scarykitties on 8/10/2009 at 14:30
It's ironic, really. He's brilliant, but misinformed on a number of topics, while I'm spectacularly ignorant on so much more. Between us, I suppose we nearly encompass the range of human foolishness. The only part lacking is downright stupidity.
Koki on 8/10/2009 at 14:39
Quote Posted by scarykitties
Consider that my dad gain most of his knowledge through a bookshelf-full of conservative and Christian-written books, Fox News, and The Drudge Report. (...) extremely intelligent and well-educated individual who knows what he's talking about
:erg:
CCCToad on 8/10/2009 at 14:48
Partially correct: the American health care system is considerably better than the Canadian health care system. Hell, one of my friend's has a fiancee who is down here because her parents were doctors fleeing the Canadian system.
However, that doesn't make us "the best in the world", not by a long shot.
SD on 8/10/2009 at 15:24
Quote Posted by CCCToad
the American health care system is considerably better than the Canadian health care system
The WHO respectfully disagrees.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Hell, one of my friend's has a fiancee who is down here because her parents were doctors fleeing the Canadian system.
And that's the evidence for your assertion above? Doctors can't make as much money in Canada, therefore the Canadian system is inferior? Riiiiiight.
the_grip on 8/10/2009 at 15:46
Most folks from Canada who come to the US for health care do so because access is limited for them under the Canadian system.
The Obama plan is likely going to have to limit access in the states as well, but they won't say that.
Personally, I think limiting access (for example, to the senior groups who are in extreme chronic conditions is not a bad thing). The government (which means everyone else) pays through the nose for much of this. It's a harsh view, but I think it is realistic. Low costs and access are like two ends of the scale - you can't have low costs and high access. I'm sure this comes across as ageist, and I don't mean it to, but I think it makes sense.
As a sidebar, it is interesting that while medical technology has grown by leaps and bounds, costs continue to rise. In virtually every other industry, the opposite is the case... case in point, the computer I'm typing this on. Technology usually operates to reduce costs in the long run.
Thus, I'm partial to thinking access plus supply of doctors are two areas that could dramatically reduce healthcare costs. Neither of these choices are popular, however, and would likely get someone voted out of office if they fessed up on it.
scarykitties on 8/10/2009 at 15:53
True, it may make logical sense to limit health care by age, but not only will that be rejected by all who fall outside of health care, but I suspect that people would look back with shame on implementing such in the future, because it's denying certain humans basic rights to health based on something that they cannot change. It may make economic sense, yes, but it's also very... inhumane.
the_grip on 8/10/2009 at 15:59
I'm not sure it is inhumane or denying any kind of basic right. I think everyone deserves some level of healthcare, but raising the bar for a particular group such that other groups are denied healthcare entirely is not justice. At a certain point, things get to be lopsided. I also say this with trepidation because I have two elderly people in my family that receive enormous amounts of healthcare, and one just had Medicare or Medicaid or something run out. As a result, the family has to pay up (as they should) and harder questions need to be asked. Folks are used to demanding the topest of the top in terms of healthcare when other people are paying the bill.
(p.s. the baby boomer generation is aging and they would hate this kind of proposition I'm sure...)
scarykitties on 8/10/2009 at 16:07
Not to mention that America's wave of obese are ageing.
I don't know the solution, if indeed there is one. You make a good point, though. It's like having an inch of string to be divided into two segments, but each cut has to be at least a third of the way from an end. Someone will get a shorter end.
CCCToad on 8/10/2009 at 17:26
It seems that most of the debate is stalled because people refuse to admit that simple fact. SOMEBODY is going to lose money, whether its doctors, management, or patients being denied care.
SubJeff on 8/10/2009 at 17:37
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
not so much directly limited in terms of numbers but progression is often limited due to old school ties, networks, politics, and nepotism is rife. This prevents many people from entering because they perceive it to be hard work on top of hard work in order to get anywhere. This, at least, was very true in terms of the experiences of friends and family in the UK.
I think this is, now, a myth. I know a lot of doctors and very few of them have any sort of background that would have facilitated entry via some "club". It may have happened in the old days, and it may still happen in certain places, certainly with certain specialities, but over all its a non-issue. I have heard of one or two old school leg-ups of the "He's Charles' son, played rugby for xxxx. Good chap." "But, does he like steak?" "Of course. Rare." "Tell him to give me a call." type but it was so lol I just couldn't condemn it.
Quote:
This is perhaps true in the early going but you're not going to seriously suggest that private practice doctors and GPs have anything near the level of responsibility, stress, unsociable hours and so on of a young intern doctor.
I must correct you on this because it is completely wrong and I say that as a hospital doc who will never leave and who is unlikely to ever do a significant amount of private work.
GPs have a
massive amount of responsibility. They are responsible for 100s if not 1000s of patients and they are the 1st and often the last port of call. They have a mammoth task to do and how they manage it I'll never know. I've worked in GP-land and its tough and can be very stressful. What hours do you think they work? Most do 10hr days and now they have to do out of hours cover too. Ugh. I couldn't do it.
Interns/House Officer's hours are a joke, especially now. Many of them don't do nights or on-calls
at all. And they have no responsibility - it goes up the chain to the Senior House Officers, the Registrars and then the Consultant who is ultimately responsible for all the patients AND the interns! The only way an intern takes direct responsibility is if they do something unsafe/stupid and before any of them make that decision they
always have someone more senior they can confer with.
Private practices I can't comment on really except to say that there are often no juniors so you have to do everything yourself.
Quote:
folks providing care in an ER situation. I can't imagine that level of stress, but it is not a particularly lucrative career in the spectrum of docs.
In the UK ER docs a. get the same pay as everyone else at the same level and b.
chose to take that specialty so boo hoo cry some moar. Those guys love A&E. We had some A&E dudes on Anaesthetic placements with us and I tried to talk them into coming over to this side of the blood-brain barrier but nooooo they love it down there. Different strokes.
Now where did I put that Times crossword? :p
