Canada Health care killed Richardson

[JayB]

I just told you that you could cite individual studies but none could be used to draw sweeping conclusions about the respective worth of different systems. Moreover, I sincerely doubt these studies account adequately for the huge discrepancy in access to health care in the US. When more than 1/10 of your population has no health insurance none of the statistics concerning outcome or wait time should look good unless you forget about those who do not get care.

 

Like the data that bill cited above?

 

 

"Access to Care

 

Well, the medical efficiency of the two systems may not be so different but access to care must vary greatly, right? Canada has an egalitarian, socialist system while the U.S. relies (somewhat) on free-market capitalism to allocate medical services.

 

Below we see that Canada general has a lower disease incidence rate, but treatment rates are generally higher in the U.S. Further, these difference decrease even more if we only look at Caucasians in each country. The authors state “the composition of the non-white group differs by country—predominantly black in the U.S., but Asian in Canada; and racial differences in health outcomes may differ in the two countries.” See CensusScope for more details on the U.S. racial composition.

Canada U.S.

% with condition % gets treatment % with condition % gets treatment

All

Asthma 6.6 80.3 7.8 78.8

High blood pressure 8.8 84.1 13.1 88.3

Heart Disease 2.4 67.2 2.6 69.6

Angina 0.9 74.6 1.1 61.0

Whites Asthma 6.9 82.7 7.7 77.6

High blood pressure 9.1 83.2 12.5 87.3

Heart Disease 2.7 69.4 2.4 73.2

Angina 0.9 70.7 0.8 75.1

 

 

In Canada, the main reason for an unmet need was because the wait was too long or the treatment was unavailable. In the U.S., most people who do not receive treatment fail to do so because of cost considerations.

 

Preventive Services

 

Probably the most surprising discovery of the paper was that Americans partake in more preventive care than Canadians.

 

* Mammograms: 88.6% of American females 40-69 had ever had a mammogram compared to 72.3% of Canadians.

* PAP smear: 86.3% of American females 20-69 had a PAP smear in the last 3 years compared to 75.1% of Canadians.

* Prostate screening: 54.2% of American men 40-69 had ever had a PSA test compared to 16.4% of Canadians."

 

Sadly, despite your explicit admission that there isn't enough data to support broad generalizations or sweeping claims about the relative performance of health care systems, I'd be astonished if this minor detail is sufficient to dissuade you from making them.

 

 

[JayB]

Yes, it is a bit odd and specious to advocate for SCOTUS' recent interpretation of the second ammendment on one hand and with the other say why, if you remove gun violence, our healthcare systems provide equivalent care even if far more expensively.

 

And hey, none of this isn't rocket science, it's actually pretty straightforward. Take the Medicare Plan D for instance. Funny how you can't even find a national list of 'providers', but last I heard back when the plan started there were at least 47 insurance providers doing business in Plan D. Think about it. 47 companies hired a sales force, policy folks, claims folks, and all 47 designed custom software for every aspect of the system. Not only does this represent a massive government giveaway to corporate America, it imposes an amazing amount of completely unnecessary complexity, and what efficiencies and cost savings do we get for that - aside from massively confusing seniors - none. That's right, none - in fact by comparison, the VA consistently pays half for the same drugs. It's a vast and wide clusterfuck of epic proportions to the tune of billions of dollors of overhead and lost cost opportunities all flushed directly down the drain in the name of "free enterprise".

 

And actully, aside from the fact that I'm from Chicago, you knew Obama was a player, a pragmatist, and going to be sadly disappointing progressives again and again the minute he said on the campaign trail that insurance companies were going to be part of healthcare reform. READ MY LIPS - by definition healthcare reform that results in the existence of private insurance companies involved with the administration of a baselevel of universal healthcare isn't healthcare reform.

 

Insurance companies provide no value in the stack. Period. And to answer jayb's question, of course healthcare providers recover their costs by any means possible - they have to and the insurance companies are in on the game. And that game is played across the insurance business. Ever been quoted one price for something with insurance and another price if you don't have any? New windshield, body work, dental work, eyeglasses - it's all fraud gaming the system.

 

Bottomline - U.S. corporations will never be able to compete on the world stage if they are responsible for employee and retiree healthcare. Again, it's an infrastructure and public health concern; it's not a business businesses should be in. And purely from a pandemic public health perspective, it is rank insanity that every human in the U.S. doesn't have access to a [universal] baselevel of healthcare - extremely resistant TB just doesn't give a rats ass about economic, class, suburban, or coach boundaries once it's bred in healthcare coverage dead zones.

 

And don't kid yourselves - rationing happens, it's happening now - we just do it differently. And that would work fine so long as we didn't have public emergency rooms, but with that back door open we're just kidding ourselves about how we go about it. You want homeland security, you want a return to a lasting economic recovery, you want businesses to thrive - then deal with healthcare - establish universal coveverage at some baselevel, build a single payer system with no insurance company involvement, and allow insurance companies and well-off consumers to create a new market for value-added coverage.

 

Think the government can't do it? The VA is proof it can it has the best medical records technology on earth and has had for years now. Pharmaceuticals, Texplorer on this board is about to start his second pharmacuetical residency at the Reno VA hospital doing data mining and national efficacy studies - pharmaceutical companies HATE the VA because they actually are on top of the games and play hardball.

 

It's all a game, a sham, and one riddled with parasitic middlemen. It's not much differently gamed than the one that just collapsed on Wall street. It's all propped up on 'free market' propaganda and the righteous politics of indignation and fear on main street. But again, tell the folks in SE Oregon about free market healthcare and they'll tell you they now have to drive hundreds of miles and book a hotel room to avail themselves of it.

 

Would it be fair to summarize the above as "The absence of competition and profits is a precondition for the optimally efficient use of resources."

 

If not, why? If yes - does this condition hold globally, or is it only true for health care?

 

 

[JosephH]

Would it be fair to summarize the above as "The absence of competition and profits is a precondition for the optimally efficient use of resources."

 

If not, why? If yes - does this condition hold globally, or is it only true for health care?

 

I forget now, but aren't you in the technology business? You're confusing 'competition' that generates efficiencies and adds value with 'competition' which embues entirely needless complexity, rampant redundancy, and provides absolutely no value add. Again, collectively, the private Medicare Plan D providers way more than double senior drug costs under the program. It was a classic example of BushCo's corporate welfare, 'free enterprise' system on steroids - the closest example I can think of to it is post-invasion contracting in Iraq. How is diverting tax revenue to corporations which increase complexity and provide negative value add a 'competitive' approach to healthcare or any other infrastructure requirement.

 

Jesus, I mean from the day the leashes came off it took private industry and 'free markets / enterprise' a mere 9.5 years to destroy two thirds of the world's economies - this is a model to aspire to? Maybe in some restrained, moral, and 'conservative' culture of a bygone era, but after 50+ years of television and sophisticated consumer marketing we've become a gaming society with a monetary rather than a moral bottom line - rather than an era where fraud was contained to edge conditions since the mid-'80s it has been clearly shown again and again to be a fundamental component of business. Or, as my accountant says - 'Corporations absent of appropriate government oversight are indistinquishable from organized crime". The results of which currently do not readily support either the notion that 'less regulation is the answer' or that 'competitive free markets are the answer'. The problem with the latter in all forms of the insurance business is there is no competition per se, the players are not playing as competitors, they are playing as an felonious - if not treasonous - cartels and syndicates.

[j_b]

I just told you that you could cite individual studies but none could be used to draw sweeping conclusions about the respective worth of different systems. Moreover, I sincerely doubt these studies account adequately for the huge discrepancy in access to health care in the US. When more than 1/10 of your population has no health insurance none of the statistics concerning outcome or wait time should look good unless you forget about those who do not get care.

 

Like the data that bill cited above?

 

 

Well, first there are problems with the sampling methodology used for the study since the response rate for this telephone survey was quite low especially in the US (50% in US versus 64% in Canada), which may disproportionately affect low income respondants. Second, other analysis of the same data come up with different conclusions: "This study found that Canadians at low levels of education or income were substantially healthier than their US counterparts. HUI3 scores were higher for higher income categories in both countries. This relationship between health and income has been well documented [36,37]. Others have reported that household income is a strong predictor of health status [38]. Important differences in health between the two countries were found at less than high school and high school education. This is consistent with previous work in which educational attainment was positively associated with health [39,40]. Both quantitative importance and statistical significance were found for income and education in this study.

 

The strength of the JCUSH was the application of identical methodology and instruments. The findings in this study reveal health disparities between Canadians and Americans at lower levels of education and income, with Americans worse off. Differences between the two countries in social and economic inequality as well as in access to healthcare may account for the observed differences in the health of those with lower levels of education and/or income [41]. The social safety net that Canada provides compared to the US seems to have an impact on health for those with less education and income."

http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/5/1/10

 

 

Sadly, despite your explicit admission that there isn't enough data to support broad generalizations or sweeping claims about the relative performance of health care systems, I'd be astonished if this minor detail is sufficient to dissuade you from making them.

 

I didn't say there wasn't enough data to draw broad generalizations. I said that studies about outcome for specific and often cherry-picked conditions couldn't be extrapolated to draw sweeping conclusions, whereas braod indices such life expectancy, however imperfect they were, gave a better overall picture of health because they were less subject to bias and methods. A broad collection of health care specialists seem to think so too:

 

Why Canadians Are Healthier

By Judy Foreman 2/10/04

 

My fellow Americans: Want a health tip? Move toCanada.

 

An impressive array of comparative data shows that Canadians live longer and healthier lives than we do. What’s more, they pay roughly half as much per capita as we do — $2,163 versus $4,887 in 2001 — for the privilege.

 

Exactly why Canadians fare better is the subject of considerable academic debate. Some policy wonks say it’sCanada’s single-payer, universal health coverage system. Others point to Canadians’ different ethnic mix. Some think it’s because they use fewer illegal drugs and shoot each other less with guns, though they do smoke and drink with gusto.

 

Still others think Canadians are healthier because their medical system is tilted more toward primary-care doctors and less toward specialists. And some believe it’s something more fundamental—a smaller gap between rich and poor. Perhaps it’s all of the above. But there is no arguing the basics.

 

“By all measures, Canadians’ health is better,” said Dr. Barbara Starfield, a university distinguished professor at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Canadians “do better on a whole variety of health outcomes,” she said, “including life expectancy at various ages — 1, 15, 20, 45, 65, 80, you name it.”

 

According to a World Health Organization report published last year, life expectancy at birth in Canada is 79.8 years versus 77.3 in the United States (Japan’s is 81.9.). Canada now ranks fifth in life expectancy at birth (after Japan, Sweden, Hong Kong and Iceland), while theUnited States ranks 26th, according to the United Nations Human Development Report.

 

“There isn’t a single measure in which the US excels in the health arena,” said Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, a senior lecturer in the School of Public Health at the University of Washington in Seattle. “We spend half of the world’s health care bill and we are less healthy than all the other rich countries.

 

“Fifty-five years ago, we were one of the healthiest countries in the world. What changed? We have increased the gap between rich and poor. Nothing determines the health of a population [more] than the gap between rich and poor.”

 

Infant-mortality rates also show striking differences between theUnited States and Canada, according to Dr. Clyde Hertzman, associate director of the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbiain Vancouver. To counter the argument that racial differences play a major role, Hertzman compared infant mortality for all Canadians with that for white Americans between 1970 and 1998. The white US infant mortality rate was roughly six deaths per 1,000 babies, compared to slightly more than five for Canadians.

 

Maternal mortality shows a substantial gap as well. According to data published last year by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international think-tank, there were 3.4 maternal deaths for every 100,000 births among Canadians compared to a 9.8 among all Americans.

 

And more than half of Canadians with severe mental disorders received treatment, compared to little more than a third of Americans, according to the May-June 2003 issue of Health Affairs.

 

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, general internist at Cambridge Hospital and staunch advocate of a single-payer system, said she believes “the summary of the evidence has to be that national health insurance has improved the health of Canadians and is responsible for some of the longer life expectancy.”

 

On the other hand, there are some causes of death that wouldn’t be much affected by having the government pick up the health care tab—like homicide. And theUnited States, Bezruckha said, has “the highest homicide rate of all the rich countries.”

 

“Other things might be differences in seat-belt usage,” said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. “We are also disproportionate consumers of illegal drugs, much more than Canada, so it’s cultural. The health of Americans would be better if we had universal health care, but there are some things that a single-payer system wouldn’t fix, but which would leave one country looking healthier in the statistics.” In some respects, the health care system is “the tail on the dog,” said Dr. Arnie Epstein, chairman of the department of health policy and medicine at the Harvard School of Public Health. “It’s other aspects of the social fabric of different countries that seem to have a major impact on how long people live.”

 

Like ethnicity, In the United States, African-Americans and Latinos “face problems of housing, stress and low income which have nothing to do with a single-payer system,” Blendon said.Canada has a large number of Asian immigrants, he said, but they, like Asian immigrants in the United States, tend to do well on health care measures.

 

The bottom line is that Canada is doing something right, even if “the reasons are not totally understood,” said Kominski of UCLA.

 

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/february/why_canadians_are_he.php

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

Would it be fair to summarize the above as "The absence of competition and profits is a precondition for the optimally efficient use of resources."

 

If not, why? If yes - does this condition hold globally, or is it only true for health care?

 

Nice bit of sophistry there JayB. Or are you ignoring that the profits and freemarket aren't directed towards people living longer?

[j_b]

Here is a comprehensive comparison study of outcomes in the US and Canada that uses every direct comparison of the outcomes of U.S. and Canadian patients with identical illnesses ever published; therfore without cherry-picking.

 

Overall, 14 of the 38 studies showed better outcomes in Canada, while only 5 favored the U.S. The remaining 19 studies showed equivalent or mixed results in the two nations. When the studies were combined statistically, the mortality rate was 5% lower in Canada. However, the researchers urged caution in interpreting this small Canadian advantage. Among the highest quality studies examined, 5 favored Canada while only 2 favored the U.S. The one group of patients who clearly fared better in Canada were those with end stage kidney disease

 

The findings are particularly striking since few uninsured patients in the U.S. — who probably suffer the worst quality care - were included in the studies examined. Indeed, all kidney failure patients in the U.S. have insurance,

 

Per capita health spending in the U.S. in 2006 was $7,129 — more than double Canada’s spending of $2,956 (U.S.) per capita. All Canadians are covered under that nation’s non-profit national health insurance program. The study comes on the heels of recent findings from the Joint U.S. Canada Health Survey that Canadians enjoy access to care similar to that for insured Americans, and far better than for the uninsured in the U.S.

 

Dr. Gordon Guyatt, Professor of Medicine at McMaster University and lead author of the study said “These results should be a wake up call to Americans. Canadian-style universal health care can deliver as good or better health outcomes at half the price.” Dr. Guyatt, who coined the term “evidence based medicine” is a leading expert on research methodology.

 

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard and a study co-author commented: “Americans pay inflated prices for inferior care. The extra $4000 each American spends annually isn’t buying us better quality. Most of it is pure waste, going for paperwork and insurance and drug company profits. National health insurance would maintain or even improve quality for those who now have coverage, cover the uninsured and still cost less than we’re now spending

 

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/may/quality_of_healthcar.php

 

[JosephH]

The extra $4000 each American spends annually isn’t buying us better quality. Most of it is pure waste, going for paperwork and insurance and drug company profits.

 

My point exactly - this isn't 'competition', it's a gamed system built and rigged for insurance and pharmaceutical companies at the expense of both consumers and providers. They raided and took over the system in the late 80's thru early '90s right after they finished raiding all the weakly governed corporations for their pension funds.

[tvashtarkatena]

According to a recent New Yorker article (2 months ago?), the number one cause of high healthcare costs in the U.S. is the fact that our doctors make, on average, twice as much as other first world nations.

[j_b]

Here is an interview of Uwe Reinhardt, a leading adviser on health care economics and professor of political economy at Princeton University, discussing administrative costs, which he claims are around 30%:

Edie Magnus: We were in a hospital that was affiliated with McGill University, and it was a regional system that had six hospitals that were affiliated with one another, and they annually have some 39,000 inpatients, and they do about 34,000 surgeries and they deliver about 3,000 babies. And managing all of this is a staff of 12 people doing the billing, the administration. What would an equivalent hospital in the U.S. take to run administratively?

 

Uwe Reinhardt: You’d be talking 800, 900 people, just for the billing, with that many hospitals and being an academic health center. We were recently at a conference at Duke University and the president of Duke University, Bill Brody, said they are dealing with 700 distinct managed care contracts. Now think about this. When you deal with that many insurers you have to negotiate rates with each of them. In Baltimore, they are lucky. They have rate regulations, so they don’t have to do it. But take Duke University, for example, has more than 500,000 and I believe it’s 900 billing clerks for their system.

 

Edie Magnus: What are 800, 900 people doing?

 

Uwe Reinhardt: Well first of all there’s a contract. With each different managed care contract you have different rates. You have different things that need pre-authorization, not depending on the contract. You haggle over every bill. You submit the bill, the insurer rejects it, you haggle, and it may take 90 days to settle one bill. They don’t have that in Canada. You see, we spend in this country an enormous amount of money just administering claims. It’s a huge wrestling match over the payment.

 

Edie Magnus: When we pay a medical bill, how much of that bill goes to these kinds of administrative costs?

 

Uwe Reinhardt: Well, in general what you’ll find in our official statistics, we’re spending 7 percent on administration, but that only accounts for the insurers’ administrative costs and that includes Medicaid, which burns only two percent of its money throughput on administration. On the other hand, Medicare and Medicaid both cost the hospitals administrative costs that are booked as medical care, but it’s really administrative costs.

 

Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein of Harvard did a study comparing Canada and the U.S. looking at what it costs employers, providers, doctors and hospitals and the insurance mechanism and compared Canada and the US, and they found that we in 1999, spent $300 billion on administration for all these three functions, and that was about 24 percent of national health spending there, but they say it was actually 31 percent because of the fraction of spending that they could actually identify and link to administrative costs. So they came to 31. So it’s somewhere between 25 and 30 percent that goes for administration and it doesn’t even include the patients’ time of billing. Anyone who has had anyone really sick in their family knows how much time you spend haggling over the bills and they have none of that in these systems.

 

http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/01/28/how-the-us-measures-up-to-canadas-health-care-system/

[JosephH]

That's ridiculous - I'd have to look for the stats, but trust me, the docs and nurses are not the ones making out on our healthcare - the insurance and pharmaceuticals are. In the 'raid' I keep talking about, the raiders essentially skimmed $100-150k off the top of every doc in the nation. So, if they're alluding to what may be charged for docs' time, then that would again be the managed care outfits and insurance companies making out, not the docs themselves - BUT, I'll have to look at the article because sitting here at the moment I don't remotely believe that statement.

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, you may be surprised, as I was, but you can hardly claim it's "ridiculous" until you've done your homework, can you? So far I've seen no pie charts or cost breakdowns to back up any of your assertions, which, however well written, 'seem' to make sense (after all, we've heard your thesis repeated over and over again in the media), but are they based on attitude/opinion or actual data? Certainly, they contribute to the problem, but are they the largest part of it, or might there be other factors that you've somehow missed which are more important?

Edited March 29, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

BTW, the article was published in the NYT, not the New Yorker, as I previously stated.

[Mal_Con]

People has the transcripts of the 911 calls etc. here it seems quite clear that she was well on the way to brain dead by the time she got to the hospital. There seems to be a lesson there for all. RIP

[tvashtarkatena]

it seems quite clear that she was well on the way to brain dead

 

Given the effects of this Ebola colony that has permanently taken up residence in my lungs, that makes two of us.

 

Anybody got a spare course of broad spectrum anti-biotics they'd part with sitting around in the medicine cabinet? That, or perhaps just a lethal injection?

[scheissami]

Tvash,

 

Certainly not a comprehensive response, but one of the reasons physicians in other countries (those in Europe, for example) earn less is that it costs less to obtain an education in many of those countries. I'm an emergency physician and went straight through my schooling (i.e. sadly no time off for dirtbagging). So, that's four years of college, four years of med school, and three years of residency training. I went to state college so that was pretty cheap, but most students leave medical school with $150-200k of debt (don't forget to include cost of living while you're in school and unable to earn a salary). That's pretty hefty when you consider that my contemporaries from college were already out in the workforce and putting money away, while most of physicians don't earn a real salary until they're thirty or so.

 

In contrast, a friend of mine is completing medical training in Austria. After high school, she went straight into medical school, which lasts for six years. It's also free--yep, paid for by the govmint. She's just now completing her 3-4 years of post-graduate training. So, her education was two years shorter and $150k cheaper. She'll earn about half of what I earn, but has none of the debt burden I'm saddled with.

 

I think that if one wants to complain about the income of physicians (which has declined significantly over the past 20 years, BTW) and thinks it should be curtailed, well, I think that it would be only fair to champion more state funded education. I mean, no one forced me to do what I do, I enjoy it and find it exceptionally fulfilling. However, it isn't a cakewalk, it's hard work, and it's a public service. Many occupations fit this description, I know.

 

Also, many of the patients I treat will never pay a dime of their bill. That's more a function of our abysmal healthcare system more than it is of any individual fault of the patients. The insurance reimbursement system is crazy. I mean, next time you go to the grocery store, when the clerk asks you for $100 bucks for your groceries, tell them you'll pay $60 in 60-90 days and see what happens when you walk out. That sort of reimbursement (60% in 2-3 months) is considered excellent. WTF??? Also, next time you're in the hospital, read your bill carefully. I think you'll find that most of the charges are from hospital services and NOT physician fees.

 

As a consequence of our national healthcare system (or lack thereof), I treat literally hundreds of patients each month that really didn't need emergent care. This increases the wait times of all patients and the cost for everyone; emergency department care is exceptionally expensive. But where else can they go?

 

What's the answer? I really don't know. I agree with reducing healthcare cost, but as Joseph has stated above, the greatest drain on dollars isn't really the physicians, but rather the insurance companies and the ten administrators for every physician in each hospital (Doesn't that infuriate you? Ten bureaucrats for each doc?). Can we really switch to a nationalized system without losing the drive for innovation that competition creates? Or is the competition really just unnecessary complexity as Joseph suggests?

 

John Kitzaber (previous OR governor) was an emergency physician and is a fantastic speaker. As an idea for healthcare reform, he suggests an analogy with public education. All children have the opportunity for basic education through public schools; should they (parents) choose, they can pursue private school education. Can we make this work for healthcare? Nationalized basic coverage with individual choice regarding extra coverage or elective procedures....

 

Been fun reading through all of this.

Cheers,

Erik

 

 

[billcoe]

Well spoken Erik. I think that's a good summation of a complex issue.

 

Think the government can't do it? The VA is proof it can it has the best medical records technology on earth and has had for years now. Pharmaceuticals, Texplorer on this board is about to start his second pharmaceutical residency at the Reno VA hospital doing data mining and national efficacy studies - pharmaceutical companies HATE the VA because they actually are on top of the games and play hardball.

 

Since you brought up the VA as an example, let me add that I'm happy they can get their technological act together, however, the VA has been known for substandard, piss-poor, inefficient and lackadaisical health care for decades. Not the records kind of thing, as we know this can and has happened elsewhere: VA Loses data on 26 million veterans in 2006 link

I mean actual care. As if on cure, here's yesterdays news "MIAMI -- The Veterans Affairs hospital in Miami has suspended performing colonoscopies while authorities investigate why equipment used in the procedure hadn't been properly sterilized.

 

Earlier this week, the hospital urged more than 3,000 patients who had colonoscopies between May 2004 and March 12 of this year to get tested for HIV, hepatitis and other diseases. The VA has identified three sites that failed to properly sterilize equipment between treatments.

 

Ten people treated at affected VA facilities in Tennessee and Georgia have tested positive for infectious liver disease. A spokeswoman says the VA will make sure they get treatment even though it's not known if the infections came from colonoscopies at its hospitals. "

 

I've personally seen people die there who should have lived. Nice of them to treat those folks (for life), although it will be a significantly shorter time period than had the VA not screwed them up. This NEVER happens at regular hospitals as they don't want to get sued. You can't sue the government. If our government had a better track record in medical care, I think it would be easier to jump on the government will fix everything and make it better bandwagon due to the issues that exist with the current system: some of which you pointed out, although there are many more.

 

 

ps, I apologize for the inflammatory, unfair and misleading title:-)

[mattp]

This NEVER happens at regular hospitals as they don't want to get sued.

 

Say what? Nobody ever got infected with HIV, or otherwise died when they shouldn't have, simply because they were in a "regular" hospital and exposed to some risk or disease?

[olyclimber]

http://www.computertan.com/

[billcoe]

This NEVER happens at regular hospitals as they don't want to get sued.

 

Say what? Nobody ever got infected with HIV, or otherwise died when they shouldn't have, simply because they were in a "regular" hospital and exposed to some risk or disease?

 

I was referring to clean sterilized scopes in colonoscopies Matt. Sure, all hospitals are infectious places, and sponges do get left in surgical openings. I shouldn't have said never. There's thousands and thousands of hospitals doing mega thousands of colonoscopies out there. The VA is most likely doing a tiny amount in comparison.

 

Should be easy for you to find a link of one that didn't properly sterilize colonoscopy scopes and infected someone. It is damn uncommon, and I have seen substandard care with my own eyes at VA'S that is not present in regular hospitals.

 

 

[mattp]

Maybe the VA hospital in Portland is worse than the others, but I don't believe that is the case here in Seattle. The worst hospitals here are private.

 

I suspect all of us are well aware of the V.A.'s reputation over the years but maybe you are not aware of the fact that in recent years they have actually been recognized for vastly improving their quality of care and they are not considered the dregs of the health services industry now. I was surprised to learn of this but I did some research during a discussion of "socialized medicine" with some of your conservative buddies here on cc.com last year.

 

We can certainly debate whether the government would better administer our health care system than private insurance companies, and we could probably reasonably disagree wither the V.A. should be your first or second choice of providers, but I don't think they prove your point. In fact, quite the opposite (assuming your point was that Joseph was wrong to state that government-run hospitals actually can do a great job).

[billcoe]

That's good to hear Matt. My first hand info is older than you sad to say:-) I think one thing which may be difficult to ascertain, is if that is a real fact or not. In the VA system, people who are victims of poor medical care, much more than in private hospitals where a quick call to an attorney will get you registered as a statistic when they file, do not usually even say anything. I'd double check how those stats are produced is all. Assuming you've seen stats.

 

 

As a FYI, I don't have but 1 possible conservative buddy (Jimmy O and he's really out there on some issues and hardly a conservative like you would normally think of), all of them are liberals. This is PDX you know, "home of the other white meat".

 

[mattp]

Bill, you routinely state "facts" without providing stats - like the statement that I responded to above, or your assertion here that:

 

In the VA system, people who are victims of poor medical care, much more than in private hospitals where a quick call to an attorney will get you registered as a statistic when they file, do not usually even say anything.

 

 

I just ran a search "V.A. Hospital quality" and here's one of the first hits:

Washingotn Monthly

The author's bias is clear, but it is the only item I quickly identified as attempting to answer the question at hand. Go ahead and do your own research if you want to debunk my theory that government-run health care can be of high quality. And, I would add, at reasonable cost.

[tvashtarkatena]

Good post. Thanks for the insight.

[RuMR]

ditto jefe. Bitch killed herself. No sense blaming anyone but her.

wow dude...you're an asshole...

 

...and your a midget. What's your point?

at least you didn't argue with me...and its dwarf, not midget, fuckface...

[prole]

ditto jefe. Bitch killed herself. No sense blaming anyone but her.

wow dude...you're an asshole...

 

...and your a midget. What's your point?

at least you didn't argue with me...and its dwarf, not midget, fuckface...

 

"You're" not "your". Dumbass.