These polls are useless, because each respondent's opinion is so subjective, what are they using to measure the criteria of excellent, good, or poor care.
I went to the doctor for migraines. I wanted (and tried to initiate) a discussion of possible causes and prevention. Nope. I walked out with 4 prescriptions! That's poor service.
Saw another doctor and casually mentioned the migraines and was offered a natural preventative remedy. Perfect!
One more observation: My 4 prescriptions cost $16 total. What would I have paid if I didn't have insurance? I'm not sure all of those meds were necessary, since I've been living without them all this time. Would someone without insurance just fork over the cash, believing they were all necessary?
All you did was throw some anecdotal bs up there and claim it as poor service-You think your doc doesn't give you enough TLC-fine dr shop and find somebody who will. You wanna know why the Doc gave you the scrips he did? Because he figured you were like every other patient he sees day in and day out-who don't want to solve the problem, they just want a pill to make it better. Oh and the insurance companies-who institute diminishing payment for services performed have made high patient load a necessity for any doc in private practice to cover cost, nottice the waning of primary care physicians. Oh the doc prescribed meds you're not sure you needed- guess what he's covering his ass because he's worried you will turn around and sue him. Ever hear of a follow-up? HOw long have you been seeing this particular dr? Is he familiar with your history or did you just make an appointment and assume that treating a human is corollary to getting a 10 minute oil change. Don't confuse good bedside manner with good patient care. (there is a need for bedside manner I will concede) So because you were batting .500 with your scenario above are you placing patient care in the "fair category now" again no rational data comparison just a public opinion poll-whoopdeedoo
Terra, great point. I had not thought about the impact of $4 generics on the drug intake of America. I don't know if that is the point you were trying to make, but that is the point I took.
I have good dental insurance through my work. I went to the dentist the other day and had to pay $150 out of pocket for a filling. I need to eat less sugar for a variety of reasons including this. My dentist is worth every penny, but as I left I was questioning the value of my insurance. How do people with families afford "frills" like a dentist or eye doctor? My kids may be having listerene with every meal.
we pay more for healthcare in this country and get less than every other industrialized nation in the world. the rising cost of healthcare is destroying jobs in this country(ask the big 3). anyways - its just a matter of time before we step out from under big pharma and get a nationalized system of healthcare. and this isn't just because people will demand it, its because corporate america will demand it. tim
Tim- I hardly think you can chalk up the downfall directly to rising healthcare costs. Yes, I agree the costs play a significant role in their poor financial situation, but in part this is their own faults for not saving appropriately for these particular pension costs which they knew were coming eventually, in addition to the rest of their pension cost which they also nearly completely failed to fund. You could also point to the long-term poor quality of their products and high product costs as compared to foreign competitors as a major factor in the Big 3’s downfall. A lack of industry foresight, poor internal systems and functions, a lack of process improvements, inefficient layers of internal management, poor quality control and design, and a handful of other things also tie into poor result.
Really though, you are right that we pay the most for the least, but if we are going to move to a nationalized system and have it be successful (or at least as successful as the most successful healthcare system in the world - Singapore), then it is going to have to be very socialized – something with which a lot of Americans won’t be comfortable. Singapore’s system is successful because they have cost controls and preventative measures such as state-mandated “fat camps” for overweight children in order to drive down the risk of and inherent cost of treating diseases related to long term obesity such as diabetes and heart disease to only name a very few. Somehow I don’t see too many Americans, or at least the overwhelming preponderance, supporting ideas like that. The opposite of this pro-active approach would be a reactive one in which rather than trying to prevent future costs, a larger portion of the end costs would be shouldered by those intentionally/knowingly driving up the future healthcare costs – i.e. this would mean taxing people more for smoking, drinking, and being overweight/failing to maintain healthy eating habits. Again, I doubt people would want to employ these tactics, meaning that the greatest burden for healthcare would fall on the healthiest people – something most people would be fine with as it relates to individuals who have no control over their physical ailments – but a much larger group of individuals would be upset paying for the after-effects of another persons smoking/drinking/etc addictions. These are just a few things that I think will either 1) hinder the benefits of a nationalized system here or 2) ultimately prevent/slow the implementation of nationalized healthcare in the US.
So Terra, are suggesting a complete audit of doctor prescriptions then? What is your solution to the over-prescription of medications? How do you propose national healthcare would improve this specific area - i.e. how would a national healthcare plan reduce the overprescription of medications?
Terra is now blaming the doctors for prescribing-although she is probably completely ignorant to the fact that almost every dr is familiar with the coverage of each particular patient and knows that prescribing a medicine a patient can't afford is ludicrous so they either don't prescribe it or give the patient free samples that they have been given while listening to some pharm rep babble. The health care system in this country is shattered beyond repair and the only thing keeping it together in any semblance of a functioning state are the healthcare workers.
Tim, the pharmaceutical companies are not nearly the robber barons you paint them out to be. They incur great loss in R&D and now are suffering great risk by putting anything on the market.
All of you with good insurance now who are clamoring for socialized medicine may not like what you get when the day comes-all other systems have inherent flaws as well.
there is no easy solution but the cacophony of useless bithing and unfounded complaints (i.e. my dr doesn't listen, he/she prescribed too many medicines, I get poor care because I have to wait in the emergency room, blah blah blah) is the epitome of useless action. Put forth an idea, state how care can be improved state what could be done on a macro scale-I think darwal was stating about inefficiency in paper work, larger group packages that cover more people, Credits for health and wellness check-ups, tort reform, Penalties for not living a healthy lifestyle are all worthy of discussion not this other crap.
I guess Terra thinks the doctors are now hurting families-even though she has probably never gone to the trouble to ask one, or see how they deal with the current system or anything else like it. I man why bother actually finding out whats really happening when you could just as easily make up speculation and claim that its hurting families.
Doctor shopping - that's obviously very difficult. insurance companies are going to allow multiple trips for the same issue, and who has the time or money for the copay?
and i think terra points to a very real problem. i was going to explain my personal experience with the same problem, but i won't. don't feel like defending myself. but i have some serious problems with a substantial amount of doctors that over-prescribe stuff. there may be a legit lawsuit concern, so i dont have an answer. but it is clear there is a problem with over-prescribing.
I would be willing to bet neither chuck nor terra have ever asked a doctor if they take into account an ability to pay for prescriptions when writing them. Keep on blaming the doctors, good idea. What is clear is that neither of you two have any idea what your talking about when it comes to why a doctor writes a prescription for what-but whatever I am sure the doctors are writing it to hurt families and bankrupt their patients
in most simple terms: Affordable nationalized healthcare is a system of second rate healthcare that while advancing egalitarianism limits personal choices. Second rate---right,left, middle-no one will be happpy egalitarian--right opposed left--great in theory but not in practice limiting personal choice---left and right--is necessary for all but me
I agree with what you said Fred, but I also think that there would be a niche market for private hospitals, that would be cash up front along wiht limited liability. If this happens you would see the best of the best Drs flocking to work at these, and would essentially set up a tiered system. People don't understand how medical billing works or the costs invoved, and I think alot of Drs would love to have the market dictate their prices, than having some bureaucratic system foisted on them which is the current set-up.
by the way your recent comments have been great and you have completely changed my opinion of you-not that it matters but I have a newfound respect for you.
Theo, you have made my day. My goal is not to have one agree with me(although I would love to become the dictator of the world) but at least think about the issues without dismissing the message because of the messenger and to spend more time studying the thoughts of those we oppose. One learns little but inflexibiltiy by enveloping themselves with those they agree with.
19 Comments:
These polls are useless, because each respondent's opinion is so subjective, what are they using to measure the criteria of excellent, good, or poor care.
I went to the doctor for migraines. I wanted (and tried to initiate) a discussion of possible causes and prevention. Nope. I walked out with 4 prescriptions! That's poor service.
Saw another doctor and casually mentioned the migraines and was offered a natural preventative remedy. Perfect!
One more observation: My 4 prescriptions cost $16 total. What would I have paid if I didn't have insurance? I'm not sure all of those meds were necessary, since I've been living without them all this time. Would someone without insurance just fork over the cash, believing they were all necessary?
All you did was throw some anecdotal bs up there and claim it as poor service-You think your doc doesn't give you enough TLC-fine dr shop and find somebody who will. You wanna know why the Doc gave you the scrips he did? Because he figured you were like every other patient he sees day in and day out-who don't want to solve the problem, they just want a pill to make it better. Oh and the insurance companies-who institute diminishing payment for services performed have made high patient load a necessity for any doc in private practice to cover cost, nottice the waning of primary care physicians. Oh the doc prescribed meds you're not sure you needed- guess what he's covering his ass because he's worried you will turn around and sue him. Ever hear of a follow-up? HOw long have you been seeing this particular dr? Is he familiar with your history or did you just make an appointment and assume that treating a human is corollary to getting a 10 minute oil change.
Don't confuse good bedside manner with good patient care. (there is a need for bedside manner I will concede) So because you were batting .500 with your scenario above are you placing patient care in the "fair category now" again no rational data comparison just a public opinion poll-whoopdeedoo
Terra, great point. I had not thought about the impact of $4 generics on the drug intake of America. I don't know if that is the point you were trying to make, but that is the point I took.
I have good dental insurance through my work. I went to the dentist the other day and had to pay $150 out of pocket for a filling. I need to eat less sugar for a variety of reasons including this. My dentist is worth every penny, but as I left I was questioning the value of my insurance. How do people with families afford "frills" like a dentist or eye doctor? My kids may be having listerene with every meal.
jocelyn---perfect response
everitt---perhaps a little over the top but excellent points.
we pay more for healthcare in this country and get less than every other industrialized nation in the world. the rising cost of healthcare is destroying jobs in this country(ask the big 3). anyways - its just a matter of time before we step out from under big pharma and get a nationalized system of healthcare. and this isn't just because people will demand it, its because corporate america will demand it.
tim
its not big pharm it is Insurance comoanies who drive the system
its both
tim
Kyle, that was my point.
And, how many people are paying full price for meds they don't need. It's harmful to families, even if the doctor avoids a lawsuit.
Tim-
I hardly think you can chalk up the downfall directly to rising healthcare costs. Yes, I agree the costs play a significant role in their poor financial situation, but in part this is their own faults for not saving appropriately for these particular pension costs which they knew were coming eventually, in addition to the rest of their pension cost which they also nearly completely failed to fund. You could also point to the long-term poor quality of their products and high product costs as compared to foreign competitors as a major factor in the Big 3’s downfall. A lack of industry foresight, poor internal systems and functions, a lack of process improvements, inefficient layers of internal management, poor quality control and design, and a handful of other things also tie into poor result.
Really though, you are right that we pay the most for the least, but if we are going to move to a nationalized system and have it be successful (or at least as successful as the most successful healthcare system in the world - Singapore), then it is going to have to be very socialized – something with which a lot of Americans won’t be comfortable. Singapore’s system is successful because they have cost controls and preventative measures such as state-mandated “fat camps” for overweight children in order to drive down the risk of and inherent cost of treating diseases related to long term obesity such as diabetes and heart disease to only name a very few. Somehow I don’t see too many Americans, or at least the overwhelming preponderance, supporting ideas like that. The opposite of this pro-active approach would be a reactive one in which rather than trying to prevent future costs, a larger portion of the end costs would be shouldered by those intentionally/knowingly driving up the future healthcare costs – i.e. this would mean taxing people more for smoking, drinking, and being overweight/failing to maintain healthy eating habits. Again, I doubt people would want to employ these tactics, meaning that the greatest burden for healthcare would fall on the healthiest people – something most people would be fine with as it relates to individuals who have no control over their physical ailments – but a much larger group of individuals would be upset paying for the after-effects of another persons smoking/drinking/etc addictions. These are just a few things that I think will either 1) hinder the benefits of a nationalized system here or 2) ultimately prevent/slow the implementation of nationalized healthcare in the US.
So Terra, are suggesting a complete audit of doctor prescriptions then? What is your solution to the over-prescription of medications? How do you propose national healthcare would improve this specific area - i.e. how would a national healthcare plan reduce the overprescription of medications?
Terra is now blaming the doctors for prescribing-although she is probably completely ignorant to the fact that almost every dr is familiar with the coverage of each particular patient and knows that prescribing a medicine a patient can't afford is ludicrous so they either don't prescribe it or give the patient free samples that they have been given while listening to some pharm rep babble. The health care system in this country is shattered beyond repair and the only thing keeping it together in any semblance of a functioning state are the healthcare workers.
Tim, the pharmaceutical companies are not nearly the robber barons you paint them out to be. They incur great loss in R&D and now are suffering great risk by putting anything on the market.
All of you with good insurance now who are clamoring for socialized medicine may not like what you get when the day comes-all other systems have inherent flaws as well.
there is no easy solution but the cacophony of useless bithing and unfounded complaints (i.e. my dr doesn't listen, he/she prescribed too many medicines, I get poor care because I have to wait in the emergency room, blah blah blah) is the epitome of useless action. Put forth an idea, state how care can be improved state what could be done on a macro scale-I think darwal was stating about inefficiency in paper work, larger group packages that cover more people, Credits for health and wellness check-ups, tort reform, Penalties for not living a healthy lifestyle are all worthy of discussion not this other crap.
I agree with the other Surgeon Generals
I guess Terra thinks the doctors are now hurting families-even though she has probably never gone to the trouble to ask one, or see how they deal with the current system or anything else like it. I man why bother actually finding out whats really happening when you could just as easily make up speculation and claim that its hurting families.
Doctor shopping - that's obviously very difficult. insurance companies are going to allow multiple trips for the same issue, and who has the time or money for the copay?
and i think terra points to a very real problem. i was going to explain my personal experience with the same problem, but i won't. don't feel like defending myself.
but i have some serious problems with a substantial amount of doctors that over-prescribe stuff. there may be a legit lawsuit concern, so i dont have an answer.
but it is clear there is a problem with over-prescribing.
I would be willing to bet neither chuck nor terra have ever asked a doctor if they take into account an ability to pay for prescriptions when writing them. Keep on blaming the doctors, good idea.
What is clear is that neither of you two have any idea what your talking about when it comes to why a doctor writes a prescription for what-but whatever I am sure the doctors are writing it to hurt families and bankrupt their patients
in most simple terms:
Affordable nationalized healthcare
is a system of second rate healthcare that while advancing egalitarianism limits personal choices.
Second rate---right,left, middle-no one will be happpy
egalitarian--right opposed left--great in theory but not in practice
limiting personal choice---left and right--is necessary for all but me
I agree with what you said Fred, but I also think that there would be a niche market for private hospitals, that would be cash up front along wiht limited liability. If this happens you would see the best of the best Drs flocking to work at these, and would essentially set up a tiered system. People don't understand how medical billing works or the costs invoved, and I think alot of Drs would love to have the market dictate their prices, than having some bureaucratic system foisted on them which is the current set-up.
by the way your recent comments have been great and you have completely changed my opinion of you-not that it matters but I have a newfound respect for you.
Theo,
you have made my day. My goal is not to have one agree with me(although I would love to become the dictator of the world) but at least think about the issues without dismissing the message because of the messenger and to spend more time studying the thoughts of those we oppose. One learns little but inflexibiltiy by enveloping themselves with those they agree with.
Post a Comment
<< Home