05:01
@jkerian I do disagree, and I am the ordering doctor. When my 30 year old child had a stroke, I was not in favor of the gung-ho assessment of one neruologist for a total body CT scan. It's not indicated. There is no evidence that it helps, unless there is unexplained weight loss or other cancer markers.
I don't know what you believe is extremely uncharitable, as you removed it, but my opinion is unchanged. I have decades of experience with the cost of medical care rising. I remember charging 15 dollars for a fifteen minute visit, $75 dollars for a one hour first consultation (because medical records needed to be consulted in advance.) Tose were te simple, good old days.
Wat experience do you have? I am sincerely interested in hearing were from you get your professed opinions.
" We're far more likely to give strep tests for common colds, for example." We don't give strep tests for the common cold. We give strep tests wen there is tender lympadenopaty, exudates on the pharangeal tonsils, or a family history or close contact with strep, It seems we're more discriminating than you are in the UK.
05:18
However... you appear to have made my point.
"I was not in favor of the gung-ho assessment of one neruologist for a total body CT scan"
yes... that would be the excessive testing I was talking about. Are you denying that a less educated patient/parent would have agreed with this recomendation?
"I was not in favor of the gung-ho assessment of one neruologist for a total body CT scan"
yes... that would be the excessive testing I was talking about. Are you denying that a less educated patient/parent would have agreed with this recomendation?
You have now attacked my motivations, and my "credentials"... but you seem unable to defend your points.
Perhaps you misunderstood, and thought that I was accusing you, as a "representative of the medical profession", of being gung-ho about excessive testing.
If so, that was not my intention.
I was making the point that excessive (according to many) screening is a VERY well understood difference between the US system and others.
If so, that was not my intention.
I was making the point that excessive (according to many) screening is a VERY well understood difference between the US system and others.
9 hours later…
14:06
@jkerian You are misrepresenting me. I states that of a $190,900 bill, $365 is cover-your-ass medicine (which means unnecessary.) My child's total body CT scan, also unnecessary, was the only unnecessary test done during that hospitalization.
"I was making the point that excessive (according to many) screening is a VERY well understood difference between the US system and others." I just gave you an example were the NHS (if what you say is true) is more liberal with unnecessary testing than in the US.
You find me uncivil. You came into the conversation blaming Medicare and Medicad for all of the woes of the US medical system, and haven't provided a shred of evidence, for that or for anything else you have emphatically stated, whether relevant or not.
I want Medicare for all. I think that is not only ethical, but when private insurers are largely out of the picture, the government won't pay 50-60K for a sort helicopter flight. There will be more oversight into expenditures, just as they put limits on the amount Medicare and Medicaid patients can be billed (and no, the government doesn't absorb this. The provider does.)
14:44
I didn't ask you for your credentials. I asked you for sources. That's very different. You've made some surprising accusations here (like we use the most expensive medical equipment money can buy.) The only instances of that that I know to be true are when the best equipment also happens to be the most expensive, and that should be limited (imo.) For example, a spiral CT uses a fraction of the radiation of the older machines and gives better resolution.
3 hours later…
17:22
@anongoodnurse Frankly, you didn't ask me for credentials, you simply insulted my "authorization" to speak.
I think it's fairly obvious that expanding Medicare (and particularly Medicaid) eligibility up the income scale would have been a simpler and more effective "fix" than what the ACA attempted.
To put it simply, I think it's fairly obvious that Medicare is not working significantly better than private insurers. So when you say "Medicare for All", this is not a significant improvement unless you (or certain presidential candidates) mean something different by "Medicare", in which case the slogan "Medicare for All" is simply deceptive.
If you mean "wholesale socialized medicine" like the UK, calling it "Medicare for All" is hiding your intentions.
If you mean "national health insurance" like Germany or Japan, calling it "Medicare for All" is also wrong. Those are pay-in "membership" systems (and people on the lower end of the income scale will probably be surprised).
If you mean "national health insurance" like Germany or Japan, calling it "Medicare for All" is also wrong. Those are pay-in "membership" systems (and people on the lower end of the income scale will probably be surprised).
17:47
Actually... since you are well credentialed to offer an opinion on this particular topic. One of the major differences between most European medical systems and the US medical system is that in the US your medical degree is post-graduate. Many non-American medical degrees are ~5-year programs that you do right after you leave high-school equivalent.
Assume for a moment that college pricing in the US stays roughly the same. Is there a good reason that a US medical degree requires an undergraduate, which necessitates higher medical salaries?
Assume for a moment that college pricing in the US stays roughly the same. Is there a good reason that a US medical degree requires an undergraduate, which necessitates higher medical salaries?
« first day (2 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (7 days later) »
