Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ...
15
23
24
25
  1. #481
    Scarab Lord namelessone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    4,195
    Quote Originally Posted by mistuhbull View Post
    But...but..Death Panels...and Communists
    The ironic thing about all this "death panels" BS is that letting insurance companies condemn people for "pre-existing conditions" or some other crap is a lot closer to death panels than any socialized medicine system ever was.
    The night is dark and full of terrors...

  2. #482
    Quote Originally Posted by mistuhbull View Post
    But...but..Death Panels...and Communists
    I know, I yearn too for the fever-dream of a militant conspiracy theorist.

  3. #483
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    19,870
    Quote Originally Posted by antelope591 View Post
    Its comments like this that tell me Americans really have no fucking clue how things are actually run with "socialized" medicine and are just talking out of their ass trying to sound smart. I actually work in a Canadian hospital and I see patients EVERY day in ICU that are waaaay past their expiration date and have been on life support for literally months, even years because their families can't let go. As long as the family wants them around, the hospital will do whatever's in their power to keep them around. Hell I actually think its a bad thing wasting literally millions of dollars to keep someone on life support for years that won't make it back anyway but not covering life support because its too expensive is def not something that actually happens in Canada anyway.
    Like I said earlier; in Canada today, there's a case going before the Supreme Court, where doctors pushed their medical board to allow them to disconnect a patient. That patient had been diagnosed with a permanent vegetative state, and had been on life support for two years following that diagnosis. They did not think he had any chance of recovery, which is why they pursued that request, and it was granted. The family raised a legal challenge, insisting they needed to consent before life support could be removed.

    Since the original board approval, the patient has begun to recover, and while the original removal of life support hasn't been rescinded, that's mostly bureaucracy; the doctors aren't planning on disconnecting him, and approval to do so does not mean they're required to do so. It's still going to the Supreme Court, because the medical board wishes to have a firm precedent set in law about where the authority to make these decisions truly lies.

    Making it even more of an example; the patient in question is an Iranian immigrant, who immigrated to Canada just five months before he fell ill and was hospitalized. It doesn't matter; he's Canadian, he gets treatment. The ONLY reason we're looking to pursue canceling life support was the original diagnosis that he had no chance of recovery. That this diagnosis was in error is unfortunate, but it happens; the point is that nobody in Canada is denied life support for budgetary reasons. The reasons cited here were that, if he were in a permanent vegetative state, sustaining basic life is more of an indignity to the patient than anything of benefit to anyone, not any budgetary concern.

    There's no such thing as "death panels". No Canadian is denied treatment. Period.

  4. #484
    Scarab Lord namelessone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    4,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    There's no such thing as "death panels". No Canadian is denied treatment. Period.
    ... Unless you have a tooth infection, but that's an entirely different discussion.
    The night is dark and full of terrors...

  5. #485
    The Insane Reeve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    15,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Like I said earlier; in Canada today, there's a case going before the Supreme Court, where doctors pushed their medical board to allow them to disconnect a patient. That patient had been diagnosed with a permanent vegetative state, and had been on life support for two years following that diagnosis. They did not think he had any chance of recovery, which is why they pursued that request, and it was granted. The family raised a legal challenge, insisting they needed to consent before life support could be removed.

    Since the original board approval, the patient has begun to recover, and while the original removal of life support hasn't been rescinded, that's mostly bureaucracy; the doctors aren't planning on disconnecting him, and approval to do so does not mean they're required to do so. It's still going to the Supreme Court, because the medical board wishes to have a firm precedent set in law about where the authority to make these decisions truly lies.

    Making it even more of an example; the patient in question is an Iranian immigrant, who immigrated to Canada just five months before he fell ill and was hospitalized. It doesn't matter; he's Canadian, he gets treatment. The ONLY reason we're looking to pursue canceling life support was the original diagnosis that he had no chance of recovery. That this diagnosis was in error is unfortunate, but it happens; the point is that nobody in Canada is denied life support for budgetary reasons. The reasons cited here were that, if he were in a permanent vegetative state, sustaining basic life is more of an indignity to the patient than anything of benefit to anyone, not any budgetary concern.

    There's no such thing as "death panels". No Canadian is denied treatment. Period.
    There was a great Radiolab podcast last week that showed that when polled, 90% of doctors would choose NOT to have life-sustaining treatments (feeding tubes, breathing machines, induced paralysis, dialysis, etc) given to them if they were diagnosed with a terminal illness. Apparently doctors generally feel that the treatments to sustain life a little longer are expensive, often painful/terrifying, and often don't really give people any additional quality time with their families.
    Go and tell my baby sister
    Not to do what I have done
    Go and spurn that house down in New Orleans
    They call the Rising Sun

  6. #486
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    19,870
    Quote Originally Posted by namelessone View Post
    ... Unless you have a tooth infection, but that's an entirely different discussion.
    Dental's separate, but there's some crossover. If it's an abscess that threatens your life, removal of the tooth and treatment for the infection would be covered. Fillings and such are classed more as cosmetic than necessary. Whether you agree with that or not is a different discussion, though, as you say, and it's no different in the US, where medical and dental insurance are considered separate things.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 11:02 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    There was a great Radiolab podcast last week that showed that when polled, 90% of doctors would choose NOT to have life-sustaining treatments (feeding tubes, breathing machines, induced paralysis, dialysis, etc) given to them if they were diagnosed with a terminal illness. Apparently doctors generally feel that the treatments to sustain life a little longer are expensive, often painful/terrifying, and often don't really give people any additional quality time with their families.
    Which is a fair point. It's often used to give succor to the families, who find it difficult to accept the death of a loved one, especially when they're so clearly alive at that moment, even if sustained by machines. That's why the issue's going to the Supreme Court.

    None of those doctors, though, would likely support not getting life support for illnesses they could recover from.

    And the important point is; nobody is getting denied life support in Canada who needs it to recover. Does not happen, ever.

  7. #487
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackmoves View Post
    OECD.

    Only read swedish sources qouting their studies though.

    Like this one.
    You quoting from a swedish book or something?

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 04:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by namelessone View Post
    The ironic thing about all this "death panels" BS is that letting insurance companies condemn people for "pre-existing conditions" or some other crap is a lot closer to death panels than any socialized medicine system ever was.
    Pre-existing conditions as a concept isn't "crap" though. The way they are sometimes handled may be, but if you have a pre-existing condition that is likely to cause you to incur large amounts of medical bills in the near future, you sure as hell shouldn't get insurance at anything near normal prices.

  8. #488
    The Insane Reeve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    15,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Which is a fair point. It's often used to give succor to the families, who find it difficult to accept the death of a loved one, especially when they're so clearly alive at that moment, even if sustained by machines. That's why the issue's going to the Supreme Court.

    None of those doctors, though, would likely support not getting life support for illnesses they could recover from.
    I didn't hear the stats on that, but I suspect you're right. I can understand why they wouldn't want to be kept alive when they know survival is extremely unlikely. Some of the stuff doctors do to people "we wouldn't even do to terrorists." Like for example, in order to doa breathing machine, you have to paralyze the person's body first, because the human body has its own rhythm, and will fight the machine. So you end up stuck there, possibly conscious, but unable to move or act while a tube is stuck down your throat and a machine rhythmically breathes for you. Sounds hellish to me.

    I'm glad my mother told me at a young age that if we ever found her in a vegetative or unrecoverable state, we should just pull the plug. Means I never have to go through the dilemma of not knowing what she'd prefer when I get to that situation.

    But I guess your point is really that people in Canada aren't denied life extending procedures if they want them.
    Go and tell my baby sister
    Not to do what I have done
    Go and spurn that house down in New Orleans
    They call the Rising Sun

  9. #489
    Over 9000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    9,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    You quoting from a swedish book or something?
    No I just used google, there was quite a lot of articles.

    Here is an interesting read from Pfizers website btw

    Google translate btw, so it might cause an headache to read. ;P
    Simon Orchard, Vice President, Pfizer Inc., and responsible for the company's biotechnological production and development throughout Europe, is well familiarized when it comes to corporations perspective on life science.

    - There is not a single issue that is crucial for the life science companies evaluating various possible locations for the manufacture and development of drugs. It's everything from the expertise and production costs to the climate of cooperation with the company's stakeholders. Underestimate certainly not the importance of soft factors such as political leaders, both nationally and regionally, show an interest, respect for the innovative drug companies' opportunities and willingness to provide solutions, says Simon Orchard, Vice President of Pfizer Inc.

    Sweden interesting for biotechnological research and production
    Simon Orchard has until recently been responsible for the 1.5 billions investment Pfizer made ​​in Strängnäs. The deciding factor for this investment were the skills and experience gained through the old facility and the infrastructure for biotechnology in Mälardalen and Sweden. Strangnas won in stiff competition with Singapore and Ireland, says Simon Orchard.

    Detailed evaluation process
    Simon Orchard tells the very detailed evaluation processes carried out in several stages. A number of mandatory criteria must be met for Pfizer's facilities and were a new investment can be made. It matters functioning infrastructure, access to good transportation for both people and products, availability of labor with the right education and expertise and so on. Questions that have a strong impact, for example, an assessment of the overall business climate, proximity to policy makers, social climate and the like. This kind of factors scored and various possible alternative location compared. - Where a new investment sited depends very heavily on all the factors together, usually called the general investment and innovation climate.

    The soft factors are important
    It is a rational basis for the evaluation being done, says Simon Orchard. - At the end of a process like this, you usually have two or three sites that directly compete against each other. They win various sub-branches, but overall, they are parallel. As always the soft factors emerged as decision criteria again. Then there's always the market climate that makes the difference. That is the location that has the best climate for innovation and where patient access to new treatments valued highest, is the winner, says Simon Orchard.

    2011-11-30
    The nerve is called the "nerve of awareness". You cant dissect it. Its a current that runs up the center of your spine. I dont know if any of you have sat down, crossed your legs, smoked DMT, and watch what happens... but what happens to me is this big thing goes RRRRRRRRRAAAAAWWW! up my spine and flashes in my brain... well apparently thats whats going to happen if I do this stuff...

  10. #490
    Quote Originally Posted by mistuhbull View Post
    But...but..Death Panels...and Communists
    Wish we had the so called death panels. End of life planning is kind of important.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  11. #491
    I wonder how many patients in America who undergo emergency surgeries are due to them not seeking treatment because of the costs, which results in a more expensive procedure.

    Medical Insurance is a buisness. So you for example every $10 you pay, what $8 goes to medical care, $2 to the company. Pay $10 in tax for medical care, $10 goes to medical care (not exact figures, the point is the copmanies take money as profits so less is available to go to medical care).
    In the same idea, They either pick the most expensive drug to increase the cost on the patients (more profit for them) in most cases it really has no major difference to other drugs (something like the new $1 drug once a day, rather than the previous version of the drug, where you take two a day for $0.70...Taking fewer or a shorter treatment may be nice but is it worth it.
    Either they go more expensive or they go for the cheap ones, and hope that your treatment is less thean how much you paid into your account, which they can keep if when you die (Say you spend $100,000 on medical insurance in your life time, when you die you dont get a refund on unused balance. You can either give them the $80,000 treatment and take $20,000...or you can give them the $60,000 treatment and take $40,000)

    There seems to be the 'i don't want to pay so .... gets treatment' which in all honest happens now, the companies i doubt have individual accounts its a big account where all the money is and it goes by treatment. But that is if you don't get ill, think about it as 'if i get i'll other people pay for my treatment, its less of a burden for me' i'm sure it will become more popular then

  12. #492
    Quote Originally Posted by Dakia View Post
    Socialized medicine doesn't suck.

    However, for some unknown reason, the idiots on booth sides think the US is getting socialized medicine.
    the truth in this made me want to laugh and cry at the same time
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    The fucking Derpship has crashed on Herp Island...
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Meet the new derp.

    Same as the old derp.

  13. #493
    Pit Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    2,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    The reason it is much cheaper in other countries is because they limit the amount that will be paid by the government forcing the US to subsidize research into new drugs and procedures by paying the asinine prices we do. Ever wonder why new drugs and medical procedures are never discovered or invented anywhere other than the US?
    Really? Can you back that bold claim up with numbers? And the numbers have to be based on where big pharmaceuticals do their research. I will be happy with the top 10 pharmaceutical companies

    Taken from wikipedia the top 10 (if current) is [edit had copied the wrong list]

    Pfizer (with Wyeth), Johnson & Johnson, Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Abbott Laboratories, Merck & Co.,Bristol-Myers Squibb
    Last edited by Xarkan; 2013-01-22 at 09:15 PM.

  14. #494
    Scarab Lord Garnier Fructis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Location:
    Posts
    4,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiyld View Post
    Having lived in Taiwan for years I can tell you that is flat out wrong. The medical care there is fucking terrible. The locals know that if you get hurt or sick you don't bother calling 911, you flag down a taxi. It will get you to the hospital faster and safer then any ambulance ever will.

    I can't tell you how many stupid news stories I read while we were there about people dying because the hospital gave them the wrong blood type or something equally ridiculous.

    Yes they can handle routine issues that have had treatments for 100 years. No, they cannot deal with much anything new or that requires advanced treatments.
    I lived there for 6 years, my father for many more years before me. Half my family still lives there, and I have not once nor has any member of my family encountered the poor treatment your talking about, except for the occasional shitty dentist. Yes, you call a taxi but that's because taxis are literally everywhere and they don't give a shit about traffic rules. Of course you'd take a taxi as opposed to an ambulance when a taxi passes your house every 30 seconds.
    Wir müssen wissen. Wir werden wissen.
    Quote Originally Posted by auBerg View Post
    You are a certified crackpot that is subservient to the manipulators of science who are dreaming to control knowledge.

  15. #495
    It doesn't. But there is a better answer.

    I enjoyed my $2000 MRI. However, were I Japanese, I would have enjoyed it to the cost of $81.

    Socialized health care spreads costs by having everyone buy in. That takes the edge off, but doesn't directly address the underlying problem: even paid for in a social entitlement, procedures still cost far too much.

    Japan figured this out 20 years ago, so they picked the obvious solution - they got healthcare providers and insurers in a room, and told them to work out procedure fees, but if any fee the government thinks is unfair, it will set the price. Yes, you read that right... Japan, the world's third largest economy, one of its most technologically advanced nation, a temple of capitalism has had Price Controls for health services for decades.

    I want to skip the socializing step. I think it's a sideshow. A $2000 procedure where you get scanned by a $100,000 machine that will scan on the hour for five years before being replaced shouldnt cost $2000, no matter who pays for it. It should cost tens of dollars. Japan figured that out. And their heath care costs are completely under control.

    That's what I want to see. Price Control for Medical Services. Let the government dictate, by law how much services should cost and index it to inflation.

    Japan is a country like us in more ways than not. It would work here. We just have to accept that a "market for healthcare" is actually a pretty ridiculous thing. It is totally sensible for there to be a "market" for a computer, a tire, good or fruits and vegetables. But on services to relieve suffering or save life itself? That's obscene. And there is an empirically proven better way.

    Sociaizing it still makes it expensive. Just out right legislating cost of services however, keeps it cheap and give Presidents the power to set costs by executive order.

  16. #496
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post

    I want to skip the socializing step. I think it's a sideshow. A $2000 procedure where you get scanned by a $100,000 machine that will scan on the hour for five years before being replaced shouldnt cost $2000, no matter who pays for it. It should cost tens of dollars. Japan figured that out. And their heath care costs are completely under control.
    I agree with the general idea of what you're saying but it isn't as easy as it sounds and I think you used a bad example. MRI machines cost at least 1 million dollars, and upwards of several million depending on their power. You also have to pay an installation fee which is several hundred thousand dollars and then you have to pay technicians to run the machine. The technicians are well trained too so they have not too bad of pay. Then there's the cost of keeping a machine like that running in your hospital. And finally you have to make a profit to pay for administrative costs of the hospital. Tens of dollars wouldn't ever pay it off I don't think.

  17. #497
    The Insane Reeve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    15,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Annapolis View Post
    I agree with the general idea of what you're saying but it isn't as easy as it sounds and I think you used a bad example. MRI machines cost at least 1 million dollars, and upwards of several million depending on their power. You also have to pay an installation fee which is several hundred thousand dollars and then you have to pay technicians to run the machine. The technicians are well trained too so they have not too bad of pay. Then there's the cost of keeping a machine like that running in your hospital. And finally you have to make a profit to pay for administrative costs of the hospital. Tens of dollars wouldn't ever pay it off I don't think.
    Maybe not, but the $3,000 per 15 minute scan will pay it off and then some. Unfortunately, our radiology clinics need the newest best technology, so instead of reducing price after the machine is paid off, or having a lower price with a longer amortization in the first place, they buy the new machine, and their patients get stuck with the bill. Because the vast majority of people utilizing these services have insurance, you don't have price competition to nearly the degree you would otherwise have. Patients generally don't choose their radiologists based on pricing, so we end up with ridiculously overpriced service.
    Go and tell my baby sister
    Not to do what I have done
    Go and spurn that house down in New Orleans
    They call the Rising Sun

  18. #498
    The Insane Cattaclysmic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Århus
    Posts
    17,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    It doesn't. But there is a better answer.

    I enjoyed my $2000 MRI. However, were I Japanese, I would have enjoyed it to the cost of $81.

    Socialized health care spreads costs by having everyone buy in. That takes the edge off, but doesn't directly address the underlying problem: even paid for in a social entitlement, procedures still cost far too much.

    Japan figured this out 20 years ago, so they picked the obvious solution - they got healthcare providers and insurers in a room, and told them to work out procedure fees, but if any fee the government thinks is unfair, it will set the price. Yes, you read that right... Japan, the world's third largest economy, one of its most technologically advanced nation, a temple of capitalism has had Price Controls for health services for decades.

    I want to skip the socializing step. I think it's a sideshow. A $2000 procedure where you get scanned by a $100,000 machine that will scan on the hour for five years before being replaced shouldnt cost $2000, no matter who pays for it. It should cost tens of dollars. Japan figured that out. And their heath care costs are completely under control.

    That's what I want to see. Price Control for Medical Services. Let the government dictate, by law how much services should cost and index it to inflation.

    Japan is a country like us in more ways than not. It would work here. We just have to accept that a "market for healthcare" is actually a pretty ridiculous thing. It is totally sensible for there to be a "market" for a computer, a tire, good or fruits and vegetables. But on services to relieve suffering or save life itself? That's obscene. And there is an empirically proven better way.

    Sociaizing it still makes it expensive. Just out right legislating cost of services however, keeps it cheap and give Presidents the power to set costs by executive order.
    Dont you think that if you let the healthcare providers and insurers to do that in the US that you just end up with worse care?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •