How could there be doctor/patient communication issues during a preventative healthcare visit if -

• Interesting Speech on Healthcare Reform - TechSupport
  • Embed didn't work. Anyway, here's my question: - TechSupport
    • Apples and Oranges - lall
      • Can you demonstrate that this will save people? - TechSupport
        • Reason - lall
          • Neither can be demonstrated. That's my point. - TechSupport
            • Just look at statistics on infant mortality rate for mothers without prenatal care - nm - lall
              • Funny thing about those infant mortality statistics. - TechSupport
                • There's more to it than that... - Kendra
                • Oh please humor me. Have you pieced together some definitions? - lall
                  • Just to clarify - this is for infants who were actually born . - lall
                    • Has nothing to do with "humoring you" or "my" definitions. - TechSupport
                      • Just gotta have the last word, dontcha? - So Predictable.
            • The issues and possible solutions have been on the table for years. - lall
              • Apparently, you're not following this. Never mind. - TechSupport
          • In the US, we turn away no one from an ER with or - without insurance! cant be said everywhere.nm
            • Do you know that emergency rooms are not for regular healthcare? - lall
              • Yep!..and people currently on Govt-funded - healthcare abuse it every day..we pay for it.nm
                • That's exactly right! An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. - nm - lall
                  • Actually, not. - TechSupport
                    • Why this is - lall
                      • My goodness - you'd better write and tell someone - that you have the answer.
                        • How could there be doctor/patient communication issues during a preventative healthcare visit if - - lall
                          • It is simplistic and I have something else simplistic to say - don't knock it until you've tri - lall
                            • OMG...are you serious? - Trigger Happy
                          • Well, let's - think about this.
                  • That's exactly wrong! - Mythbuster
                    • The issue is really about the tax payers who cannot afford healthcare - sm - lall
                      • Then, let's insure them and let it go at that. - TechSupport
                        • Have you studied the healthcare system in France? - lall
                          • Why should I comment on France - or avoid doing so? - TechSupport
                            • That's funny, a refusal to comment is an end to a discussion as far as I know. - lall
                              • Let me try this again. You're demanding that I comment about France for some reason. - Or the conversation is over? Wow.
                        • Obama's plan is just to ensure insurance availability for all - not universal healthcare - you na - Amanda
      • So in other words - A.Nonymous
      • Univ Healthcare has failed every time. Why is our - Govt dumb enough to try it again? nm
        • I thought it was working in France? nm - Curious George
          • Yes that's right - lall
            • No. Latest news is that costs for France rising too - much. Their system will go broke. nm
        • Because there are millions of uninsured? - Just a guess
          • But how many of them are wasting their money? - ctmt
            • $300 for health insurance is a deal. - What do you do when it starts to
          • Does not mean Universal Healthcare is answer. - It does not work. nm
            • What is the answer then? - lall
              • How about people - Trigger Happy
              • It doesnt work. Link explaining some things. - http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=372
                • A link for you inside - lall
                  • Link August 2007!. Their system is starting - to bankrupt. -way outdated article.nm
                    • Yes, it is from 2007 and says the same as those from 2008 - where is a link showing bankrupt? - lall
                      • Protests going on all over France like this. - only getting worse. nm
                        • This is about a protest to a proposed change - it happens. - nm - lall
                          • Yes, proposed changes, which citizens cant - control because GOVT controls it.nm
                            • Please do some more research - nm - lall
                              • Did mine. YOUR turn.nm - nm
                                • Yep, you did your research......(sm) - Just the big bad
        • Canadian citizen just on the news stating how its - failed there -wait months just to see Fam. doc.nm
          • Really? What channel? nm - Just the big bad
            • CNN - last night. nm
          • I have a relative living in Canada, yet comes back to - US for healthcare. System in CA is terrible.nm
          • I wait years - anon
            • Yeah I am the same - They Said What

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

She survived 20 years in la-la land. She never knew anything. Alzheimer's struck her so hard and so fast, she was 6 months before being placed in a nursing home. My friend did not want the feeding tube, but her brother did. Can you imagine my friend going to the nursing home every day and sitting with a shell of her mother for 20 years? That's what she did.

If there is a brain syndrome where the patient will never come out of it, don't let that person suffer. Terry Schiavo never really came out of her brain syndrome, so it was right to let her go. It is cruel to force some patient's to live if there is no hope.

Flame all you want, but that's just my opinion.

By AARON NICODEMUS, Standard-Times staff writer

NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called The Little Red Book.
Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.
The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a watch list, and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.
I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book, Professor Pontbriand said. Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it.
Although The Standard-Times knows the name of the student, he is not coming forward because he fears repercussions should his name become public. He has not spoken to The Standard-Times.
The professors had been asked to comment on a report that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to spy on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002 in this country.
The eavesdropping was apparently done without warrants.
The Little Red Book, is a collection of quotations and speech excerpts from Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung.
In the 1950s and '60s, during the Cultural Revolution in China, it was required reading. Although there are abridged versions available, the student asked for a version translated directly from the original book.
The student told Professor Pontbriand and Dr. Williams that the Homeland Security agents told him the book was on a watch list. They brought the book with them, but did not leave it with the student, the professors said.
Dr. Williams said in his research, he regularly contacts people in Afghanistan, Chechnya and other Muslim hot spots, and suspects that some of his calls are monitored.
My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think, he said.
Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk.
I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web sites, what the government must think of that, he said. Mao Tse-Tung is completely harmless.

Contact Aaron Nicodemus at anicodemus@s-t.com

I'm not seeing any discussion about issues.  Can we stick to the issues.  Jeeze - I want to hear good and bad about both candidates but with facts to back whatever is being said.

P-L-E-A-S-E.....I want issues.  How can I make any kind of determinatons about who I'm going to vote for if I don't hear about the issues.  Reading some of this I'm thinking I'd get more truth if I read the National Enquirer.

the entire thread beginning with:

I try not to visit the bog of eternal stench. Funny though...sm

[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Conservatives]

Posted By: Nan on 2005-06-30,
In Reply to: Obviously they are not happy - American Girl

And Ending with:

Frankly, AG, they kind of give me the creeps. sm

[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Conservatives]

Posted By: Nan on 2005-06-30,
In Reply to: Man, Am I good or what? - American Girl

    The following was copied from the website:

Operation Truth is a non-profit 501c(4), non-partisan veterans' organization that seeks to amplify the soldiers' voice in the American public dialogue. Paul Rieckhoff, a First Lieutenant in the Army Reserves, founded Operation Truth in June 2004, only months after he returned from a year-long tour in Iraq. As of January 2005, Operation Truth represents well over 300 OEF/OIF veterans, and has over 26,000 supporters.

This web site is a real eye opener.

The health-care reform debate is in full roar with the arrival of Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, which compares the U.S. system unfavorably with single-payer systems around the world. Critics of the film are quick to trot out a common defense of the American way: For all its problems, they say, U.S. patients at least don't have to endure the endless waits for medical care endemic to government-run systems. The lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans spells it out in a rebuttal to Sicko: "The American people do not support a government takeover of the entire health-care system because they know that means long waits for rationed care."

In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems. Take Susan M., a 54-year-old human resources executive in New York City. She faithfully makes an appointment for a mammogram every April, knowing the wait will be at least six weeks. She went in for her routine screening at the end of May, then had another because the first wasn't clear. That second X-ray showed an abnormality, and the doctor wanted to perform a needle biopsy, an outpatient procedure. His first available date: mid-August. "I completely freaked out," Susan says. "I couldn't imagine spending the summer with this hanging over my head." After many calls to five different facilities, she found a clinic that agreed to read her existing mammograms on June 25 and promised to schedule a follow-up MRI and biopsy if needed within 10 days. A full month had passed since the first suspicious X-rays. Ultimately, she was told the abnormality was nothing to worry about, but she should have another mammogram in six months. Taking no chances, she made an appointment on the spot. "The system is clearly broken," she laments.

It's not just broken for breast exams. If you find a suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to 73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco who studied the matter. Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from 8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the average is 17 days. "Waiting is definitely a problem in the U.S., especially for basic care," says Karen Davis, president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care policy.

All this time spent "queuing," as other nations call it, stems from too much demand and too little supply. Only one-third of U.S. doctors are general practitioners, compared with half in most European countries. On top of that, only 40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care, vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world. Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher rate than in other countries.

There is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S. That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with countries that have national health systems, where wait times are not only tracked but made public. However, a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.

The Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care, came in first on both measures). But Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long before their need is critical. "Their wait might be uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical difference," he says.

The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close.

Few solutions have been proposed for lengthy waits in the U.S., in part, say policy experts, because the problem is rarely acknowledged. But the market is beginning to address the issue with the rise of walk-in medical clinics. Hundreds have sprung up in CVS, Wal-Mart (WMT ), Pathmark, (PTMK ) and other stores—so many that the American Medical Assn. just adopted a resolution urging state and federal agencies to investigate such clinics as a conflict of interest if housed in stores with pharmacies. These retail clinics promise rapid care for minor medical problems, usually getting patients in and out in 30 minutes. The slogan for CVS's Minute Clinics says it all: "You're sick. We're quick."

There are so many ways to cut food costs and eat healthy.

Cook, repeat cook oatmeal for breakfast. Eggs anyway

One pound of ground turkey, chopped onion sauteed, mix with 1-2 cans of diced tomatoes, 1-2 cans of beans (pinto, black, etc.) seasonings like cumin, chili, etc. serve over brown rice that you cook - or over a small pasta, or in a tortlla.

Soup - homemade - diced tomatoes, onion, celery, carrots, any type of beans, frozen cut okra, etc. add water and seasonings - add Butterball smoked turkey sausage cut into half slices

I make a pot of soup every week and eat until gone, then a new one.

I also cook my beans from dry - very inexpensive and very nutritious

Hope you think this is helpful for that is what I want to be. Your present eating program is soooo unhealthy. I would be glad to share any of my other low-cost recpies with you.

Best wishes.

Yes, more people probably will go to the doctor.  That means there will be a lot of health maintenance involved, and as we both know only too well, health maintenance is a key issue in preventing major medical issues, hence less surgeries, etc.  Check out France's healthcare system.  I think main issue we will have is going to be dealing with the drug companies to get costs under control.  At this point a lot of people don't go to the doc because they can't afford it, like you said; however, even more don't go because they can't afford the drugs.

BTW, regardless of Fox's ratings, they are undeniably a right-wing station.  That is a fact that is widely known and recognized.  Just because you agree with what they say doesn't mean they don't lean to the right.  And yes, the same holds true for MSNBC (to the left), but at least they admit it.  You also might want to look into exactly how ratings for cable news come about.  You might be surprised and what you could learn.

I'm not sure this is a good idea either.  Ireland has gov't run medical and those women were waiting years, yes years to get their Pap smears read.  They had to be shipped to the US because of a lab closure.  Can you imagine wondering if you have cervical cancer for years?  No thanks.

I posted this further down but there are apparently a lot of people who are still confused about how McCain's tax on health insurance works. 

So, here you go:

Say you pay 14% income tax based on your income.

And you receive $10,000 worth of health insurance from your employer.

The $10,000 is taxed separately at the 14% (your tax bracket). That comes out to $1,400.

McCain gives you a $5,000 tax credit.

$5,000 less the $1,400 -

YOU'RE AHEAD $3,600.

:)

Alternatively, you can take the $5,000 tax credit and purchase your own insurance (like I do). I pay $250 a month.

$250 x 12 = $3,000.

$5,000 - $3,000 - $2,000.

I'M STILL AHEAD $2,000.

WIN/WIN

Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Because I am infinitely quizzical about most things and the rising cost of healthcare was on my mind, I did a little browsing and came across this document:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

Now keep in mind this is information compiled is from a think tank funded by some of the biggest corporations, including insurance corps for the betterment and furtherance of the regressive conservative ideal, so I was rather surprised to see these numbers so beautifully printed in black and white. 

It shows exactly how much we are paying for healthcare in the United States and it is rather astounding.  Far more of our GDP, about 15.5% (the highest in the world) goes to healthcare.  Almost double that other industrialized nations that have socialized healthcare. 

I think this is a pretty good argument against a free market healthcare system being the most efficient and the best, it is just the most expensive and at the rate it has been exploding, it is going to increase the number of uninsured. 

Why is it so expensive?  Because the insurance companies are pacing the market.  Some things should just NOT be included in the free market enterprise, and healthcare is one of them.  We get sicker and the insurance companies get fatter.

and in France and England (several times in France) and I have to say that national healthcare over there works wonderfully well.....costs are minimal (though taxes are high) and all rxs in England cost the same and I was treated fabulously (married French) at American Hospital in Paris and Gap Hospital in France in 1980.....I did England in 71-72 and again, got treated well and for less than $40.  I believe national healthcare can work but the govt and medical professions here in the states don't want it - because they, the MDS, will make less.  But know this, that I saw the life of a doctor in France and his family in Michael Moore's movie SiCKO and they are living like kings, well not kings, but living VERY VERY WELL.

So, based on my own experiences in Europe - and the experiences to date of my in-laws over in France - I have to say the healthcare over there is FAR better and FAR LESS EXPENSIVE than over here but again, their taxes are somewhat higher.

Hillary screwed it up once before, I don't want to give her a second chance regarding healthcare.

I would like to see more affordable healthcare for all Americans, but really if kids got free or very affordable healthcare I would be happy.  We spend outrageous amounts of money on the space program, the war, gourmet food for Congress, etc.  I don't agree with the hoards of money going to those things, but I would think we could ALL AGREE on money being redirected to provide healthcare to all American children, because that is obviously a good and just cause.

Great post piglet.  I so agree with what you all had to say in support of changing our current system.  Canada probably has the worst universal healthcare system, and yet the average Canadian lives 3 years longer than the average American.  People always point to the flaws in their system and just assume that we will make all the same mistakes.  Of course their system has flaws, just as our system has many fatal flaws.  England and France actually have great universal healthcare systems.  Here is an article I found about France's successful program:

"France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007

MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.

Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.

Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?

National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.

Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.

French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.

The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?

Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.

American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.

Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lthcare_system/

I have visited and used both the British and French national healthcare system and I must say I was treated very_well in both countries.....and I think it is a great idea for THIS country now, having had first-hand experiences in Europe.. 

JMHO, of course.