quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

You know what I'd love to see, [...]

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

Can we PLEASE cut the medicare age to 55 and raise the medicare tax rate to 2% to cover the increased costs? Taking those folks out of the health insurance system would save so much money!
Heck, we can even do it slowly, raise the tax rate by .05% per year, and lower the age by 1 year per year...
Why isn't some congressperson proposing this???

quote:

I wonder what the full toll of all this unnecessary hassle is on the poor patient .....

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

Can we PLEASE cut the medicare age to 55 and raise the medicare tax rate to 2% to cover the increased costs? Taking those folks out of the health insurance system would save so much money!
Heck, we can even do it slowly, raise the tax rate by .05% per year, and lower the age by 1 year per year...
Why isn't some congressperson proposing this???

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I wonder what the full toll of all this unnecessary hassle is on the poor patient .....

There is a completely unnecessary level of decision making involved that projects the insurance company into a position where it effectively holds a veto over the therapy offered to the patient. The attendant stress on the patient, the delays, the uncertainty, the worry must complicate the health issues involved, even if the insurance company decides in its goodness to come to the party and fork out for the procedure/medicine/therapy in question. All this happens at the worst possible time for the patients health outcome too. The effects on the patient's health can only be negative.

Even worse, the party wielding the effective veto - the insurance company - places its own financial interests first NOT the health of the patient. I'm glad I'm not subject to this regime. If I get ill or require hospitalisation, I want all involved to put my health interests at the top of their agenda at all times.

It is appalling that the financial interests of a profit-driven entity could take precedence over the health needs and priorities of the ill and the sick and be in a position to influence the quality of service offered to the ill and the sick. A situation like this would be unthinkable here. The "best"healthcare in the world???? Not by a long long shot.

quote:

Now, here's a funny point...

Under the current economical model, money is a form of debt that is repaid by future labors at a lower rate than it grows, and the workforce are indentured servants that labor under the same system we so dislike when it's applied to prostitutes with barcodes. With this in mind, it's interesting to note the difference between slave labor and free labor is between an asset and an expense. Since slavery is now the norm, the situation has reverted: it is now the best course of action (financially) to ensure the health of the pool of slaves, rather than ridding oneself of expenses that aren't turning a profit.

Health,
al-Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

How do we judge a good healthcare system from a bad one?

One way of assessing this might be to compare the figues for amenable mortality, where amenable mortality is:
"The concept of "amenable mortality" refers to unnecessary and untimely premature deaths from certain causes that are potentially preventable with timely and effective health care. Amenable mortality is one of many indicators used to measure health system performance across nations."
It certainly makes a lot of sense that a good healthcare system will be more successful at preventing preventable deaths than a bad healthcare system.

A comprehensive study of amenable deaths has been carried out by the Commonwealth Fund and can be read here. A doco film based on the study called "Money Driven Medicine" is available here

The study's key finding are:
*In 2006–2007, amenable mortality accounted for 24 percent of deaths under age 75 in the 16 countries studied.
Rates were lowest in France, with 55.0 deaths per 100,000 people, followed by Australia (56.9 per 100,000) and Italy (59.9 per 100,000). *The highest levels were in the United States, with 95.5 deaths per 100,000 people, followed by the United Kingdom (82.5 per 100,000) and Denmark (80.1 per 100,000).
*If the U.S. had achieved levels of amenable mortality seen in the three best-performing countries—France, Australia, and Italy—84,300 fewer people under age 75 would have died in 2006–2007.

The authors found that the US's poor performance - it came last of the 16 high income countries studied - was due to:
"The United States's poor performance and relatively slow improvement compared with other nations may be attributable to "the lack of universal coverage and high costs of care.""

The world's "best" healthcare system??? Definitely not the US one, according to this indicator and study. Tens of thousands of wholly unnecessary preventable deaths occur annually in the US. The study found that these deaths are a direct consequence of the inadequacies of the US healthcare system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

UPDATE:

Haven't been able the get the medical-supply company to return my calls for days now. Still sleeping like crap without the mask.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

How do we judge a good healthcare system from a bad one?

One way of assessing this might be to compare the figues for amenable mortality, where amenable mortality is:
"The concept of "amenable mortality" refers to unnecessary and untimely premature deaths from certain causes that are potentially preventable with timely and effective health care. Amenable mortality is one of many indicators used to measure health system performance across nations."
It certainly makes a lot of sense that a good healthcare system will be more successful at preventing preventable deaths than a bad healthcare system.

A comprehensive study of amenable deaths has been carried out by the Commonwealth Fund and can be read here. A doco film based on the study called "Money Driven Medicine" is available here

The study's key finding are:
*In 2006–2007, amenable mortality accounted for 24 percent of deaths under age 75 in the 16 countries studied.
Rates were lowest in France, with 55.0 deaths per 100,000 people, followed by Australia (56.9 per 100,000) and Italy (59.9 per 100,000). *The highest levels were in the United States, with 95.5 deaths per 100,000 people, followed by the United Kingdom (82.5 per 100,000) and Denmark (80.1 per 100,000).
*If the U.S. had achieved levels of amenable mortality seen in the three best-performing countries—France, Australia, and Italy—84,300 fewer people under age 75 would have died in 2006–2007.

The authors found that the US's poor performance - it came last of the 16 high income countries studied - was due to:
"The United States's poor performance and relatively slow improvement compared with other nations may be attributable to "the lack of universal coverage and high costs of care.""

The world's "best" healthcare system??? Definitely not the US one, according to this indicator and study. Tens of thousands of wholly unnecessary preventable deaths occur annually in the US. The study found that these deaths are a direct consequence of the inadequacies of the US healthcare system.

This isn't as damning of our system as I would have expected. We are not that much worse than the UK and Denmark, both of which have universal care.
I wonder what the cause of the British system's poor performance is? Cost cutting by conservatives???

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

But every so often, I just seriously wonder what happens to Americans, who of no fault of themselves come down with a serious injury or illness that strips them of nearly life and limb, to pay the medical bills. Someone should NEVER have to fill out paper work while their kid lies dying in another room. A person should NEVER have to worry how much something will cost while their in deep pain. No one should ever have to worry that once diagnosised with a serious illness, they'll be dropped because the insurance company isnt making a profit off their misery. Bottomline.....Americans should always be looking out for their fellow Americans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

Hippy, DC, sorry to hear about the medical problems and hope it all works out.
You know, with all the Europeans and other folks from nations with socialized health care on here, why are we not hearing any of the horror stories of that system? I mean, Republicans here in the states have told us so many third hand stories of your horrible care, why are we not hearing any of that firsthand from you guys?
How many folks in Socialized medicine nations are dying while waiting for care again???

(Remember, if he had been British, Stephen Hawking would have been allowed to die since the BHS death panels wouldn't have paid for his care-wink)