Why does socialized medicine suck again?

[obdigore]

Unless people like him are a majority (they aren't) then it isn't an issue anymore than people getting paid in the dark (I don't know what the actual phrase is in english but it's avoiding taxes on paycheck). They are doing something illegal and you are complaining that the system is at fault.

It is being paid 'under the table' or 'off the books' in the US. Not sure if other english speaking countries have other phrases for it.

[Linkedblade]

Who isn't paying in and to what aren't they paying in?

Such groups are wrong in their "beliefs". Because you are a country and you do things as a country. Right?

What? Who should do economics then?

What's more important than keeping people alive?

No, that is not even remotely true. That pharmaceutical companies have a hard time afloat is a funny thing to say. You'd have to prove to me that they have such problems.
Government is involved in medical research and grants for such research.

I may just be thinking of US universal healthcare when I mentioned those points. However in the US if you do not have a high enough income then you do not have to pay into the government healthcare. I suppose that you could say that in other socialized systems that low income individuals or families do not pay as much as those with higher incomes.

Who are you, or the goverment, for that matter to say that someone is "wrong in their beleifs." I'm sorry but in the US we have a Constitutional right to believe and act how we see fight (granted that another's rights aren't affected).

Leave economics to the free market. Like it always should be. Government controlled economics is a disaster and history shows this.

Private healthcare isn't a bad thing. The only reason the US has had problems with it is because the government got involved and set regulations on policy.

And where does the government get the money to fund research? What happens when suppliers find out that the government is giving money to the companies that buy their materials? They raise the prices. Then when government decides they cannot give the researchers money they are left in a bind financially.

[Noomz]

New philosophy here. It's called "free will."

1. Instead of creating a socialist-style healthcare system why not create jobs so people can buy their own health insurance?
2. No ONE person, or even a group of people, has the right to tell someone else their belief's are wrong. We're supposed to be a country of tolerance and FREEDOM.
3. The market should be a FREE one. Why? Well other than the fact that I like the concept of FREEDOM there is that little part where the Federal Government screws up everything it gets involved in.

People who want a big, centralized, Government controlling every aspect of their life don't believe in life. They don't want to LIVE. They want to exist and nothing more. They don't want to think for themselves or do things for themselves. They want someone else to do it for them, and for everyone else.

I'm sorry but this whole concept, socialized medicine, falls under "personal responsibility." And it is not my responsibility to pay for someone else's healthcare. Would it be nice if I did? Yes. But it's not a responsibility and it shouldn't be legislated as such.

I agree with you, jobs need to be created and those without them need to be motivated to work. More chances for more people.

I can tell someone that they are wrong, but I can't tell them they aren't allowed to think what they think. If you don't want to contribute to society or be part of it, then you should have none of the benefits of it either, so if these special groups don't want to pay for a system they don't "believe in", then they should have none of the benefits it can offer.

I disagree. The market needs to be regulated and transparent. We've all seen what some big companies and a few banks are capable of doing.

I believe very much in life. If I'm successfull in life, I get great opportunities. That doesn't change.
Big government isn't a problem if the people are the ones with the power and invest their time in it. What I feel that the US is doing wrong, is that everyone wants to ignore the government as much as possible, but as they do so, they lose all influence and power to control their lives.
Though I think your description of government is a big Orwellian.

How does responsability come into it? You do not choose to be sick. If someone is down on their luck, like me, should I be punished just because life has handed me all the bad cards?

[Linkedblade]

1. Do you consider that the "others" lack the means to pay in?

2. Should jehovah's witnesses be allowed to kill their children by withholding necessary blood transfusions? I say they can take their obsolete beliefs and fuck off.

3. Why?

4. Good idea. A single-payer healthcare system would be a good way to free up taxes to go to those important things.

5.1. Care to explain how Texas' tort reform has been a resounding failure at reducing medical costs, despite sending malpractice premiums down substantially?

6. Yeah, how will they ever keep afloat without at least a 20% profit margin and marketing budgets that are multiples of their R&D budgets?

1. I'm sure that could be the case. But if you were given a service at no cost would you want to ever have to pay in?
2. It's a shame, but that's what they believe. You can't just say "you're wrong!" and re-educate them. You have the right to believe what they believe is wrong. But then who is the bad guy?
3. Every field that the government sinks their teeth into always becomes a disaster, here i'll list some: War on Drugs, Mail, healthcare, public education, private education, mortgages, etc. All these fields are plagued with government regulation and they just cant seem to figure out why.
4. Not sure what you mean by "single-payer," however private healthcare has worked in the past.
5.1 State intervention might not help a system plagued from the federal level.
6. I was in fact thinking about a story I was reading in the UK where the drug company was having problems keep the manufacturing cost of a certain drug below what the government wanted. It's just a mess. The only way to fix the problem was to give more money to the company to cover the costs, however who pays for that in end? The individual taxpayer.

[Noomz]

I may just be thinking of US universal healthcare when I mentioned those points. However in the US if you do not have a high enough income then you do not have to pay into the government healthcare. I suppose that you could say that in other socialized systems that low income individuals or families do not pay as much as those with higher incomes.

Who are you, or the goverment, for that matter to say that someone is "wrong in their beleifs." I'm sorry but in the US we have a Constitutional right to believe and act how we see fight (granted that another's rights aren't affected).

Leave economics to the free market. Like it always should be. Government controlled economics is a disaster and history shows this.

Private healthcare isn't a bad thing. The only reason the US has had problems with it is because the government got involved and set regulations on policy.

And where does the government get the money to fund research? What happens when suppliers find out that the government is giving money to the companies that buy their materials? They raise the prices. Then when government decides they cannot give the researchers money they are left in a bind financially.

I don't really know much about US healthcare, I'm more about arguing for the value of human life and equality. I try not to make too many judgements.
Here, there is an income limit. If you earn above X amount of money, you pay a percentage of it in tax and that amount is the same for everyone unless you have ABOVE a certain income, at which point you'll be paying tax for having a lot of money

I know, I'm not Stalin, nor dumb.

We have both universal and private healthcare here in Sweden. Those that wish to make a different choice and have the money to do so, do so.

People who think that taking medicines that save lives are wrong, it's that simple. They can be wrong if they want to, denying yourself health and life is fine if that's what someone wants to willingly do. I'm not challenging Christians or anything, just a few strange groups that have really crooked views on medical science.


Here? From taxes and other incomes.
You have yet to support your statement that pharmaceutical companies suffer in any way or have financial troubles because of government regulation. I can't just take your word for it.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 07:16 AM ----------

Unless people like him are a majority (they aren't) then it isn't an issue anymore than people getting paid in the dark (I don't know what the actual phrase is in english but it's avoiding taxes on paycheck). They are doing something illegal and you are complaining that the system is at fault. Might aswell close down the judicial system for good because we can't catch absolutely 100% of criminals.

You're correct.

Why pay for anything at all, for anyone ever, if a Twotonsteak argues, there are a few people that might cheat and scam? I mean, we could just dissolve society as a whole. That's the impression I get from a lot of people, that they are 100% for complete anarchy.

[Kaneth]

I didn't mean to give that impression; US health care workers abide by the same professional oaths as Canadian ones, and they WILL treat you in the ER. ERs mostly run the same way. It's outpatient care where you'll get bumped around and not get an appointment for months if your insurance isn't willing to push for better treatment. It's worse in the US for people who're wealthy enough to get BAD insurance, than people who are uninsured, from what I've read; they have enough insurance to not qualify for government support, but not enough money to afford the fees; these are the people who get hit with a $50,000 bill their insurance company won't pay and who lose their house as a result. These aren't the people on welfare, they're the people struggling with a lower-middle-class job.




I was under the impression that a better insurance package would get you generally faster appointment times, however, which was what I was referencing. Not in a bribery sense, just a "we're willing to pay a premium if you can fit us in sooner" way.

I'm not trying to take a directly opposite position and claim the US is all crap and such. It's a bad system at its heart, and the issues are in the insurance companies and the hospital admin staff/boards, not the doctors and medical staff. My issue is mostly that it's an inefficient system, and purposely so, as insurance companies and hospitals both profit if prices are kept high, at the cost of the consumer through inflated tax burdens and insurance premiums, which you can see reflected in the higher costs Americans pay for health care. And that the quality of health care on average isn't any better for that increased cost.

Unless things are drastically different than the area I work in (Twin Cities area in Minnesota), patients don't get bumped around due to insurance. Appointment times are made on a first come first serve basis, with emergency cases getting fit in throughout the day. Any type of insurance schedule shifting is because of the insurance carrier itself. Like your insurance not wanting to cover a procedure, etc. Completely private practices might do the whole, your insurance is better so we'll get you in, but private practices are becoming a thing of the past.

Here in the Twin Cities, you are typically tied to Allina, HealthPartners, Mayo, or HealthEast medical systems. They own all of the major hospitals in the state, have a good portion of the clinics and community owned hospitals (like mine) are then usually affiliated with one of the major medical systems. They really don't care what type of insurance you have as long as A) you're actually covered, B) they are allowed to bill to the carrier. Otherwise we're all just the masses.

Oh and I agree. The system we have here in the States is really inefficient, and that's because our system allows the insurance companies to dictate way too much of what goes on in our facilities. People need insurance to afford healthcare, but insurance is becoming increasingly expensive (especially for families). Insurance companies help drive up costs, so they can leech more from the people, and then between the people in general and the hospitals, they are left to pay for whatever is left.

God forbid you grow old in America too. Don't even get me on how ridiculous it is to get into an Assisted Living or Nursing Home...and they are typically cheaper than private care. Most can't afford to die with dignity.

I would be fine with Canadian Socialized medicine. The crap we're getting in the States isn't going to solve anything though :/

[Masark]

1. I'm sure that could be the case. But if you were given a service at no cost would you want to ever have to pay in?
2. It's a shame, but that's what they believe. You can't just say "you're wrong!" and re-educate them. You have the right to believe what they believe is wrong. But then who is the bad guy?
3. Every field that the government sinks their teeth into always becomes a disaster, here i'll list some: War on Drugs, Mail, healthcare, public education, private education, mortgages, etc. All these fields are plagued with government regulation and they just cant seem to figure out why.
4. Not sure what you mean by "single-payer," however private healthcare has worked in the past.
5.1 State intervention might not help a system plagued from the federal level.
6. I was in fact thinking about a story I was reading in the UK where the drug company was having problems keep the manufacturing cost of a certain drug below what the government wanted. It's just a mess. The only way to fix the problem was to give more money to the company to cover the costs, however who pays for that in end? The individual taxpayer.

1. I am not seeing what point you're trying to make.

2. They are perfectly free to reject blood transfusions for themselves. They are not free to prohibit them to their children or demand that blood transfusions not be provided/paid for by the health care system.

3. What exactly is a "disaster" about the USPS, beyond the sabotage from Congress? Canada post appears to be doing just fine. The mortgages is a case of incomplete regulation. Don't know what you're on about with education.

4. As in like Canada's healthcare system. You know, the one that spends about half as much and gets generally better results.

5. Federal has nothing to do with malpractice suits. The simple fact is that malpractice suit numbers have plummeted, the malpractice premiums have plummeted, but prices haven't dropped or even slowed in their growth. Malpractice suit payouts simply aren't a relevant cost to go after for cuts.

[Noomz]

Unless things are drastically different than the area I work in (Twin Cities area in Minnesota), patients don't get bumped around due to insurance. Appointment times are made on a first come first serve basis, with emergency cases getting fit in throughout the day. Any type of insurance schedule shifting is because of the insurance carrier itself. Like your insurance not wanting to cover a procedure, etc. Completely private practices might do the whole, your insurance is better so we'll get you in, but private practices are becoming a thing of the past.

Here in the Twin Cities, you are typically tied to Allina, HealthPartners, Mayo, or HealthEast medical systems. They own all of the major hospitals in the state, have a good portion of the clinics and community owned hospitals (like mine) are then usually affiliated with one of the major medical systems. They really don't care what type of insurance you have as long as A) you're actually covered, B) they are allowed to bill to the carrier. Otherwise we're all just the masses.

Oh and I agree. The system we have here in the States is really inefficient, and that's because our system allows the insurance companies to dictate way too much of what goes on in our facilities. People need insurance to afford healthcare, but insurance is becoming increasingly expensive (especially for families). Insurance companies help drive up costs, so they can leech more from the people, and then between the people in general and the hospitals, they are left to pay for whatever is left.

God forbid you grow old in America too. Don't even get me on how ridiculous it is to get into an Assisted Living or Nursing Home...and they are typically cheaper than private care. Most can't afford to die with dignity.

I would be fine with Canadian Socialized medicine. The crap we're getting in the States isn't going to solve anything though :/

The part about the elderly is the same here in Sweden as well, and it's a hot topic in politics. There have been way too many cases of very very badly treated elderly, getting bedsores, being locked up alone for days and so on. It's been done by mostly private companies as well, because they need to make a profit so they cut funds.

[zorkuus]

You're correct.

Why pay for anything at all, for anyone ever, if a Twotonsteak argues, there are a few people that might cheat and scam? I mean, we could just dissolve society as a whole. That's the impression I get from a lot of people, that they are 100% for complete anarchy.

They aren't for anarchy, they just want an utopian society where the government plays the role of big government only in select "few" areas they personally happen to agree with. They like to tell us they don't want big government, but they do, just not in the areas that they dislike.

[Noomz]

They aren't for anarchy, they just want an utopian society where the government plays the role of big government only in select "few" areas they personally happen to agree with. They like to tell us they don't want big government, but they do, just not in the areas that they dislike.

I notice that contradiction in their arguments as well. It's also slightly amusing that they think that their government isn't already holding their balls in a vice. There is no government with more power and influence than that of the US. The well-being of world economics depend on the US. And people think they have freedom? Hah!

[yurano]

If you need life support, you'll get it. That means you're at a high priority, because without treatment, you die.

That is not triage.

You completely misunderstand the entire point and concept of triage systems, as a whole. Your own quote directly contradicts your later claim. Someone on life support has a very high severity to their condition; that's why they need life support.

It would help if you even bothered to read the stuff you're citing, since it proves you wrong.

I don't care enough to read the entire article, but you're going to need to quote the article where it contradicts with my point instead of just hand wave.

The ONLY time you'd get into a case of determining whether to cut life support due to triage, is if you have a sudden influx of patients and cannot sustain them all with the available equipment, and are forced to pick those with the best chance of recovery. Short of a massive epidemic or such, that's simply not going to happen, and if it does, it has nothing to do with whether the health care system is socialized or not.

Money is a resource. Insurance policies work around financial budgets. Socialized medicine is no different. You can't spend more than you tax in socialized medicine.

Life support is exceptionally expensive so unless you tax more, you can't provide it. This is why most insurance policies don't foot the entire bill for life support as geewhiz80 has observed.

The well-being of world economics depend on the US. And people think they have freedom? Hah!

Thats like saying, your dad's my boss so he holds my life in his hands. That must mean your life is in his hands as well, since you're his son.

[Wiyld]

Socialized medicine works just fine. "But someone had to pay for that $6000 surgery!" Bullshit, that didn't cost $6000. It only costs that much here because prices on everything are artificially inflated. Scorpion anti-venom that costs a more than 50k here was produced for only a few thousand bucks.

In Taiwan they have national healthcare, and while it does have some funding issues, it's not like the sky is falling. While on my month long vacation, I received care that was just as good as what we have in the U.S., and even without insurance it cost me a fraction of what it does here.

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.

[yurano]

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.

Plus, its hard to find a doctor because most of them have switched into more profitable specialties like plastic surgery (plastic surgery isn't covered under national health care).

[Endus]

I don't care enough to read the entire article, but you're going to need to quote the article where it contradicts with my point instead of just hand wave.

Try the sentence you quoted.

If you need life support to survive, you're a high-severity patient at the top of the triage pyramid. Because if they stop treatment, you die.

Money is a resource. Insurance policies work around financial budgets. Socialized medicine is no different. You can't spend more than you tax in socialized medicine.

Life support is exceptionally expensive so unless you tax more, you can't provide it. This is why most insurance policies don't foot the entire bill for life support as geewhiz80 has observed.

Triage isn't based on costs. It's based on resources. They aren't the same.

Nor does providing life support mean we need to "tax more". We're already funding it. It's already in the budget. You're creating a conflict that does not exist. Or are you seriously arguing that countries like Canada don't provide life support and/or are unplugging patients against their family's wishes despite there still being a chance of recovery? Cause if that's your claim, provide evidence of it. Otherwise, you're just making things up. And I'd rather discuss reality, not whatever fantasyland you're imagining.

[Noomz]

That is not triage.



I don't care enough to read the entire article, but you're going to need to quote the article where it contradicts with my point instead of just hand wave.



Money is a resource. Insurance policies work around financial budgets. Socialized medicine is no different. You can't spend more than you tax in socialized medicine.

Life support is exceptionally expensive so unless you tax more, you can't provide it. This is why most insurance policies don't foot the entire bill for life support as geewhiz80 has observed.



Thats like saying, your dad's my boss so he holds my life in his hands. That must mean your life is in his hands as well, since you're his son.

Your analogy is a bad one. I can get a new job if my dad's boss fires me. If the US economy fails, the entire world fails along with it. The difference in reasons and consequences are staggering.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 08:00 AM ----------

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.

That's probably because, can you imagine, they have a bad, inefficient healthcare system? It being private or socialized has little to do with it being crap. Bad management is not exclussive to anything.

I don't know much about Taiwan or it's economy, but I don't think it is the best place to live at.

[yurano]

Try the sentence you quoted.

If you need life support to survive, you're a high-severity patient at the top of the triage pyramid. Because if they stop treatment, you die.

Triage is the process of determining the priority of patients' treatments based on the severity of their condition. This rations patient treatment efficiently when resources are insufficient for all to be treated immediately.

Triage is a form of rationing.

You're trying to argue the definition of triage with someone who has been trained to to perform triage in an emergency setting.

Question: when an ambulance with EMTs rolls up on a scene with a pulseless, unconscious patient with no respirations, what is the method of action in a 1) normal setting 2) triage setting?

Answer:

Normal setting - CPR with AED until arrival at hospital (there are some reasons to stop CPR but lets not go into those)

Triage - If you can't restart their pulse by clearing their airway with 15-90s (depending on local protocol), you black tag them and move on

A patient is going to have a worse outcome when treated under triage conditions. Given sufficient resources (personnel, equipment, etc), the pulseless patient might have been resuscitated in a 'normal' setting. In a mass casualty incident (where triage is invoked), if the EMT cannot restore pulse to the patient quickly, the EMT moves on, leaving the patient to die.

The above illustrated scenario is at the heart of how triage works. Triage is NOT perform all treatments possible. Triage is meant to save the most people with restricted resources.

Triage isn't based on costs. It's based on resources. They aren't the same.

Money is a resource. There can be instances where there not enough and thus rationed under 'triage'.

When you don't have enough money to pay for every procedure under the sun, you pick the ones that have the best 'outcome/cost' ratio. Unless socialized medicine has a bottomless budget, they're going to have to ration their budget and pick the most cost effective treatments. Life support for a low chances of survival are not one of them. In particular, life support for geewiz80's father would not be covered at all since:

To be quite blunt, honestly the life support wouldn't have made a difference. My father's heart and kidneys were failing, as well as a massive tumor in his lung.

Nor does providing life support mean we need to "tax more". We're already funding it. It's already in the budget. You're creating a conflict that does not exist.

Only rich people insurance policies 'fund' life support. If you're looking to expand life support coverage to cheaper insurance policies, you're going to have to tax more. At the very least, I can argue that geewiz80's parent's insurance policy does not cover life support (full coverage as you have described). If you were to expand socialized medicine to cover geewiz80's parents, the cost of their life support coverage has to come from somewhere.

Your analogy is a bad one. I can get a new job if my dad's boss fires me. If the US economy fails, the entire world fails along with it. The difference in reasons and consequences are staggering.

Actually, the entire world's economy crashed harder than the American economy. Cough Greece and Italy cough.

Sure you can find a new job, but you're likely to go through a period of 'recession' while you're unemployed, looking for a job.

My specific analogy was to object to the following logic "The well-being of world economics depend on the US. And people think they have freedom? Hah!". Just because Americans live under a government that doesn't play nice with other countries doesn't mean the government 'abuses' their citizens. You can treat people different based on whether they're in your 'circle' or not.

That's probably because, can you imagine, they have a bad, inefficient healthcare system? It being private or socialized has little to do with it being crap. Bad management is not exclussive to anything.

I don't know much about Taiwan or it's economy, but I don't think it is the best place to live at.

Wiyld's statement was in direct objection to:

"In Taiwan they have national healthcare, and while it does have some funding issues, it's not like the sky is falling. While on my month long vacation, I received care that was just as good as what we have in the U.S., and even without insurance it cost me a fraction of what it does here."

He said nothing about socialized medicine.

People point to other socialized medicine nations as a testament to how socialized medicine 'can't fail' yet Taiwan's nationalized healthcare falls short of what it's supposed to achieve.

BTW, lol nation bashing.

[RaoBurning]

Triage is the process of determining the priority of patients' treatments based on the severity of their condition. This rations patient treatment efficiently when resources are insufficient for all to be treated immediately.

Triage is a form of rationing.

Triage isn't rationing, in the sense you're going for, it's prioritizing. The people who will die first get treated first. Because, you know, they'll die otherwise. So that hypothetical person on life support would retain his support so long as he isn't brain dead, because, you know, otherwise he'll fucking die. If there are 10 doctors and 10 patient there is no triage because there's enough for everyone. 11 patients and 10 doctors means someone has to wait. THAT'S triage. That 11th guy isn't screwed, he just has to not bleed out before his turn. Which, given the nature of triage, he wouldn't be the one bleeding out anyway...unless they were all bleeding out...hmm.

Source: Years of watching M*A*S*H*

Every time this health care thing comes up, I'm reminding of a particular scene from Scrubs. Dr. Cox is going after the Chief of Medicine position, and, while fighting down the vomit and self hate, recommends a treatment for a women when her insurance doesn't cover it because keeping her alive is a long term financial gain because of all the other things she comes for that her insurance does cover.

How fucking disgusting is it that saving somebody's life is second priority to a bottom line?

I understand Kelso's role in things, too. He's a doctor and does want to help people. But, a dead hospital treats zero patients so he has to keep things running. Which still sucks. His love of medicine and aiding his fellow man required him to turn into a heartless bastard. Shame, really.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage"]
You're trying to argue the definition of triage with someone who has been trained to to perform triage in an emergency setting.

Has the hypothetical you've been bantering with Endus about even taken place in an emergency setting?

[yurano]

Triage isn't rationing, in the sense you're going for, it's prioritizing. The people who will die first get treated first. Because, you know, they'll die otherwise. So that hypothetical person on life support would retain his support so long as he isn't brain dead, because, you know, otherwise he'll fucking die. If there are 10 doctors and 10 patient there is no triage because there's enough for everyone. 11 patients and 10 doctors means someone has to wait. THAT'S triage. That 11th guy isn't screwed, he just has to not bleed out before his turn. Which, given the nature of triage, he wouldn't be the one bleeding out anyway...unless they were all bleeding out...hmm.

Dude, did you even read my example?

Triage in the most critical sense is when there are 10 patients, 1 doctor. Of the 10 patients, 2 are at death's door (black tag), 2 are critically injured (red tag) and the rest are walking wounded. In MCI triage, the doctor would tell the walking wounded to extract themselves, 'ignore' the patients at death's door and treat the critically injured.

In the most severe sense of triage, people who are dying are skipped over, even if they had a chance to be resuscitated in a non-triage setting.

In MCI Triage situations, EMTs are to leave some patients to die. The logic goes: in the time it takes to give black tag patients a chance of survival, you could have saved more red tag patients. This is a case where resources are truly a limiting factor (as with insurance budgets).

Source: Years of watching M*A*S*H*

Every time this health care thing comes up, I'm reminding of a particular scene from Scrubs. Dr. Cox is going after the Chief of Medicine position, and, while fighting down the vomit and self hate, recommends a treatment for a women when her insurance doesn't cover it because keeping her alive is a long term financial gain because of all the other things she comes for that her insurance does cover.

How fucking disgusting is it that saving somebody's life is second priority to a bottom line?

I understand Kelso's role in things, too. He's a doctor and does want to help people. But, a dead hospital treats zero patients so he has to keep things running. Which still sucks. His love of medicine and aiding his fellow man required him to turn into a heartless bastard. Shame, really.

TV has little bearing on real life. A lot of things are sensationalized on TV to make it exciting.

At the end of the day, without money to pay the bills, medical services don't keep on going. When you have a limited budget, you prioritize whats important and ration out your resources.

This goes for many other 'life saving' services like police, fire, car safety features.

If you live in the slums, public services like police/fire are less likely to respond because they're stretched thin. If you get into an accident in San Diego, cops don't show up unless someone's hurt. In the richer Silicon Valley, 8 cops show up to an overturned vehicle when there's literally no traffic. They just to sit there and watch a tow truck pick up the car.

Car safety features like ABS and traction control were originally only found in luxury cars. They're standard features now, but they were originally premium features. Even now, there are safety features only found in luxury cars like frontal collision avoidance and lane departure warnings. These features do truly save lives but no one is up in arms about how you have to pay to obtain these features.

There are a lot of tough decisions made in the health care system. The naive mindset 'lets just save everybody' doesn't work. This is why rationing is used by insurance companies to maximize health care benefits for a given budget. In addition, this is why triage systems like START are used in MCI situations.

Has the hypothetical you've been bantering with Endus about even taken place in an emergency setting?

How do you think large traffic accidents are handled? 40 car pile up with 1 ambulance on scene and others 5-10 minutes away. 5-10 minutes is enough for a 'savable' patient's life to fade away. The START and JumpSTART triage systems were both developed due to inadequacies of MCI response efforts. Both are taught to new EMTs as part of their training.

Forest fires, earthquakes, other natural disasters, factory accidents all create a large amount of casualties that must be handled by a minimal responding units.

Hurricane Katrina's rescue effort was largely ineffective and heavily criticized for its ineffective organization. Emergency responders from out of state flying into New Orleans had no idea what to do because there was no standardized Incident Command System. As a result, FEMA developed the NIMS to standardize ICS across the nation.

While emergency triage is rarely invoked, they do happen so systems have been put in place to ensure that the largest amount of people can be saved.

[Djuntas]

Inn Denmark you max wait 1 month to get a diagnose for you're Illness. Not sure when you can undergo surgery trough.

Fact is, I like not having to worry about being finacialy broke if I couldent afford health-insurance, AFTER I just went trough mature surgery.

[Deleted]

First of all, I'm sorry to hear about your father's health.

However you must consider that in the United States we can keep people alive who might otherwise have been let go in other countries. Treatments and costs for socialized medicine are dictated by government policy and not by demand. So your father's life support may not have been covered at all in another country because it might be deemed too expensive for the potential outcomes. In the United States much more is available, but it just comes out of pocket when your insurance company decides it wont' cover a treatment fully.

I'm not trying to say this is directly applicable to your case and I'm sorry about the situation your family has been left in.

Some of you act as if the US is lightyears ahead of everyone else, sorry but that is just not true..


I mean 1 guy said "derp under socialized medicine your dad might not even have gotten lifesupport" I mean how GD ignorant do you have to be to post moronic dribble like that? get a clue of the world around you geez.