|
We should really try and keep this thread focused on healthcare before it blossoms into some sort of inequality tree shading every issue under the sun.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 04:28 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 02:05 |
|
|
I've entertained fantasies about the US just overnight deciding 'gently caress this hosed up bullshit we're going to join the modern world, universal health care and drat the consequences!' In every possible scenario I can come up with for where this change would come from or how it would be implemented and who was pushing the reform I always run across what appears to me to be the simple inevitability of money talking and 'The Poors' getting screwed back into the situations that the current paradigm wants to perpetuate. I just see absolutely no way around the shrieking, wailing and gnashing of teeth (all backed up by b/millions of dollars of lobbying) that would come from insurance companies and lawyers who suddenly find their suffering-for-profit source of livelihood threatened by something as inhumane as compassion for others. What is a realistic approach to something like this becoming a reality? Cause I just don't see a way through to the light and hopelessness kinda sucks. There's an unholy amount of political monkeys-flinging-poo poo activity just over what's been proposed under the current administration and that's a drat far sight away from honest UHC.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 04:36 |
|
|
SumYungGui posted:I've entertained fantasies about the US just overnight deciding 'gently caress this hosed up bullshit we're going to join the modern world, universal health care and drat the consequences!' In every possible scenario I can come up with for where this change would come from or how it would be implemented and who was pushing the reform I always run across what appears to me to be the simple inevitability of money talking and 'The Poors' getting screwed back into the situations that the current paradigm wants to perpetuate. I just see absolutely no way around the shrieking, wailing and gnashing of teeth (all backed up by b/millions of dollars of lobbying) that would come from insurance companies and lawyers who suddenly find their suffering-for-profit source of livelihood threatened by something as inhumane as compassion for others. When you elect a president who thinks UHC is important, try to have him not be black. Actually serious. It seemed like the political pushback for Obama's plans for healthcare reform was entirely based on half-truths and misdirection about how radical he was. If you ever elect a president who actually is radical, his racist opponents will have a lot harder time vilifying the way they did Obama him if he's white. Or, like, don't elect people from the other party who are racists. That could work too, I guess. HipGnosis fucked around with this message at May 16, 2012 around 12:14 |
| # ? May 16, 2012 12:10 |
|
|
Rhandhali posted:There is nothing wrong with wanting a private room and not to be in what amounts to an open hallway with a paper thin curtain separating you from the guy with a colostomy bag that has to be emptied and the dementia case who is constantly shrieking in terror. That and not having discussions with the doctor essentially held out in the open for everyone to hear. You're still getting the same care, you just have the option of closing the drat door. There's nothing wrong with wanting it but what makes one special group of people more entitled to it than the rest of society? Orange_Lazarus fucked around with this message at May 16, 2012 around 13:16 |
| # ? May 16, 2012 12:57 |
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:There's nothing wrong with wanting it but what makes one special group of people more entitled to it than the rest of society? You seem to have a problem with there mere concept of money. That sounds like fodder for a different thread. What makes one special group of people more entitled to a nicer car? Or a Dyson vacuum cleaner? Or a solo room in a hospital? What makes the third so vile to consider? Golbez fucked around with this message at May 16, 2012 around 14:09 |
| # ? May 16, 2012 13:58 |
|
|
Golbez posted:You seem to have a problem with there mere concept of money. That sounds like fodder for another thread, far away from this one. What good is money if it cannot be used to deny things to others?
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 14:09 |
|
|
VideoTapir posted:What good is money if it cannot be used to deny things to others? Because when I buy something, it's not that I'm gaining it, it's that the rest of humanity is losing it. (so how many people did you deny a SomethingAwful account by buying yours?)
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 14:13 |
|
|
Golbez posted:Because when I buy something, it's not that I'm gaining it, it's that the rest of humanity is losing it. (so how many people did you deny a SomethingAwful account by buying yours?) All commodities are exactly the same and limited in the exact same ways. Forum accounts are no different than a limited labour pool of Doctors, and there are no countries pondering the ethics of allowing medical tourists to visit which results in a drain of skilled labour away from the lower paid public systems in said countries.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 14:22 |
|
|
Fatkraken posted:All commodities are exactly the same and limited in the exact same ways. Forum accounts are no different than a limited labour pool of Doctors, and there are no countries pondering the ethics of allowing medical tourists to visit which results in a drain of skilled labour away from the lower paid public systems in said countries. You're right, I should have said car, or computer, or any number of limited resource things that could fit the idiotic definition of "If you have money that means I don't." Why are we so insistent that universal must mean 100% equal, especially when such of a thing is provably impossible, despite the delusion some people here have that medical resources aren't in fact limited, and that if I buy a better room or a tastier meal that somehow the entire system is already collapsing? Not sure what medical tourism has to do with this argument at all.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 14:31 |
|
|
Golbez posted:Because when I buy something, it's not that I'm gaining it, it's that the rest of humanity is losing it. (so how many people did you deny a SomethingAwful account by buying yours?) You seem to think you're 'just asking' for the ability to buy a room with a nice TV, privacy, etc etc, like it's not linked to others quality of care, but it is. By catering to monetary requests for hotel style upgrades, a hospital is no longer consolidating it's resources to ensuring a minimum baseline standard of care suitable to the ailment of the injured. There is a reason American health care costs per person are almost double that of other developed countries with established Universal Healthcare. Private Healthcare exists, but for extras, and those extras need to compete with the fact that the baseline level of care is made affordable so they can't gently caress the poor. If you are not willing to sacrifice the ability to improve your comfort with cash at the hospital, you are supporting a system that cannot sustain your nation's healthcare economically. As a consequence, those who are less fortunate than yourself are less likely to receive the care they deserve because even the non care related extras require resources to maintain, purchasing, advertisement, maintenance, etc. Money is a great divider, and that can be it's own thread, so let's get away from that. I think you'd agree that everyone deserves an equal shot at a healthy life regardless of whether they come from the slums or the suburbs. If a health care system is mandated to grant that equal shot as equally and as fairly as possible with the resources available to it, ignoring money as a motivator, it would improve the lives of so so many more people than would be inconvenienced by a reduction in care. Is that worth it? This isn't some time saving device, this is the livelihood of your nation. With Universal Health Care, people get back to work quicker when they get injured, they heal properly and continue to earn a wage. They are less likely to avoid a hospital visit so preventative care becomes more effective, further reducing the work-hours lost to a lovely health care system. Muliplied over the whole nation, the gains would be incredible and everyone would benefit. This is ignoring the argument that every one deserves to be healthy, which should be self evident.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 14:41 |
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:You seem to think you're 'just asking' for the ability to buy a room with a nice TV, privacy, etc etc, like it's not linked to others quality of care, but it is. By catering to monetary requests for hotel style upgrades, a hospital is no longer consolidating it's resources to ensuring a minimum baseline standard of care suitable to the ailment of the injured. So much a better response than the snippy "money is evil" attitudes that were prevailing earlier. I tried to frame it as being able to buy these things such that no baseline medical care was disrupted for anyone (basically, huge markups on the people who want the luxuries, which would then go to provide better care, etc.) If providing these things were to cause a disruption elsewhere in the chain then don't do it, but I was saying that if it can be done without disruption, then the only reason not to do it is because some people have this faulty notion that no one should possibly be able to have a better life than others and if they do it's because they're eating the poor alive. Simply delusional. I assume all of this ignores elective procedures, which I'm assuming are still purely private in UHC countries? It wouldn't make sense for UHC to cover non-medical breast implants, or what not. Where do other cosmetic things fall on that spectrum, though? A tummy tuck could be considered either purely elective or necessary for a full and healthy lifestyle, are such things decided on a case by case basis?
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 14:50 |
|
|
That done, bringing the thread back on topic with a question I've had but am not sure it's been brought up since I've been reading the thread: I've always heard that UHC systems have constant lines, waiting, rationing, etc. Is this true? Do people really have to wait weeks to see certain doctors or get certain scans done? If not, where does the American media pick this story up from? Are they just pulling it out of their rear end or are there consistent anecdotes, if not data, to draw from?
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 14:54 |
|
|
Golbez posted:
Guidelines exist on a procedure-by-procedure basis, and within that the specifics of each case may influence what is provided. "Elective" procedures which are non life saving but alleviate suffering, like hip replacements, are generally covered though there may be somewhat of a waiting list. Procedures which are usually considered cosmetic may be covered if it is considered to be of psychiatric value: for some people, quality of life can be drastically improved by cosmetic procedures. Gender reassignment is often covered, though there are an unfortunate number of hoops to jump through and coverage is often incomplete (for example, covering HRT and genital surgery but not laser hair removal; it's not going to do a transwoman much good having a vagina if she still gets 5 o'clock shadow), with the remaining portions requiring the patient to go private and pay out of pocket. On waiting times: in general, the less urgent the procedure or scan, the longer one is liable to have to wait. There are not 6 week queues for chemotherapy or traumatic MRI. if you have a suspect tumor, it gets biopsied and tested quickly, of you fall off your motorbike you get treated immediately. If you have a stiff elbow, you might have to wait longer, and if you require a known procedure where quality of life in the interim is acceptable and risk is low, waiting times may be fairly long. It's based on clinical need. Fatkraken fucked around with this message at May 16, 2012 around 15:07 |
| # ? May 16, 2012 15:04 |
|
|
Golbez posted:That done, bringing the thread back on topic with a question I've had but am not sure it's been brought up since I've been reading the thread: These are just anecdotes from my experience with Australia's UHC system: I have cystic fibrosis and have never had to wait for any treatment done. I was admitted to hospital a few years ago (it took about one hour to do the paperwork and find me a room on the ward, which was a solo room), things quickly got worse and I ended up in ICU and spent a week there. Ended up spending a month in hospital, and had numerous x-rays, CT scans, MRIs, blood tests and bone density scans over the course of the month. When I was discharged, didn't have to pay for any of it. One morning I woke up with a pain in my lung so bad I could hardly stand up. My mum drove me to the hospital, and I walked straight into my nurse co-coordinators office. Got an x-ray within about 5 minutes. Left the hospital about an hour later with my prescription of antibiotics (which cost me $30, because I earn too much money to get a concession card, in which case it would have cost me about $7). I am currently talking to a specialist team at another hospital about a double lung transplant. I have had numerous tests done, including some nuclear medicine (I can't remember the name of the test, but it involved inhaling technetium in order to get an image of the lungs). All of these tests and procedures were all done through the public system. I have never had to pay for any of them, and there has never been any wait.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 15:10 |
|
|
Wait times are generally a bit longer in UHC countries simply because they don't ration access to care based on ability to pay - lines tend to get a lot shorter when a huge chunk of the population isn't even allowed in the waiting room. They're not nearly as long as critics would like them to be, though.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 15:21 |
|
|
Things will never be totally equal, we all accept this but a society should still strive to be equal. I think this is something that the United States has forgotten. I get the impression that other countries are working toward some kind of imagined future where there will eventually be no need for work and life will be all about equality and leisure. Whereas our work is basically only meant to ensure the very few have the best lives possible. Can you guy's answer a basic philosophical question for me? "What factor(s) ultimately determines an individual's outcome in life?" I apply my answer to this question to basically everything, I really think it's what divides most of us on the issues. edit: quote:That done, bringing the thread back on topic with a question I've had but am not sure it's been brought up since I've been reading the thread: I've heard this my whole life to and let me tell you, we have waiting lists in America too. My wife has to wait 4+ months before she can see her endocrinologist for her hypothyroidism. During that time her thyroid could have (has most definitely) gotten progressively worse and despite her need and ability to pay she will still have to wait before she can be evaluated and receive a new prescription. Then every doctors visit we feel like we're being rushed (Literally every doctor's visit not just this one practice) because keep in mind Doctor is actually a businessman and wants to get through as many patients as possible so he can make more jack. My wife has been diagnosed with hypothyroidism for over three years and only on her last visit was she finally considered "stable", we've been through several (3-4) doctors and she still feels like poo poo all the time. Hypothyroidism is a common issue that affects millions of women worldwide. Orange_Lazarus fucked around with this message at May 16, 2012 around 15:41 |
| # ? May 16, 2012 15:23 |
|
|
In my family's experience after a problem has been identified a solution has been offered within 4 weeks. My mum has a long term hard condition, is over 60, and they realised she'd need keyhole surgery and offered her the operation two weeks later. We spent no money. Mental health is totally different and a complete mess at times (only offering appointments between 10 and 4 on weekdays doesn't work for a 9-5. To be honest I get confused by all of the terms Americans use for healthcare, what are co-pays? deductibles? For my whole life I've just walked into the doctors if I needed to and never ever had to worry about any of that. Incidentally the longest wait for a GP appointment was 2 days.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 15:33 |
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Things will never be totally equal, we all accept this but a society should still strive to be equal. I think this is something that the United States has forgotten. I get the impression that other countries are working toward some kind of imagined future where there will eventually be no need for work and life will be all about equality and leisure. Whereas our work is basically only meant to ensure the very few have the best lives possible. I don't mean to discount your question, but that is definitely a topic for it's own thread. It would probably be a good one, so you should do a bit of reading to generate some literature for an informed OP and fire that baby up  Antinumeric posted:In my family's experience after a problem has been identified a solution has been offered within 4 weeks. My mum has a long term hard condition, is over 60, and they realised she'd need keyhole surgery and offered her the operation two weeks later. We spent no money. A co-pay is the amount you are required to pay out of pocket for care. Generally, your insurance plan will have some sort of payment ratio. For example, if you go to a doctor or facility that is in network (insurance companies participate in care-provider networks where they steer business in exchange for lower prices), you may have no co-pay at all, or maybe a split of 80% covered by the insurance, and 20% being your responsibility, or sometimes (in my case) just a nominal $15 or $25 fee instead of a percentage. This in-network ratio is usually different than out of network; out of network will typically cost much more out of pocket. That said, some insurance plans don't operate on networks; they cover a percentage of the care regardless of where you go. A deductible represents an amount that the customer will pay out of pocket before the insurance kicks in. For example, if you have a $5000 deductible, you will be responsible for the first $5000 in a given period (some deductibles are annual, some are lifetime) before insurance pays anything whatsoever. Generally, plans with very low or no co-pays and deductibles cost much more. The economics behind that are fairly straightforward; high co-pays and deductibles leave less financial responsibility on the insurance company and also help to damper how much you will utilize your policy. If you have a huge deductible and co-pay you are less likely to seek care and thus possibly incur costs on the insurance company. spacetimecontinuu fucked around with this message at May 16, 2012 around 15:43 |
| # ? May 16, 2012 15:36 |
|
|
You're right. I'll try to keep myself a bit more focused, I have ADD but no insurance so my lack of medication is loving up this thread and making the forums worse for everyone  edit: Seriously, I'll try to help prevent the derails. Co-pays basically represent the cash-flow for a practice. I'm going to assume it takes time to get the real money out of the insurance companies so co-pays can help your business pay off the overhead in the meantime. Orange_Lazarus fucked around with this message at May 16, 2012 around 15:48 |
| # ? May 16, 2012 15:44 |
|
|
^^^ Sorry for badgering you on your remarks earlier. The whole co-pay/deductible craziness causes further problems due to the fact that you'll basically get one plan that covers preventative care, ongoing maintenance, AND catastrophic coverage. So you have to balance all these needs with one set of copays and deductibles, rather than them wising up and giving different plans for each sector of insurance. I might think, OK, my total medical costs for a year are generally under $300, so why should I pay $300 a month for a $1000 deductible, or even $100 a month for a $5000 deductible? Either way I'm going to get screwed out of a ton of money. Why not have one plan for the ongoing/preventative stuff, and a separate one with different fees and rules for catastrophic coverage? Of course then a lot of people wouldn't get that because they weren't all bundled together and people are stupid and shortsighted. As I said when I first entered this thread, I'd like to think a private solution exists for everything, but in the case of insurance it requires a total redefinition of just what "health insurance" means, and that kind of redefinition is not going to come piecemeal, it's going to come from whole cloth, and we obviously lack any commercial or political will to upset an entirely broken system. Being required to buy insurance, as in PPACA, from a broken and badly defined system is not a solution in any way. Golbez fucked around with this message at May 16, 2012 around 16:03 |
| # ? May 16, 2012 15:58 |
|
|
Golbez posted:That done, bringing the thread back on topic with a question I've had but am not sure it's been brought up since I've been reading the thread: It depends on the country and the system they use but there will always be some amount of waiting for certain procedures just due to there not being an infinite amount of medical labor. American media will seek out the most egregious examples they can find for sensationalist purposes without addressing overall quality of care. The other thing that absolutely needs to be remembered whenever rationing and wait times for medical care in UHC countries comes up is that the wait time for people in the US with no money or insurance is literally infinite. They will never get to see a doctor unless its in an emergency room.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 16:03 |
|
|
The alternative to the mandate in a private system is a system of information sharing that I am sure would make most citizens uncomfortable. To deal with adverse selection and to be able to price things right in order to attract young and healthy people who don't generally want to buy insurance, you'd need to be able to discern risks to a much larger extent than now. Not to mention, of course, how incredibly messed up a system that ties coverage to employment is.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 16:05 |
|
|
No need to apologize, we're all just debating in order to determine what "right" is. Nothing but virtue in that.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 16:26 |
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:No need to apologize, we're all just debating in order to determine what "right" is. Nothing but virtue in that. What's the argument that private insurance is the "right" thing to do for anyone but health insurance and medical professionals, anyways? Let's not bring in statistics or data since it clearly points a certain way (that is, towards UHC).
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 16:37 |
|
|
Oh, I'm not suggesting that there is anything right about our current health care system, I'm suggesting that there's nothing with debate. It's OK for people to be wrong about an issue, it's not their fault they believe what they believe.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 16:50 |
|
|
Radbot posted:What's the argument that private insurance is the "right" thing to do for anyone but health insurance and medical professionals, anyways? Let's not bring in statistics or data since it clearly points a certain way (that is, towards UHC). As a former medical professional myself, please don't lump us in with the bad guys. I made more money working at McDonalds than I did as an EMT because the industry is hosed up seven ways from Sunday and the high salaries of doctors has been discussed here already. I just always feel inclined to point out that the blood(money) sucking parasites on the entire system as it stands now are insurance companies, lawyers and any industry that hires lobbyists to ensure that it's product is the only 'authorized' medical product for a given procedure leading to ten dollar bandaids and the like. I have a soft spot in my bleeding heart for the guys who want to work to help people but end up getting jerked around by a disgustingly corrupt industry.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 16:57 |
|
|
SumYungGui posted:As a former medical professional myself, please don't lump us in with the bad guys. I made more money working at McDonalds than I did as an EMT because the industry is hosed up seven ways from Sunday and the high salaries of doctors has been discussed here already. I just always feel inclined to point out that the blood(money) sucking parasites on the entire system as it stands now are insurance companies, lawyers and any industry that hires lobbyists to ensure that it's product is the only 'authorized' medical product for a given procedure leading to ten dollar bandaids and the like. I'm aware. I am EMT-I and NREMT certified in California. Paramedicine is certainly not the issue.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 17:03 |
|
|
SumYungGui posted:As a former medical professional myself, please don't lump us in with the bad guys. I made more money working at McDonalds than I did as an EMT because the industry is hosed up seven ways from Sunday and the high salaries of doctors has been discussed here already. I just always feel inclined to point out that the blood(money) sucking parasites on the entire system as it stands now are insurance companies, lawyers and any industry that hires lobbyists to ensure that it's product is the only 'authorized' medical product for a given procedure leading to ten dollar bandaids and the like. Chiming in from the consulting world: the insurance companies aren't quite as huge a drain as they're made out to be, but they're certainly the most obvious issue. Also, they're the ones whose very existence is dependent on reform in any meaningful way not happening. The US medical system as it currently stands is based on the assumption hospitals are doing their level best to defraud insurance companies and insurance companies are doing their level best to not pay hospitals, and this institutional competition will keep prices low and services reasonable. If you wonder 'where the hell does the sick person fit into all this' congratulations, you've identified the problem.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 19:40 |
|
|
Anyone familiar with third party administrators and where they fall on the evil curve? Working for one, it seems to resolve some of the concerns people have with insurance, though it's still reliant on employers having the plan.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 19:50 |
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Chiming in from the consulting world: the insurance companies aren't quite as huge a drain as they're made out to be, but they're certainly the most obvious issue. Also, they're the ones whose very existence is dependent on reform in any meaningful way not happening. I'm not sure where this assumption has come in. Could you please clarify? I ask because the effect has been the exact opposite, since the institutional competition has just lead to a price arms race. Everything else is spot on, though.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 19:54 |
|
|
ThePeteEffect posted:I'm not sure where this assumption has come in. Could you please clarify? That is the point.
|
| # ? May 16, 2012 20:15 |
|
|
Golbez posted:I've always heard that UHC systems have constant lines, waiting, rationing, etc. Is this true? Do people really have to wait weeks to see certain doctors or get certain scans done? If not, where does the American media pick this story up from? Are they just pulling it out of their rear end or are there consistent anecdotes, if not data, to draw from? This happens in the US already, which is why it's pretty hilarious that people bring it up as a downside of systems which are much more effective and efficient. Having said that, it's also a lie. I believe there are some statistics upthread on the issue. Golbez posted:Anyone familiar with third party administrators and where they fall on the evil curve? Working for one, it seems to resolve some of the concerns people have with insurance, though it's still reliant on employers having the plan. You work for one? We seem to have a repeating issue where many of the people who have a disagreement with the majority of posters in the thread happen to be employed in the industry....just an observation. The industry itself is evil. There's a variety of things we can do to somewhat mitigate the awfulness that is US healthcare, but it's rearranging deck chairs. Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at May 17, 2012 around 04:30 |
| # ? May 17, 2012 04:28 |
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:
I think s/he was asking if their perception of 3rd party administrators matched up with the reality?
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 06:46 |
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:This happens in the US already, which is why it's pretty hilarious that people bring it up as a downside of systems which are much more effective and efficient. I am currently living in Hong Kong. They have a pretty good UHC system and if you need anything routine from a general practitioner you can usually get an appointment for the next day. However it is true that for specialist services like psychiatric counselling or OBGYN testing there is often a long wait. I know a person here who has been on the waiting list for psychiatric counselling for almost 6 months now and what would seem to be pretty standard OBGYN tests took over a month to process. There is the option of private doctors if you want to pay and get care immediately though.
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 07:02 |
|
|
This is back to what started this thread, and I did not read its entirety. What if the motorcyclist would have given a false name/info to the hospital? Would they prosecute the crap out of him?
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 07:25 |
|
|
Russian Bear posted:This is back to what started this thread, and I did not read its entirety. What if the motorcyclist would have given a false name/info to the hospital? Would they prosecute the crap out of him? Well yeah that would be fraud which is not exactly 
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 08:03 |
|
|
If the US had UHC, I'd have started college with like 4 or 5000 extra dollars in the bank. UHC is all about leveling inequality.
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 09:46 |
|
|
I think you guys misunderstood, my point wasn't just that I didn't know what co-pays are (although now I do thanks!) but that I have never ever even needed to know. It's never been a concern and from the sounds of it I'm glad. Like it's hard to convey how much nicer it is to never ever have that worry.
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 09:57 |
|
|
I want to rant about wait times. Every time I hear someone defending the US's system by saying at least we don't have wait times like those awful European socialists I want to throw things. We sure as hell do have wait times. Lets compare what we'd have to our UHC having friends. In January I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. It sucked. I was pretty healthy back then. When they asked who my primary care physician was, I said I didn't have one. Hell, I'd probably only been to the doctor once in five years, and that was for some muscle pain. So its going to be near on a week before you can see someone to be your Primary Care, which you need before you can see any sort of specialist. Here's some test strips, a bottle of metformin, and a pamphlet. Try not to eat sugar or carbs. So I don't know hardly anything about this disease, don't know what I should eat, and honestly gently caress it up pretty good at first. My doctor, after I got to see him, is awesome. I'm a nerd and he talks nerd to me, feel like I have a great relationship with him. He says he's going to get me in to see an Endocrinologist and Dietician. Again, once I see them they're both great, but it is nearly three weeks before I can get an appointment. This is near on a month that I'm guessing about what to do with my diet. The doctors have some pamphlets, but they don't go into near enough detail. That's not the only delay. Few weeks ago I developed Trigger Finger, basically an inflammation of the tendon in the hand. The treatment I needed was just a steriod injection into the tendon, but an Orthopedist needed to do it. First available appointment? Week and a half. Make that two weeks because of the Dr. Office fuckup by making the first referral to a place that didn't take my insurance. You might say that this wasn't urgent, but I type for a living. It wasn't going to kill me but it was keeping me from working. And one more story. My stepfather a few years back developed a nasty sore on his back. A mole was swollen to several times its previous size, turned black, and was bleeding. His regular doctor said "No way I'm touching that, here I'll refer you to a specialist". It was of course like 2 or 3 weeks before a specialist could see him, and by that time the cancer had spread throughout his body. After a long tough battle, there was one point where his insurance finally dropped him and there was no coverage for 2 weeks until medicaid kicked in. During this time he had to stop chemo (which he'd been responding to) and was dead something like a month later. So don't loving tell me that we don't have wait times in America, largely due to the insurance system and the referrals to specialists. Folks in UHC countries - would you expect to have these waits and delays in your country? From what I've read it seems like you wait for noncritical stuff or access to machinery, not basic information or care. I could probably get an MRI tomorrow if I needed one, but it would take weeks to talk to my Endocrinologist. edit: Also I live in Springfield, IL, a state capital with a regional pop of around 200k and a freaking medical school. While not a major city, its not like I'm in West Shitsplat, Nebraska or anything. tl:dr - wait times in America caused my diabetes diagnosis to be much worse than it had to be and killed my stepfather. Maddman fucked around with this message at May 17, 2012 around 12:03 |
| # ? May 17, 2012 12:00 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 02:05 |
|
|
http://www.pluralofanecdote.com
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 12:26 |
|
