Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    450donn's Avatar
    450donn Posts: 1,821, Reputation: 239
    Ultra Member
     
    #1

    Mar 30, 2009, 07:37 AM
    Socalized Medicine or the Liberal Health Plan
    Was listening to the news this morning and one story was about the death of the actress, Mz Richardson a couple weeks ago. Turns out that if she had been given a simple test she would likely still be alive. But that this test was not authorized under the Canadian health system because of cost. Top that off with the long delay in getting her to medical treatment because of the lack of helicopter medevac service and you have a relatively young woman dead because of inadequate health services due to Government regulation. Is this what we really want in America? :(
    J_9's Avatar
    J_9 Posts: 40,298, Reputation: 5646
    Expert
     
    #2

    Mar 30, 2009, 07:43 AM
    Of course it's not. As a nurse I am quite frightened by the idea of socialized medicine. I won't be able to order an ultrasound if I feel that there might be a shoulder dystocia because it's "too expensive." That simple test could save the life of the baby I am ordering it for.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #3

    Mar 30, 2009, 08:14 AM

    Hello 450:

    I don't want the government in the examining room with me and my doctor... But, right now, I've got the government in there AND an insurance adjuster.

    Frankly, I don't know what the insurance adjuster is doing there. Certainly HE'S going to deny me services too, just like you think the government is going to, otherwise he WOULDN'T be there. No?

    Why do YOU think he's there? Or do you even get that he is. Certainly the email you get from the right wingers isn't going to tell you about them.

    Seems to me, that health care would get a whole lot cheaper, and be more widely available if we removed ONE of those FOUR people from the examining room..

    What?? You don't think insurance companies are making money here?

    excon
    J_9's Avatar
    J_9 Posts: 40,298, Reputation: 5646
    Expert
     
    #4

    Mar 30, 2009, 08:29 AM
    Excon, my love,

    Did you not know that we, as medical professionals, can manipulate the insurance companies when necessary? Yes, there are billing codes, etc. but when there is a medical necessity, we can re-code the procedures so that your insurance company will pay. And, it's LEGAL!
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #5

    Mar 30, 2009, 08:40 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by J_9 View Post
    Excon, my love, Did you not know that we, as medical professionals, can manipulate the insurance companies when necessary? Yes, there are billing codes, etc. but when there is a medical necessity, we can re-code the procedures so that your insurance company will pay.
    Hello again, J:

    Me theenks you could do the same with the government. I don't know why not.

    excon
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #6

    Mar 30, 2009, 09:42 AM

    Government Run Universal Health Care isn't universal, doesn't create health, and doesn't care.

    Government-run Universal Health Care results in rationing of health care, which means that millions of people won't get the care they really need. Therefore, it is NOT universal.

    Government-run healthcare doesn't provide health care. It provides, at best, health insurance, and at worst, miles of red tape. Therefore it doesn't provide health.

    And government-run agencies are crewed by people who don't give a damn... go to any Department of Motor Vehicles office and tell me if that statement isn't true. The government and its employees don't care.

    Elliot
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #7

    Mar 30, 2009, 09:47 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, J:

    Me theenks you could do the same with the government. I dunno why not.

    excon
    Lack of competition.

    In the end, insurance companies are businesses. If they get a reputation for not covering the procedures that they say they are going to cover, clients will go elsewhere for coverage. So it is in their best interests, in the end, to provide the services they promise. In the end, that's how they get new customers and make money. That incentive doesn't work in a single-payor government-run system that doesn't have competition.

    There is no incentive for the government to pay out on benefits, and every incentive for them to make it as hard as possible to obtain benefits. Every penny they don't spend on health care is another dollar that some politician can use for his pet pork project.

    That's why it won't work to change codes in a government-run system.

    Elliot
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #8

    Mar 30, 2009, 09:50 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    government-run agencies are crewed by people who don't give a damn... go to any Department of Motor Vehicles office and tell me if that statement isn't true. The government and its employees don't care.
    Hello again, Elliot:

    Tell me why you think the insurance agent gives a damn, or cares about you at all. You're HAPPY to have HIM in the examining room with you... I can't tell why. Maybe you own insurance company stock. Come on, El. Don't keep secrets. Why do you think your insurance company is going to treat you any better than the government would?

    I can tell that you're IGNORING the insurance agent issue. That tells me a LOT.

    excon
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #9

    Mar 30, 2009, 09:50 AM
    I read the whole story in the Globe and mail about the timeline of Ms. Richardson's events. I'm curious to know what this simple test is 450donn. By the report it is possible that nothing would have helped Ms. Richardson who walked away from the scene of her ski fall of her own accord. Not even a helicopter flight would have helped. An autopsy would reveal more details.
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #10

    Mar 30, 2009, 09:58 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Elliot:

    Tell me why you think the insurance agent gives a damn, or cares about you at all. You're HAPPY to have HIM in the examining room with you.... I can't tell why. Maybe you own insurance company stock. Come on, El. Don't keep secrets. Why do you think your insurance company is going to treat you any better than the government would?

    I can tell that you're IGNORING the insurance agent issue. That tells me a LOT.

    excon

    As I said, because they are in the business of making money, it is in their best interests to keep their clients happy. Ergo, they usually are. It doesn't matter whether the employees really give a damn or not, because they HAVE to do their best for the client or else they get fired by a company that wants to be competitive.

    The government has no such incentive to keep employees happy because they have no competition.

    Elliot
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #11

    Mar 30, 2009, 10:00 AM

    Hello Need:

    He might be referring to an MRI. Another poster suggested that the LACK of an MRI meant that the Canadian health system was CUTTING necessary services. Ergo - BAD, and that's what killed her!

    But, of course, in a small ski town, there's no MARKET for an expensive MRI machine. In my home town of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, in the very much market driven economy, there wasn't an MRI machine either.

    I suppose one could blame the market based system for that failure... But, that would be stupid, kind of like blaming this failure on Canada's system...

    excon
    inthebox's Avatar
    inthebox Posts: 787, Reputation: 179
    Senior Member
     
    #12

    Apr 2, 2009, 02:24 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    I read the whole story in the Globe and mail about the timeline of Ms. Richardson's events. I'm curious to know what this simple test is 450donn. By the report it is possible that nothing would have helped Ms. Richardson who walked away from the scene of her ski fall of her own accord. Not even a helicopter flight would have helped. An autopsy would reveal more details.
    globeandmail.com: Saving Morgan: The lesson of Natasha


    Morgan was whisked to the local emergency room, where doctors ordered a CT scan and immediately put her on a helicopter to Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital in Cleveland. She was operated on in the early hours of March 20.





    The actress was skiing at Mont Tremblant resort, north of Montreal, on March 16 when she fell on a beginner's hill. She initially said she was okay, and waved off medical assistance. Two hours later, she began showing symptoms of a brain injury. By the time she arrived at a specialized Montreal hospital, seven hours had passed. She was airlifted home to New York the next day, already said to be brain dead, and died on March 18.



    In almost every hospital in the US, regardless of size, a Cat Scan is available.
    A cat scan should have been ordered and performed asap. Any ER doctor will tell you that an emergency CT of the head can be done WITHOUT having to clear it with insurance, lack of insurance or with some Medicare or Medicaid clerk.
    If this happened in the US, her death would be deemed negligent and a malpractice suit would have been filed within a week!


    On Google maps it appears that Montreal is within 100 miles of the resort.

    ? Did the late Mrs Richardson get flown by helicopter [ a common occurrence in the US ] or by ambulance?

    ? Why did it take SEVEN hours to get a cat scan?

    ? Why did she get airlifted to the Mt Sinai in NY - could they not handle her condition in "a specialized Montreal Hospital?"





    G&P
    N0help4u's Avatar
    N0help4u Posts: 19,823, Reputation: 2035
    Uber Member
     
    #13

    Apr 10, 2009, 05:27 PM

    I agree 100% with ETW
    The stimulus even has a provision that will set up a board that will review and decide IF THEY feel a person should receive surgery and other medical things. They can decide that you are sick and dying and/or too old and deny you because they want the money in their pockets.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #14

    Apr 10, 2009, 06:10 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    I agree 100% with ETW
    The stimulus even has a provision that will set up a board that will review and decide IF THEY feel a person should receive surgery and other medical things. They can decide that you are sick and dying and/or too old and deny you because they want the money in their pockets.
    How is that different from the insurance companies doing the same thing for their profit?
    N0help4u's Avatar
    N0help4u Posts: 19,823, Reputation: 2035
    Uber Member
     
    #15

    Apr 10, 2009, 06:12 PM

    I think it will get worse with the government being in charge of who gets help. Same but way worse.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #16

    Apr 10, 2009, 06:41 PM
    I guess it depends on the governmental situation in each country.
    tickle's Avatar
    tickle Posts: 23,796, Reputation: 2674
    Expert
     
    #17

    Apr 11, 2009, 04:42 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    I read the whole story in the Globe and mail about the timeline of Ms. Richardson's events. I'm curious to know what this simple test is 450donn. By the report it is possible that nothing would have helped Ms. Richardson who walked away from the scene of her ski fall of her own accord. Not even a helicopter flight would have helped. An autopsy would reveal more details.
    I remember the article quite clearly appearing in the Toronto Star. Ms. Richardson refused to wear a helmet that would have saved her life, and she also refused medical care, and was offered it 3 times. As for a 'simple test' being too expensive, wouldn't you think that her family had enough money to pay for five or six of them if they were needed.
    tickle's Avatar
    tickle Posts: 23,796, Reputation: 2674
    Expert
     
    #18

    Apr 11, 2009, 04:46 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello Need:

    He might be referring to an MRI. Another poster suggested that the LACK of an MRI meant that the Canadian health system was CUTTING necessary services. Ergo - BAD, and that's what killed her!

    But, of course, in a small ski town, there's no MARKET for an expensive MRI machine. In my home town of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, in the very much market driven economy, there wasn't an MRI machine either.

    I suppose one could blame the market based system for that failure... But, that would be stupid, kinda like blaming this failure on Canada's system....

    excon
    Canadian govt. is not cutting necessary services. I live in a small town in Ontario with a new hospital. We have an MRI and catscans are done on a daily basis, ordered up by the client's physician. As for ultrasound, I had one the other day. Quite simple really.
    N0help4u's Avatar
    N0help4u Posts: 19,823, Reputation: 2035
    Uber Member
     
    #19

    Apr 11, 2009, 05:53 AM

    I have heard too many stories about health care being denied to SOME people or that it was too little too late. But I do believe you on the Richardson case because something told me that it was because she didn't bother getting the necessary help.
    tickle's Avatar
    tickle Posts: 23,796, Reputation: 2674
    Expert
     
    #20

    Apr 11, 2009, 10:08 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    I have heard too many stories about health care being denied to SOME people or that it was too little too late. But I do believe you on the Richardson case because something told me that it was because she didn't bother getting the necessary help.
    No health care is denied any Canadian, new or otherwise. We have all paid into it over the years through employee deduction (it is now up to the employer to make these contributions). I am quite happy the way I am treated, and I imagine others are too.

    Where do you hear these stories ? It is up to the individual to keep on top of his/her healthcare, make appts. Show up for appts. For procedure. No one else can do that for them.

    I am in healthcare, as you know, I know how the system works, and from my standpoint it works perfectly for my clients, who by the way, come out of the hospital into homecare, cared for by Personal Support Workers, paid by socialized medicine until they can function on their own.

    So, where do we fall down on the job ?

    Tick

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

McCain Health Plan [ 2 Answers ]

I know this topic is not as exciting as what is going on the Democratic side, but what do you think? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01mccain.html?ref=health I find it amazing that the NYT would have the misleading "higher tax" in their headline, when the article actually...

Loose the gut. Health plan needed. [ 2 Answers ]

Does anybody know how you could loose your gut? And get pecs and abs? Like a health plan. How many calories a day you should have. Work out plan. If you could provide that information that would be great!

Senior health plan [ 3 Answers ]

I am a senior. My wife is 60. I have a 16 yr old daughter living at home.Don't have a health plan. Is there help financially for me for health care


View more questions Search