Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Healthcare in America?


Recommended Posts

One proof of the inordinate amount of power and influence the medical profession has is the significance of the term Doctor.

Most websites and similar that asks for salutation or prefix where you fill out your name, etc. has the following selections:  Mr., Ms., Mrs., Dr.  So, right off the bat, the "doctors" get preferential treatment.

There are many other prefixes that people have earned, such as honorable, Rev., Sen., Mayor, Gov., Sgt, Sgt. Maj., Col, Adm, etc.

And medical doctors almost always sign their non-professional correspondence with Joe ****, MD to make sure the recipient knows how important they are. 

I am a member of several community organizations.  Whenever the list of members comes out the "doctors" always have the prefix, even the PhD's.  Nobody else on the list, not even mayor, sen. or rep. that are responsible for approving grants, gets a prefix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doctors and big pharma is going to PROFIT regardless if we have ACA, an alternative or none at all.

 

This is the PROBLEM!  Medical care shouldn't be high to begin with!

 

This is enough to make one sick!

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/americas-10-most-expensive-prescription-drugs.html

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this!  I think I've mentioned this before here, but I can't understand why there is such a disparity of medical care costs in America for the same procedures.  In Japan, every medical procedure of a certain type costs the same, whether you live in the northernmost reaches of Hokkaido or the southern part of Kyushu.  If someone in either of those regions needs care for say, a separated shoulder, they will be charged the same amount of money for the care they receive.  Here in the U.S., you find wide variations for the cost of care within a state or even certain parts of a large city.  To me, this is stupid and unfair.

 

In Germany, the government will pay for someone's medical education.  This means doctors and specialists will have minimal or even no debt once they get out of residency.  There are trade-offs for those receiving a medical degree.  First, if someone is ready to work as a cardiologist or general practitioner, for example, and they want to work in Frankfurt, the government has the right to assign them to Dresden if that area has a greater need for his or her services.  They have to commit to their assigned area for a certain period of time (maybe 3-5 years).  After that, they can apply for re-assignment to another part of the country, should they so desire, and they will be given priority on their requests, if at all possible.  Second, Germany puts limits on what a doctor can earn over the course of a year, depending on their field of expertise.  German doctors don't particularly like this restriction, but their malpractice insurance costs are only about 10% of what doctors in America pay.  Increases in annual salary are permitted, but they are closely monitored so they don't get out of hand as to be unaffordable for the patient or their insurance company.  This means (and I don't know anything about German law) there is probably a cap on malpractice awards if a patient is made worse by a doctor's mistake or negligence.  The doctor can be suspended or dismissed from the profession in such instances, which would be much more damaging to the medical professional compared to any monetary penalty they would incur.

 

Switzerland, home to many of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, allows for drug manufacturers to raise prices on their medications, but like other parts of Europe, increases in medical care, prescriptions, and insurance are limited by statute, and if they are deemed too large, those increases have to be justified by the company or national medical board before government approval is granted.  In the end, compromises seem to rule the day when it comes to higher costs associated with patient care.

 

There is no spirit of compromise for healthcare in the United States, because too many politicians and residents alike don't think affordable health care to its citizenry is a right.  I wouldn't be opposed to tearing down the healthcare system here, then starting from scratch, but we will probably die waiting for that day to come.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are not the lobbyists controlling the politicians part of the big problem?  The politicians don't act on behalf of the interests of the people.  I would argue that Trump and his billionaire cabinet is only exasperating this problem.  Not draining the swamp at all.  That was just the con.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are not the lobbyists controlling the politicians part of the big problem?  The politicians don't act on behalf of the interests of the people.  I would argue that Trump and his billionaire cabinet is only exasperating this problem.  Not draining the swamp at all.  That was just the con.

 

Yes, the definition of the swamp changed. During the campaign it was lobbyists, Wall Street bankers and other special interest groups. After the election, the swamp now means Democrats, or Republicans who oppose Trump's policies.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are not the lobbyists controlling the politicians part of the big problem?  The politicians don't act on behalf of the interests of the people.  I would argue that Trump and his billionaire cabinet is only exasperating this problem.  Not draining the swamp at all.  That was just the con.

 

About the only true statement President Trump has made since he's been in the White House is that fixing healthcare in America is complicated.  Lobbyists are a problem in Washington and not just as their work pertains to the medical industrial complex in this country.

 

Now, I'll give the politicians a bit of cover here.  If a member of Congress had a town hall-type meeting and randomly selected 15 or 20 audience members to spend a day with them to discuss their experiences with health care and what they thought worked well and didn't work well and what improvements could be made to our system from the ground up, you'd probably end up with 15 or 20 divergent views on what could or should be done to make health care affordable and equitable in the United States.

 

However, aside from failing to recognize health care as a right in America, too many politicians (especially Republicans) have a disturbing disdain for poor and impoverished people in my country.  Unfortunately, this lack of concern for these types of people (even the working poor) is not limited to the issue of health care.  We will see cuts to many social service programs as a way to improve our government budgets, thereby forcing people to take low-paying jobs and at the same time thwarting any attempts to raise the minimum wage.  Working a minimum wage job will pay an individual more than if they are receiving assistance, but the difference in earnings compared to benefits received is very tight.  Housing costs everywhere are high in comparison to wages earned.  Gas and grocery prices fluctuate and can work in the worker's favor, but once they start to rise and wages stagnate, the wage earner is in trouble.   Throw in an unexpected medical expense or auto repair bill, and the worker is right back to square one if not worse.  Many conservatives think churches will be the salvation of the impoverished in the U.S.  I think they are delusional.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

  "Many conservatives think churches will be the salvation of the impoverished in the U.S.  I think they are delusional."

 

Before the Great Depression, churches were the primary providers of help for poor, elderly, disabled, unemployed, etc.  But the Depression wiped them out financially, so Social Security and many other programs were created by the federal government.  The churches have never been able to provide support for those above since then, even if they wanted to.

 

The Republicans and conservatives do not really believe churches, charities, wealthy benfactors/donors, etc. will step up to take care of these people, nor do they care.  It is just a cover story they use.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the definition of the swamp changed. During the campaign it was lobbyists, Wall Street bankers and other special interest groups. After the election, the swamp now means Democrats, or Republicans who oppose Trump's policies.

 

The definition of the Swamp has not changed, it just now means something else when Trump says it. He has to deflect from his own reality, with so many swamp-dwellers now dwelling in this administration, by Trump's invitation. Just like Trump flipping the term Fake News, which had always meant the alt right garbage he espouses. Now it's anything Anti-Trump. The sad thing is his people believe it.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are not the lobbyists controlling the politicians part of the big problem?  The politicians don't act on behalf of the interests of the people.  I would argue that Trump and his billionaire cabinet is only exasperating this problem.  Not draining the swamp at all.  That was just the con.

Case in point. McConnell going to the lobbyists to help craft the recent healthcare proposal.

 

Trump is so for this. Get industry lobbyists to help craft your bill, or better yet, point out all the regulations you want them to be gotten rid of. The American people are the losers, including his enthusiastic supporters. But if you point this out, they parrot their madman leader, "Fake News!"

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

About the only true statement President Trump has made since he's been in the White House is that fixing healthcare in America is complicated.  Lobbyists are a problem in Washington and not just as their work pertains to the medical industrial complex in this country.

 

Now, I'll give the politicians a bit of cover here.  If a member of Congress had a town hall-type meeting and randomly selected 15 or 20 audience members to spend a day with them to discuss their experiences with health care and what they thought worked well and didn't work well and what improvements could be made to our system from the ground up, you'd probably end up with 15 or 20 divergent views on what could or should be done to make health care affordable and equitable in the United States.

 

However, aside from failing to recognize health care as a right in America, too many politicians (especially Republicans) have a disturbing disdain for poor and impoverished people in my country.  Unfortunately, this lack of concern for these types of people (even the working poor) is not limited to the issue of health care.  We will see cuts to many social service programs as a way to improve our government budgets, thereby forcing people to take low-paying jobs and at the same time thwarting any attempts to raise the minimum wage.  Working a minimum wage job will pay an individual more than if they are receiving assistance, but the difference in earnings compared to benefits received is very tight.  Housing costs everywhere are high in comparison to wages earned.  Gas and grocery prices fluctuate and can work in the worker's favor, but once they start to rise and wages stagnate, the wage earner is in trouble.   Throw in an unexpected medical expense or auto repair bill, and the worker is right back to square one if not worse.  Many conservatives think churches will be the salvation of the impoverished in the U.S.  I think they are delusional.

 

And all of this adds up to a case where millions of people are in no position to financially withstand a recession.  With a recession comes the loss of jobs.  And we know that one will come at some point.  And because Trump has now gotten rid of the banking restrictions that were put in place after 2008 you can expect to see tens of thousands of bankruptcies and people losing their homes when it all collapses.  But not to worry.  Trump liked the 2008 recession.  It was a great buying opportunity for him.  He said so himself in a debate with Clinton.  His base applauded him for it too.  I didn't know that many Americans were in favour of a total financial collapse.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dr. Henry Bello, had been fired by the hospital. Other media reports described Bello as a 45-year-old physician who specialized in family medicine.

WNBC television in New York, citing unnamed sources, reported he had resigned from the hospital in 2015 to avoid termination....

 

"Bello was listed as a family physician on the hospital website. However, despite the fact that Bello is listed as a doctor on the hospital website, The New York Post reported that “there are no state records of a Henry Bello with a medical license.”

A Dr. Henry Bello comes up as a “student in an Organized Health Care Education/Training Program” in the National Provider Identifier Database. The New York Times reported that Bello had “received a limited permit to practice as an international medical graduate” to gain experience but the permit expired in 2016. He previously had a pharmacy technician license in California.........

 

http://heavy.com/news/2017/06/henry-bello-doctor-lebanon-hospital-bronx-gunman-shooter-suspect-dr-photos/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nursing Homes Worry Proposed Medicaid Cuts Will Force Cuts, Closures-

 

"...About two-thirds of nursing home residents are paid for by Medicaid. And the Congressional Budget Office found that the Senate health care bill would cut Medicaid by more than $770 billion over the next decade...

 

According to the American Health Care Association (AHCA), a national trade group for nursing homes, the current Senate bill's cuts to Medicaid could mean that a typical nursing home would eventually run deficits of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year....

 

Betty had a career as a bookkeeper.... Now she's spent everything she had. There's no way she could afford the roughly $80,000 a year this nursing home costs. (That fee is pretty standard for nursing homes.) So it's Medicaid that enables her to stay here.

 

"There's nothing I can do about it," she says. "It's gotta be [Medicaid] or [i'm] out on the street. One or the other."

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/28/534764940/proposed-medicaid-cuts-likely-to-put-pressure-on-nursing-homes?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170630

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Activists across the country have provided real momentum to the idea of a single-payer health care system, pressing the issue in California and among leading figures in the Democratic Party.

The mere prospect of single payer, however, has elicited swift derision from some corners of the party, with Dick Gephardt, the former Democratic House minority leader, laughing off the idea at a health insurance conference earlier this month.

“Not in my lifetime,” scoffed Gephardt, when asked if the United States will ever adopt such a system.

 

“There is no way you could pass single payer in any intermediate future,” Gephardt declared. America, he added, has the “greatest health care system in the world, bar none.” And while single payer would provide universal coverage, there would be less quality and innovation without the “involvement of the private sector.”...

 

The claim that single payer suppresses innovation is an old argument that does not stand up to scrutiny. Most medical innovation in the U.S. are already government funded,...

Claims about lower quality care are also highly disputed, given that countries with single payer and tightly regulated universal health systems perform much higher than the U.S. in a range of health outcomes....

 

the health insurance industry has deployed sophisticated propaganda efforts to divide single-payer proponents and weaken any political support for the idea. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton once considered such a system, but wondered, “Is there any force on the face of the earth that would counter the money the insurance industry would spend to defeat it?”...

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/01/dick-gephardt-single-payer-health-insurance-lobbyists/

 

<_<:unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll never soon see a single-payer system in this country.  And it isn't because it's a bad idea.  Mostly because to avoid a sharp rise in taxes the medical profession and hospitals would require state or federal oversight to prevent them from price gouging and padding claims with other spurious fees and charges.  And they wouldn't want THAT.  And as it ISN'T either democrats OR republicans that really run things in Washingon, but the THIRD party known as "Lobbyists" who wield the power, single-payer has a difficult uphill battle.

 

BIG PHARM too, would also be against it.

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll never soon see a single-payer system in this country.  And it isn't because it's a bad idea.  Mostly because to avoid a sharp rise in taxes the medical profession and hospitals would require state or federal oversight to prevent them from price gouging and padding claims with other spurious fees and charges.  And they wouldn't want THAT.  And as it ISN'T either democrats OR republicans that really run things in Washingon, but the THIRD party known as "Lobbyists" who wield the power, single-payer has a difficult uphill battle.

 

BIG PHARM too, would also be against it.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

You don't see conservative governments in France, Canada or Great Britain trying to roll back their single payer health care systems. Why?  They know that to roll back these entitlements would be political suicide.  Somehow, America needs to totally transform its health care system at some advantageous point to include everyone.  Then it should be impossible to repeal as democrat and republican voters alike will have learned to live with it.

Wasn't Trump promising to get the lobbyists out of American politics?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll never soon see a single-payer system in this country.  And it isn't because it's a bad idea.  Mostly because to avoid a sharp rise in taxes the medical profession and hospitals would require state or federal oversight to prevent them from price gouging and padding claims with other spurious fees and charges.  And they wouldn't want THAT.  And as it ISN'T either democrats OR republicans that really run things in Washingon, but the THIRD party known as "Lobbyists" who wield the power, single-payer has a difficult uphill battle.

 

BIG PHARM too, would also be against it.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

Since Workers Comp Insurance is required by almost every employer (or they have to be self-insured) and therefore the vast majority of employees have WC coverage,  all states mandate that employees pay ZERO for all medical services related to a WC injury.

 

To avoid medical providers charging outrages fees to the insurance carrier or employer (when self-insured),  WC has medical fee schedules and treatment protocols that prevent medical providers from over charging \ over billing.    (this includes pharmacy billings and all drugs and supplies)

 

Medicare has something similar;     The same would be done with a single-payer system.    The actual concern is that due to price-fixing there wouldn't be enough people wanting to become medical provider;    Of course this is only speculation and it is very difficult to determine if this would occur or NOT. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to the VA today and had to face this as I walked down hallway.  Meanest scowl of any president in history? 

Site will not let me post Trump's official portrait that hangs in all government buildings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to the VA today and had to face this as I walked down hallway.  Meanest scowl of any president in history? 

Site will not let me post Trump's official portrait that hangs in all government buildings.

 

Donald_Trump_official_portrait_s.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the picture (sort of)  Somehow it looked less friendly in the VA building.  Maybe it was the light.

 

Yeah, he looks a bit "scowl-ier" in the full picture, but I couldn't find one to post, just that close up of the top half.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Medicare For All Is Coming, No Matter What They Say-

 

"More than half of all Americans, 53 percent, now want a single-payer plan, up from 40 percent in 1998-2000.

But at the same time, Medicare for all suffers from the rise of a new growth industry: telling Americans what can’t be done to make their lives better..

 

Much of that opposition adopts the world-weary pose of the seasoned professional who has abandoned the idealism of his youth and is regrettably forced pass his disillusionment on to those who are more naïve.......

 

 

Bernie Sanders’ presidential candidacy injected the single-payer idea into the political discourse. That created an opening for Democrats to embrace the idea as they seek to oppose Republican efforts to dismantle Obamacare....

 

“President Obama tried to move us forward with health care coverage by using a conservative model that came from one of the conservative think tanks that had been advanced by a Republican governor in Massachusetts,” Warren recently said. “Now it’s time for the next step. And the next step is single-payer.”

 

...A single-payer health system could set rates and design treatment guidelines that are based on best practices and are subject to public debate, unlike private plans...

 

 

The best way to defend the ACA is the way Bernie Sanders is doing it. Sanders is barnstorming the country condemning Republican plans to gut the law, a move that would cause tens of thousands of needless deaths to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut.

But he is also making it clear that the ultimate goal — the goal that reflects both the public’s needs and our shared progressive values — is Medicare for all...

 

llmoyers.com/story/medicare-for-all-coming-no-matter-what-they-say/

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

"The U.S. has the highest rate of maternal mortality in the developed world...(60 percent are preventable)

Yet these deaths of women from causes related to pregnancy or childbirth are almost invisible. ...

 

The inability, or unwillingness, of states and the federal government to track maternal deaths has been called “an international embarrassment.”....

 

...these women form a picture of maternal mortality that is more racially, economically, geographically and medically diverse than many people might expect.

Their ages ranged from 16 to 43; their causes of death, from hemorrhage to infection, complications of pre-existing medical conditions, and suicide. We were struck by how many perished in the postpartum period, by the number of heart-related deaths, by the contributing role sometimes played by severe depression and mood disorders — and by the many missed opportunities to save lives....

 

The health care system focuses on babies but often ignores their mothers....

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/lost-mothers-maternal-health-died-childbirth-pregnancy?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1500251504

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...