Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's why folks flock to the US to get state-of-the-art health procedures?
Socialism breeds mediocrity.
But on the other hand, there is a huge business right now in people going out of the United States to get top of the line care at cheaper prices in foreign countries. I saw a lot of that happening, for example, at Bumrungrad Hospital in Bangkok.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
But on the other hand, there is a huge business right now in people going out of the United States to get top of the line care at cheaper prices in foreign countries. I saw a lot of that happening, for example, at Bumrungrad Hospital in Bangkok.
Or joint replacement in India, and dental care in Mexico. First and world class facilities and practitioners.
I am a moderate but UH is one thing I'm with the Liberals on. Our system leaves many with no or poor coverage but we spend nearly as much on healthcare as any nation where everyone is covered. You could make 100k at a great job but if you switch jobs and get sick during the 3 month gap before the new employer covers you gofundme is your only option. Many service workers are deliberately worked 30-35 hours every week so they can't qualify for paid benefits. Our system could only work if there were no coverage gaps and all workers go health care through their work.
Totally agree. It is more than time for universal healthcare.
That's why folks flock to the US to get state-of-the-art health procedures?
Socialism breeds mediocrity.
Again, this distinction only means something to those who can afford it.
I, and probably many others, would be happy with basic, competent (but not necessarily state-of-the-art) medical care which is provided without the risk of having to declare bankruptcy if a serious medical condition sends you to the hospital.
For those who can afford to do so, they have the pick of the litter when it comes to the best healthcare treatments. In fact, Dubai is setting up high-end medical treatment centers designed to attract medical tourism and other countries are doing the same.
For the rest of us, the ability to not worry about drowning in medical bills and prescription costs would be sufficient. Again, it comes down to the whole healthcare as a privilege vs. a right which is sort of the philosophical argument that drives policy making on this issue.
That's why folks flock to the US to get state-of-the-art health procedures?
Socialism breeds mediocrity.
The best health care in the world is useless to someone who cannot afford it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladlensky
Again, this distinction only means something to those who can afford it.
I, and probably many others, would be happy with basic, competent (but not necessarily state-of-the-art) medical care which is provided without the risk of having to declare bankruptcy if a serious medical condition sends you to the hospital.
For those who can afford to do so, they have the pick of the litter when it comes to the best healthcare treatments. In fact, Dubai is setting up high-end medical treatment centers designed to attract medical tourism and other countries are doing the same.
For the rest of us, the ability to not worry about drowning in medical bills and prescription costs would be sufficient. Again, it comes down to the whole healthcare as a privilege vs. a right which is sort of the philosophical argument that drives policy making on this issue.
You know, you brought a story to my mind that I think is directly on point. My mother suffered bad leg, knee, and face injuries in 1968 when she was run over by a car. She was 49 at the time. She underwent a series of surgeries at the local hospital to fix all these problems. The area in which we lived was not a large city. Perhaps, it had a population of about 100,000 in the greater metropolitan area. I seem to recall most of her surgeries were done by general surgeons and often in their offices rather than in an outpatient surgical center. The results of all the surgery were excellent. No one who looks at mom today can tell she had any facial injuries. The same was true for the knee and the leg surgery. She walks--unassisted--at almost 97 years of age. There are scars on her leg, but she regards these as a minor inconvenience. Indeed, I suspect she has outlived all the doctors who operated on her.
The point is that fifty years ago in a small community in the United States, good to excellent medical care was being provided. I have no doubt many positive things have occurred in the field since this time. However, it does lead me to believe that many "advances" in healthcare are not as great or as necessary as they are cracked up to be.
When people talk about "mediocre medicine" I wonder if they consider just how many "advances" probably aren't really necessary or add only marginally to the care that is already being provided. One of things we do a very poor job of in this country is analyzing the actual benefits of new medications, new procedures, and new technology before it is added--at huge expense--to our health care system. The driving force is not so much to provide better patient care, but to make money for all vendors engaged in selling these items.
Health care should be about better results for patients--not about huge fortunes for everyone in the industry. In America, we've completely lost sight of that.
The best health care in the world is useless to someone who cannot afford it.
You know, you brought a story to my mind that I think is directly on point. My mother suffered bad leg, knee, and face injuries in 1968 when she was run over by a car. She was 49 at the time. She underwent a series of surgeries at the local hospital to fix all these problems. The area in which we lived was not a large city. Perhaps, it had a population of about 100,000 in the greater metropolitan area. I seem to recall most of her surgeries were done by general surgeons and often in their offices rather than in an outpatient surgical center. The results of all the surgery were excellent. No one who looks at mom today can tell she had any facial injuries. The same was true for the knee and the leg surgery. She walks--unassisted--at almost 97 years of age. There are scars on her leg, but she regards these as a minor inconvenience. Indeed, I suspect she has outlived all the doctors who operated on her.
The point is that fifty years ago in a small community in the United States, good to excellent medical care was being provided. I have no doubt many positive things have occurred in the field since this time. However, it does lead me to believe that many "advances" in healthcare are not as great or as necessary as they are cracked up to be.
When people talk about "mediocre medicine" I wonder if they consider just how many "advances" probably aren't really necessary or add only marginally to the care that is already being provided. One of things we do a very poor job of in this country is analyzing the actual benefits of new medications, new procedures, and new technology before it is added--at huge expense--to our health care system. The driving force is not so much to provide better patient care, but to make money for all vendors engaged in selling these items.
Health care should be about better results for patients--not about huge fortunes for everyone in the industry. In America, we've completely lost sight of that.
How much did it cost your mom for all of that, in today's dollars?
I have no idea how health care/insurance worked in those days, did she have deductibles, need preapprovals/etc?
I don't care too much about propping up the poor health wise anymore personally. Too many times I've been at the gas station and seen folks trading in their food stamps for scratch off tickets.
I am a fan of Canada's healthcare system. I would gladly vote to raise my taxes to have such a system if our government could find a way to force the other 50% of folks who pay nothing in taxes to pay their fair share.
...However, it does lead me to believe that many "advances" in healthcare are not as great or as necessary as they are cracked up to be.
When people talk about "mediocre medicine" I wonder if they consider just how many "advances" probably aren't really necessary or add only marginally to the care that is already being provided. ...
If you're the patient with that particular issue, then the small or isolated advances may mean a lot to you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
