not actually improve health outcomes…The unreasonably high cost of health care in the United States is a deeply entrenched problem that must be attacked at its root.”

This quotation comes from a Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) report.  There is little doubt that much of health care is unnecessary or at least is not worthwhile in the cost-benefit sense.  However, how do we fix this problem?  PPI has some suggestions which the Healthcare Economist will scrutinize.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo on 26 April 2009
akuma587 said:
That's kind of the reason why there are several factors on the list, so that no one factor throws off the balance.

Its like saying, "Man, this car has great seat belts! It must be the safest care ever!" But if it can't withstand a collision, it is not very safe. Gauging anything by just one factor gives you a bad idea of what the quality of that thing really is.

 

But what is this factor telling you about healthcare?

Nothing. Only that it's less "fair" in one country over another. That has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare with respect to other locations around the world.

It's a pointless factor when ranking countries.

If I want to look at a list, and pick the country that has the best healthcare, that list does not provide it, so what's the list for?



Kasz216 on 26 April 2009
akuma587 said:

The fact is that it is already happening and going to happen in the future.  The main question is who is going to be in charge of doing it.  I see something similar to this as the only "acceptable" solution.

And it is true that there is substantial evidence that one of the biggest drivers of cost in medicine in America is people seeking treatment and medicine that they don't actually need.  People tend to think that if it is more expensive that they probably need it (which is pretty common in American culture).  This is from the CBO.  You can click the link to see a guy critique what they have said.


U.S. spends $700 billion on unnecessary medical tests

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/11/07/us-spends-700-billion-on-unnecessary-medical-tests/


November 7, 2008 in Health Insurance, Public Policy

“Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that 5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product-—$700 billion per year –goes to tests and procedures that do not actually improve health outcomes…The unreasonably high cost of health care in the United States is a deeply entrenched problem that must be attacked at its root.”

This quotation comes from a Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) report.  There is little doubt that much of health care is unnecessary or at least is not worthwhile in the cost-benefit sense.  However, how do we fix this problem?  PPI has some suggestions which the Healthcare Economist will scrutinize.

 

Couldn't this eaisly be fixed by making it so the checkup doctors can't be the surgeons nor could someone in the practice?

Or that combined with a law making doctors salaried?  Seems easy enough.  "Well johnson probably needs back surgery but I don't want to do it. Oh wait i don't have too anyway.  I'll reccomend the surgery and give him teds number.  I hate ted."

Your trying to take a sledgehammer to something that needs a scapel.



jv103 on 28 April 2009

Look up "Brain-Drain" of developing countries by recruitment agencies in the west. Africa has lost a lot of doctors and nurses to NHS and U.S. based health care. At the same time, at least in the U.S., applicants to nursing school are turned down-not necessarily because of grades but because of the lack of nursing programs.



Around the Network
vlad321 on 29 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
That's kind of the reason why there are several factors on the list, so that no one factor throws off the balance.

Its like saying, "Man, this car has great seat belts! It must be the safest care ever!" But if it can't withstand a collision, it is not very safe. Gauging anything by just one factor gives you a bad idea of what the quality of that thing really is.

 

But what is this factor telling you about healthcare?

Nothing. Only that it's less "fair" in one country over another. That has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare with respect to other locations around the world.

It's a pointless factor when ranking countries.

If I want to look at a list, and pick the country that has the best healthcare, that list does not provide it, so what's the list for?

I believe it says "Health System' right on  top of the page....

The statistic is a very important factor in a ntation's healthcare. As said before, what does it matter if it's good if only 5 people i a country of several million can get it? It doesn't and the country may as well have shitty health care.

 



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

akuma587 on 29 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:

The fact is that it is already happening and going to happen in the future.  The main question is who is going to be in charge of doing it.  I see something similar to this as the only "acceptable" solution.

And it is true that there is substantial evidence that one of the biggest drivers of cost in medicine in America is people seeking treatment and medicine that they don't actually need.  People tend to think that if it is more expensive that they probably need it (which is pretty common in American culture).  This is from the CBO.  You can click the link to see a guy critique what they have said.


U.S. spends $700 billion on unnecessary medical tests

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/11/07/us-spends-700-billion-on-unnecessary-medical-tests/


November 7, 2008 in Health Insurance, Public Policy

“Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that 5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product-—$700 billion per year –goes to tests and procedures that do not actually improve health outcomes…The unreasonably high cost of health care in the United States is a deeply entrenched problem that must be attacked at its root.”

This quotation comes from a Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) report.  There is little doubt that much of health care is unnecessary or at least is not worthwhile in the cost-benefit sense.  However, how do we fix this problem?  PPI has some suggestions which the Healthcare Economist will scrutinize.

 

Couldn't this eaisly be fixed by making it so the checkup doctors can't be the surgeons nor could someone in the practice?

Or that combined with a law making doctors salaried?  Seems easy enough.  "Well johnson probably needs back surgery but I don't want to do it. Oh wait i don't have too anyway.  I'll reccomend the surgery and give him teds number.  I hate ted."

Your trying to take a sledgehammer to something that needs a scapel.

Yes, potentially, although you underestimate how much legislation would have to be passed and how much resistance there would be to some of the things you are suggesting.  When you pass laws dictating what people's pay can and cannot be, the American public tends to get a little bit iffy.  You will see some major revolts.  Its not just about what will work, but also what is politically acceptable.  The best solution is often the least popular.  Why do you think raising taxing and cutting spending happen so rarely, even when Republicans are in office?

And you would have to see a lot of laws passed restricting what insurance companies can do as well, as the rates they are charging people are a big part of the problem as well.  Pretty much anyway you look at it, there is no "scalpel" solution.  There has to be some major reconstructive surgery that will fundamentally change the healthcare industry.

But I am open to alternative methods that would actually work.  I don't think that the government getting more involved is the only option, I just think it is the most inevitable option.  And anyway you look at it the government will be intruding on the healthcare.  Regulation and strict rules are just as offensive to some people as government involvement.  So really what you are suggesting IS the government getting involved in healthcare, just not in the same way.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

ManusJustus on 29 April 2009

I dont get it.

Socialist healthcare is more efficient (less cost for more quality) and as such Europe has better healthcare that costs less. So why would we not want to move towards that model when we have free market healthcare (and isome progams that provide government funded free market healthcare such)?