So much for the "best healthcare"

[pink]

Im an RN at Swedish first hill.

That is where I had my nephrectomy.

 

I am insured. However, I am for single-payer universal health care and don't understand why any reasonable person wouldn't be.

 

because you will be able to climb more and work less?????

[kroc]

I think my feeling is that in our health care system the final line of defense, so to speak, is the hospital. There the patient recieves full care. Inefficient? Costly? Too late in many cases? Yes,yes, and yes, but seeing as how this is my day to day experience I guess I'm a bit defensive.

 

I call an MD and say I'm worried about pt X: how about an X-ray, or CT scan? More labs. Lets get physical therapy involved. (I personally drive up health care costs) Never is the cost or payment considered. I can't imagine thinking differently and if I think people are suggesting otherwise it bugs me. I'm not trying to defend the whole of the health care system.

 

By the way, diabetes type two can be easily treated if people change their diet and activity. HA!

[112]

I am for single-payer universal health care and don't understand why any reasonable person wouldn't be.

because you will be able to climb more and work less?????

I am not sure I follow your comment, but I don't believe playing more and working less is, in and of itself, a reasonable argument. Further, I suspect if things were, in my opinion, fair (not necessarily equal), my compensation and free fee time would go down, not up. But for some reason, I am still for it.

Go ahead and perpetuate the status quo!!! I think I have it figured out, am doing pretty good, and do not plan on trying to be a martyr.

[glassgowkiss]

.By the way, diabetes type two can be easily treated if people change their diet and activity. HA!

And this another issue. I don't think any healthcare system will ever work here, unless you start regulating food industry with a heavy hand: that includes use of hormones, gm foods and school lunches. in 2004 Group Health study showed that an average teen in the US consumed 1200 calories in the form of soft drink a day. The most served food in a cafeteria is a pizza and french fries. No wonder kids of age 9 or 10 have cholesterol above 250. And the answer of AMA is to start prescribing Lipitor.

[ivan]

.By the way, diabetes type two can be easily treated if people change their diet and activity. HA!

And this another issue. I don't think any healthcare system will ever work here, unless you start regulating food industry with a heavy hand: that includes use of hormones, gm foods and school lunches. in 2004 Group Health study showed that an average teen in the US consumed 1200 calories in the form of soft drink a day. The most served food in a cafeteria is a pizza and french fries. No wonder kids of age 9 or 10 have cholesterol above 250. And the answer of AMA is to start prescribing Lipitor.

good luck getting voter enthusiasm for giving The Man the power to tell you what you can eat and drink (having already banned what he can smoke though, i'll admit it's not outside the realm of His possibilities)

[tvashtarkatena]

.By the way, diabetes type two can be easily treated if people change their diet and activity. HA!

And this another issue. I don't think any healthcare system will ever work here, unless you start regulating food industry with a heavy hand: that includes use of hormones, gm foods and school lunches. in 2004 Group Health study showed that an average teen in the US consumed 1200 calories in the form of soft drink a day. The most served food in a cafeteria is a pizza and french fries. No wonder kids of age 9 or 10 have cholesterol above 250. And the answer of AMA is to start prescribing Lipitor.

 

So, sugar consumption is the cause of obesity (it is)...so let's regulate GM foods and hormones and fatty foods in school lunches.

 

Got it.

 

BTW, fat consumption in the American diet has slowly declined in the past several decades. Wrong battle.

 

Public information campaigns have been was pretty successful at reducing smoking...why couldn't they be just as successful at reducing sugar consumption?

[Peter_Puget]

I will walk in line!!!

[glassgowkiss]

good luck getting voter enthusiasm for giving The Man the power to tell you what you can eat and drink (having already banned what he can smoke though, i'll admit it's not outside the realm of His possibilities)

No, let's have heroin dealers selling the baggies on a street corner- and if people want to eat "whatever they want" then they should be prepared to pay for their health to the extend "whatever it takes". But please exclude me from this circle jerk.

And btw why should it be up to the public vote- it's obvious that with 70% overweight and 40% morbid obesity vast majority of people don't know squat how to feed themselves.

[tvashtarkatena]

Again, smoking provides an example. Public education, regulation of advertising and distribution (particularly to minors), proper health studies, and surtaxes. Outright bans are neither necessary or desirable.

 

We've been here before and we know what works.

 

The same could, and frankly should, be applied to heroin.

 

Habits are formed when young. That should be the focus of any program to combat obesity.

 

Obesity does differ fundamentally from smoking in several ways, making it much more difficult to regulate. You need food to live. You can become obese from eating too much of even healthiest foods. You can be remain healthy and still eat lots of sugar. No one wants serious about the issue really considers regulating lifestyle as a whole.

 

GM is less a human health issue than an environmental health issue. Advocates would be taken more seriously if they stopped mixing the two up and putting out so much misinformation, however well meaning. The body doesn't give a damn whether the sugar, and most particularly fructose, comes from GM corn or organic, free range honey. Fructose is slightly worse for you than sucrose, but, in the end, sticking to Mexican Coca Cola doesn't make too much of a difference in the outcome.

 

A steady diet of Mexican coke, however, could conceivably keep a person slim and trim.

[ivan]

And btw why should it be up to the public vote- it's obvious that with 70% overweight and 40% morbid obesity vast majority of people don't know squat how to feed themselves.

ummm...because it's...umm...like a democracy n' stuff n' the general idear of such a system is you can do what you like so long as you ain't harming anybody else? sure, you can make an argument that fat albert is hurting you somehow by simply walking down the street, looking all chunky, it's just a lame one though.

 

more fat man, less fat women i say! can we just ban them from eating?

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm troubled by 'progressives' who rail against the health care system...then advocate that very same system 'punishing' people for what are only contributing factors to disease. Obesity is just one of several contributors to CHF/Type II and the like. Genetics is just as or more important, as are others. So...

 

should we allow our beloved health care providers to increase the already massive control they have over our lives by giving them the green like to DNA test us, then charge for the 'wrong mix'?

 

In the end, such 'progressives' are differ little from their Tea Bagger 'opponents' emotionally. All stick, no carrot.

 

Seems like there's too much stick in this society already, no?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'm troubled by 'progressives' who rail against the health care system...then advocate that very same system 'punishing' people for what are only contributing factors to disease. Obesity is just one of several contributors to CHF/Type II and the like. Genetics is just as or more important, as are others. So...

 

should we allow our beloved health care providers to increase the already massive control they have over our lives by giving them the green like to DNA test us, then charge for the 'wrong mix'?

 

In the end, such 'progressives' are differ little from their Tea Bagger 'opponents' emotionally. All stick, no carrot.

 

Seems like there's too much stick in this society already, no?

 

Right now insurance companies are dictating whether or not you are covered, and how much, if you have existing conditions, the cost of your premium, which doctors are preferred providers, etc.

 

Apparently GGK just wants to replace the evil insurance companies with a Big Brother who makes similar decisions - contingent care, unequal benefits based on your weight or lifestyle choices, etc. You would think "single-payer" and "universal" health care would be pretty clear terms, but I guess if you smoke crack and worship Satan, well, such concepts are out of grasp.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The whole idea of universal health care is to improve care/reduce per capita costs by:

 

SIMPLIFICATION of the system

BARGAINING POWER for purchasing

AMORTIZING health risks across a larger population.

 

From the consumer standpoint, its win/win/win.

 

Charging fatties more contradicts all three principles.

 

Sorry...ya can't have it both ways.

 

The fatty issue is really just a way for progressives to express their general dissatisfaction with the modern world in general, which, admittedly, just might have some room for improvement. Who cares if everyone's fat?

 

Mind what's on your own plate and stow the urge to judge how others live their lives, I say. Aren't there enough busy bodies these days?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The whole idea of universal health care is to improve care/reduce per capita costs by:

 

SIMPLIFICATION of the system

BARGAINING POWER for purchasing

AMORTIZING health risks across a larger population.

 

From the consumer standpoint, its win/win/win.

 

Charging fatties more contradicts all three principles.

 

Sorry...ya can't have it both ways.

 

The fatty issue is really just a way for progressives to express their general dissatisfaction with the modern world in general, which, admittedly, just might have some room for improvement. Who cares if everyone's fat?

 

Mind what's on your own plate and stow the urge to judge how others live their lives, I say. Aren't there enough busy bodies these days?

 

You forgot "PROACTIVE CARE" as opposed to reactive care - get checkups and treatment prior to (and in place of) an expensive emergency room visit, ambulance call, late-administered treatment...

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The more unified the end goal of health care is (better per capita health), the more proactive care will be covered.

 

Today's 'every corporation for themselves' approach produces the opposite result, of course.

[ivan]

but obamacare fixed all this, right?

[tvashtarkatena]

Obamacare was a giveaway to those corporations running the current fucked up system.

 

This year's premium increases were the highest on record.

 

My GF works for the state. They used to have awesome health care...then the switched to Regence (supposedly a 'non-profit'). She broke her arm in a faultless bike accident (she braked too hard to avoid a car and did an endo). They sent her a letter stating that the nature of her injuries indicated that there might be a driver at fault...and that they wouldn't cover her injuries at all unless she proved otherwise by filling out a six page form. Meanwhile, their premiums have increased at a steady 15% a year.

 

TOTAL

 

FUCKHEADS

Edited October 6, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[ZimZam]

I'm alright Jack. Keep your hands off of my stack.

[tvashtarkatena]

Contacted my doc's office today. They have a form to get your chart on the web...which they mail to you. As in snail mail.

 

Can't you email me a copy?

 

"Oh...we don't do email."

 

SO

 

FUCKING

 

LAME.

 

[ivan]

Contacted my doc's office today. They have a form to get your chart on the web...which they mail to you. As in snail mail.

 

Can't you email me a copy?

 

"Oh...we don't do email."

 

SO

 

FUCKING

 

LAME.

i'm sure they coulda sent it by passenger pigeon if you hadn't immediately spewed molten-crazy on them

 

perhaps a nelson telegraphic hoist would have been in order?

 

[112]

 

 

Edited October 7, 2011 by 112

[tvashtarkatena]

Um...it was a blank form for me to fill out. There wasn't any information on it.

 

Jesus...I had to explain that.

 

And, yeah, I figured out the second part all on my very own.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[billcoe]

Don't worry Pat, they'll get that dripping stopped soon enough....I'm not a Doctor, although like many I often play one in the internet, it's clearly a plumbing issue. Look down, use this diagram and a pair of tweezers.

 

 

Good luck!

[j_b]

Uninsured trauma patients are much more likely to die. The risk of dying from traumatic injuries is 80% higher for those without any insurance, a study says. ER physicians say they're surprised by the findings.

 

Patients who lack health insurance are more likely to die from car accidents and other traumatic injuries than people who belong to a health plan -- even though emergency rooms are required to care for all comers regardless of ability to pay, according to a study published today.

 

An analysis of 687,091 patients who visited trauma centers nationwide from 2002 to 2006 found that the odds of dying from injuries were almost twice as high for the uninsured than for patients with private insurance, researchers reported in Archives of Surgery.

 

[..]The research team from Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston used information from 1,154 U.S. hospitals that contribute to the National Trauma Data Bank. The team found that patients enrolled in commercial health plans, health maintenance organizations or Medicaid had an equal risk of death from traumatic injuries when the patients' age, gender, race and severity of injury were taken into account.

 

The risk of death was 56% higher for patients covered by Medicare, perhaps because the government health plan includes many people with long-term disabilities, said Dr. Heather Rosen, who led the study while she was a research fellow at Harvard Medical School.

 

The risk of death was 80% higher for patients without any insurance, the report said.

 

The researchers also did a separate analysis of 209,702 trauma patients ages 18 to 30 because they were less likely to have chronic health conditions that might complicate recovery. Among these younger patients, the risk of death was 89% higher for the uninsured, the study found.

 

Rosen, now a surgical resident at USC's Keck School of Medicine, said the group expected to find at least some disparity based on insurance status. But she said the group was surprised at the magnitude of the gap.

 

Dr. Frank Zwemer Jr., chief of emergency medicine for the Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center in Richmond, Va., said he was "kind of shocked."

 

"We don't ask people, 'What's your insurance?' before we decide whether to intubate them or put in a chest tube," said Zwemer, who wasn't involved in the research. "That's not on our radar anywhere."

 

The researchers offered several possible explanations for the findings. Despite the federal law, uninsured patients often wait longer to see doctors in emergency rooms and sometimes visit ERs at several hospitals before finding one that will treat them. Other studies show that, once they're admitted, uninsured patients receive fewer services, such as CT and MRI scans, and are less likely to be transferred to a rehabilitation facility.

 

Patients without insurance may have higher rates of untreated underlying conditions that make it harder to recover from trauma injuries, the researchers said. They also may be more passive with doctors and nurses because they don't interact with them as often. All of these factors could influence whether a trauma patient is able to recover.

 

But the link could also be coincidental, the authors acknowledged. Perhaps the hospitals that have fewer resources at their disposal also happen to see the most uninsured patients, they said.

 

LA Times article

[glassgowkiss]

 

Apparently GGK just wants to replace the evil insurance companies with a Big Brother who makes similar decisions - contingent care, unequal benefits based on your weight or lifestyle choices, etc. You would think "single-payer" and "universal" health care would be pretty clear terms, but I guess if you smoke crack and worship Satan, well, such concepts are out of grasp.

now where did I advocate contingent care and unequal benefits? Can you point exactly to my suggestion? My point is that insurance companies and teabaggers like yourself were against, were against single payer and spread lies about rationing of the healthcare. While fix it all free marker was supposed to guarantee the utopia of this perfect healthcare system for ever. No sooner then 2 years after, you can't get some life saving medications, because they don't provide high enough profit margins. Sounds like rationing to me. But you are just too plain fucking dumb to put the two and two together. You might pretend like you are someone else, but you are just anther dumb califuckingfornian lacking logic and ability to think. now get rad and stoked bro-bra.