British rise in STD's blamed on National Health Care system

[Stelliform]

I read this article in my paper, and found part of it on-line. The whole article is about the rise of STD's in Britian, but I thought I would share how some people blame the long waits due to the national health care system.

Sexual-health campaigners also blame Britain's problem on delays in treatment, inadequate sex education and long waiting lists at clinics. Waiting lists are an oft-repeated complaint against the British state-funded national health system.

Link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2001990514_infect28.html)

[pseudobrit]

I read this article in my paper, and found part of it on-line. The whole article is about the rise of STD's in Britian, but I thought I would share how some people blame the long waits due to the national health care system.



Link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2001990514_infect28.html)

Is this the direction we are headed as calls for a national health care system grow louder?

I can't imagine our current system would be any more effective. FWIW, I join the uninsured masses in three days. What good would no waiting be if I can't afford it?

[Bobcat37]

I can't imagine our current system would be any more effective. FWIW, I join the uninsured masses in three days. What good would no waiting be if I can't afford it?

And is your point that the only way to make it more affordable is to nationalize it? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I'm going to guess that's your stance (judging by the communist thing and all).

Just curious.

[pseudobrit]

(judging by the communist thing and all).

I'm guessing you're not a fan of irony. I am.

[pseudobrit]

I have been there. FYI Blue cross has decent individual policies for men under $100 a month. Just look out once you have a claim. They jack up the price or drop you.

I have substantial prescription drug costs every month, and am not even eligible for COBRA, so my only recourse is to, well, go without.

[Bobcat37]

I'm guessing you're not a fan of irony. I am.

Well I'm new here, and judging by every post I've read from you in this forum, it's fairly apparent to me you have communistic (socialistic, liberal, take your pick) beliefs.

So uh... I guess I'm lost... do you want to explain the irony?

And you didn't answer my question, do you think national health care is the only (or at least best, I suppose) solution to making it affordable? I just wanted to know your stance.

This is sort of a topic on health care, so let's try to talk about it :)

[Ugg]

Is this the direction we are headed as calls for a national health care system grow louder?

The British system is only one type of national health system. Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, France and the Scandinavian countries have systems that work well at a much lower cost without the waiting lists. Don't go throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

In Germany, the approach is that everyone is insured and the insurance is issued by private companies for those who work, only the aged, the disabled and the unemployed are covered under a national health care plan. The key is is that EVERYONE is insured not just a select few, which means costs are shared across the board. Think of a public utility like a water company or electricity or for that matter the federal law requiring all vehicle owners to have liability insurance.

Look north to Canada and you'll see that they are having problems with their health care system as well. While there may be waiting lists, no Canadian will have to declare bankruptcy due to obscene medical bills.

There is no perfect system but without a doubt the US ranks very low on the list of the systems that work best.

I don't hear you crying foul about the FAA or the Interstate highway system, why the outrage over a national health care plan?

[Bobcat37]

There is no perfect system but without a doubt the US ranks very low on the list of the systems that work best.

Oh no doubt, I think they only debate lies in the way to fix the problem. I don't think any of us (Rep or Dem) would say our current health insurance system is fine :)

[pseudobrit]

Well I'm new here, and judging by every post I've read from you in this forum, it's fairly apparent to me you have communistic (socialistic, liberal, take your pick) beliefs.

Communism is not synonymous with socialism and liberalism. I suggest you learn a little more about each system before throwing me into the "pinko" stereotype. I'm a Social Democrat in the European vein.

So uh... I guess I'm lost... do you want to explain the irony?

You already did it for me.

And you didn't answer my question, do you think national health care is the only (or at least best, I suppose) solution to making it affordable? I just wanted to know your stance.

This is sort of a topic on health care, so let's try to talk about it :)

I believe everyone should be guaranteed healthcare while maintaining a standard of care befitting of our great nation and suitable for its people.

As it is now, neither is true: our health system is unavailable to many who need it and is also not the standard of the world.

Do you disagree with my view?

[Bobcat37]

Nope, I don't really disagree...

However I imagine our solutions conflict... you want my answers? Well, it's late and I'm lazy... so feel free to just look for yourself as to what Bush proposes we do (http://www.georgewbush.com/HealthCare/Brief.aspx). Yes those are simply Bush's talking points, but they sound good to me, and hey, at least I linked and didn't copy and paste ;)

That's all I got for now... sleepy sleepy =_=

[pseudobrit]

Nope, I don't really disagree...

However I imagine our solutions conflict... you want my answers? Well, it's late and I'm lazy... so feel free to just look for yourself as to what Bush proposes we do (http://www.georgewbush.com/HealthCare/Brief.aspx). Yes those are simply Bush's talking points, but they sound good to me, and hey, at least I linked and didn't copy and paste ;)

That's all I got for now... sleepy sleepy =_=

I think Bush's solution of making healthcare "more" accessable/affordable is simply lip service.

I believe every American should have the right to guaranteed healthcare, it's clear Bush does not.

[IJ Reilly]

I think Bush's solution of making healthcare "more" accessable/affordable is simply lip service.

I believe every American should have the right to guaranteed healthcare, it's clear Bush does not.

Hey, give Bush a break. His plan might get health care to 1% of Americans who don't have it.

First rule of politics: Set goals so low that they can easily be met.

[Bobcat37]

And even though I feel sorry for you in the fact that you have to dump your healthcare, I don't think I should be forking my tax money over to pay for insurance for you :)

That would not constitute a democracy, that is socialism, when you pay taxes up the arse and everything is given to you freely... no thanks.

Hopefully with Bush's plan, YOU would be able to afford YOUR OWN healthcare yet again.

Like IJ said, maybe you'd be in that lucky 1% (oh your saracasm is so cute IJ ;))

[zimv20]

And even though I feel sorry for you in the fact that you have to dump your healthcare, I don't think I should be forking my tax money over to pay for insurance for you :)

how about this: a national healthcare plan that, due to its size, is able to negotiate substantially lower rates than an individual could.

i pay $400/mo for health insurance, as a self-employed individual. due to an existing condition, i'm uninsurable except by a state of IL program. i'm one funding cut away from having no health insurance available, at any price.

i'm in good health and am a productive member of society. is it really in society's interest to render me uninsured, such that after my first major health incident, i declare bankruptcy and become a burden on society?

i'm happy to pay my premiums, i just think self-employed rates are too high.

[IJ Reilly]

Like IJ said, maybe you'd be in that lucky 1% (oh your saracasm is so cute IJ ;))

I know, but I try not to let it go to my head.

In all seriousness (for a change), my point is, nibbling around the edges is not going to fix this problem.

[pseudobrit]

how about this: a national healthcare plan that, due to its size, is able to negotiate substantially lower rates than an individual could.

I feel sorry for you in the fact that you have to dump your healthcare, I don't think I should be forking my tax money over to pay for insurance for you

If you have health insurance, do you feel that others in your plan who make claims have taken your "forked over" money? Afterall, if a cancer drug costs $3000 a month and a patient pays the same rates as you do, they're obviously taking advantage of your money.

That would not constitute a democracy, that is socialism, when you pay taxes up the arse and everything is given to you freely... no thanks.

And you don't pay out the ass for heathcare now?

I don't see anything wrong with paying what you can afford. I don't advocate free healthcare for everyone, which I knew was going to be how my view was interpreted.

Millionaires should not be given free healthcare. Those who are already insured should not be given free healthcare. But those who are uninsured because they either cannot afford it or cannot find an insurer to cover them should be guaranteed healthcare. If that means it's free for those who cannot afford a singe cent, so be it. No one should be forced to choose between death, suffering, going bankrupt, going hungry, going cold or losing their housing because they cannot find or afford the means to be healthy.

i pay $400/mo for health insurance, as a self-employed individual. due to an existing condition, i'm uninsurable except by a state of IL program. i'm one funding cut away from having no health insurance available, at any price.

And I simply cannot afford it at the prices available, so I must do without.

is it really in society's interest to render me uninsured, such that after my first major health incident, i declare bankruptcy and become a burden on society?

Or to curse me with physical suffering (I will literally physically suffer without meds)?

[pseudobrit]

BTW, democracy and socialism are not incompatible. They are representative of the spearate systems of government and economy.

[jelloshotsrule]

That would not constitute a democracy, that is socialism, when you pay taxes up the arse and everything is given to you freely... no thanks.


you're comparing apples and oranges

1. we don't really live in a true democracy. more like a representative republic.

2. democracy is more comparable to communism. socialism is comparable to capitalism

a democracy is not inherently capitalistic

and god forbid everyone would have enough food to eat, shelter, healthcare, etc... that'd be so nuts

[blackfox]

I do not mean to pry but zim and 'brit, what kind of medical problems do you have that involve being nearly uninsureable and/or requiring prescription care maintainance?

If it is too personal of a question, I understand...but I know that you zim are only a tad older than myself...'brit, your age is unknown to me.

I am just curious as it will add some human element to my constant grappling with this issue...thanks.

[zimv20]

i've PM'ed you.

[pseudobrit]

likewise

[skunk]

I don't see anything wrong with paying what you can afford. I don't advocate free healthcare for everyone, which I knew was going to be how my view was interpreted.

Millionaires should not be given free healthcare. Those who are already insured should not be given free healthcare. But those who are uninsured because they either cannot afford it or cannot find an insurer to cover them should be guaranteed healthcare. If that means it's free for those who cannot afford a singe cent, so be it. No one should be forced to choose between death, suffering, going bankrupt, going hungry, going cold or losing their housing because they cannot find or afford the means to be healthy.
Why should free healthcare not be available to millionaires? Even in the communist UK, millionaires still tend to pay for their own healthcare by choice: the service is quicker and you get better food.

Or to curse me with physical suffering (I will literally physically suffer without meds)?
My condolences. Having looked after a terminally-ill child for nine years, and having simultaneously gone bankrupt, I am extremely grateful that, on top of the anguish that caused, we did not have to forego decent medical treatment for him due to economic circumstances.

[takao]

(I pay almost $500 a month for my family's insurance. :()

hm 500 $

here we pay 3,7 percent per month,at least in my 'land' (kinda like 'states' but on much smaller scale) which i already consider very much

as long as you earn less than 10.000 $ ( 13.500 actually but i take exchange rate into account) you would have your family insured for less ...but of course it's only speculation...
perhaps you got very premium treatment..i don't know

let's face it: national healthcare is a priori not cheaper but not more expensive either... if you want you can choose a private insurance and get premium treatment..if you don't have much money you are still secured...

here more than 99% are insured and those who are not don't know that they are not insured at the moment (and most are temporary)

some may not like national health care systems because they sound 'socialistic' or 'communistic'... but hey it works ;)

[Taft]

I read this article in my paper, and found part of it on-line. The whole article is about the rise of STD's in Britian, but I thought I would share how some people blame the long waits due to the national health care system.



Link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2001990514_infect28.html)

Is this the direction we are headed as calls for a national health care system grow louder?

Well, 43 million Americans don't have health insurance. That's a bit under 15% of all Americans. How many of those people do you think get pre-emptive care for STDs? I'd guess not that many. Do you think that could contribute to a rise in STDs?

Well it just so happens rates of many STDs have been on the rise in the US. In fact, if you live in a major city, you might have seen the many public service advertisements advising regular siphilis testing. Siphilis has been on the rise in many major American cities. Google has a wealth of links on this info, if you are so inclined.

And it just so happens that the group in which siphilis rates have gone up the most are the poorer groups in the US. Those same groups also have the least access to healthcare and insurace.

Coincidence?

This "national healthcare is the cause of our problems" attitude strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction. I've read about the problems with Britains healthcare system, but as others here have mentioned, that isn't the ONLY alternative to our current system which is just as bad (likely worse) than Britains.

Taft

[2jaded2care]

Not a complete solution, but... All those here in the US who think we should just outright ban broadcast commercials advertising prescription drugs, please raise your hands. (Mine is up.)

Why are the pharmaceuticals advertising to us anyway? To doctors, sure. But I think if I were a doctor and my patient were to ask me if "Placebocor" was right for him or her, I'd be tempted to slap said patient... (And maybe the drug costs would go down too, huh?)

Sorry, pet peeve...

[jelloshotsrule]

i hear ya 2jaded

they should not be advertised, and the pharm companies shouldn't be wining and dining the doctors to ensure their product is the one of choice...

the system as it is now, is a complete joke

[IJ Reilly]

Not a complete solution, but... All those here in the US who think we should just outright ban broadcast commercials advertising prescription drugs, please raise your hands. (Mine is up.)

Why are the pharmaceuticals advertising to us anyway? To doctors, sure. But I think if I were a doctor and my patient were to ask me if "Placebocor" was right for him or her, I'd be tempted to slap said patient... (And maybe the drug costs would go down too, huh?)

Sorry, pet peeve...

I think at one time not so long ago, advertising prescription drugs to consumers wasn't allowed. I'm a stockholder in two drug companies, but I'd vote for your proposed ban on prescription drug advertising.

[2jaded2care]

Taking this back to Britain and STDs...

I guess you can fault inadequate sex ed in cases of true ignorance, but still -- you're on a waiting list to get tested for some disease you think you might have contracted, and you're not going to modify your behavior so as not to risk infecting other people? Unless I'm missing the point, it seems to me that some people are trying to blame others when they should be taking responsibility themselves.

[takao]

..that would be a start

here prescription drug ads are not allowed in TV,radio etc...only aspirin ads etc.
perhaps there are ads allowed in medical magazines etc...but i'm not sure ..(i actually was surprised to see a nascar car with VIAGRA written all over it on tv a few weeks ago....something like that isn't possible here)

edit:
back ontopic:
perhaps the sexual education is so much focused on AIDS and HIV (and preventing teenage pregnancy in the case of the UK ..SCNR) that other diseases are a little bit forgotten ?

[pseudobrit]

Why should free healthcare not be available to millionaires?

Simple: they don't need a handout. Society has already given them the tools and the environment in which they found success, and they can afford to pay.

[Taft]

Not a complete solution, but... All those here in the US who think we should just outright ban broadcast commercials advertising prescription drugs, please raise your hands. (Mine is up.)

Why are the pharmaceuticals advertising to us anyway? To doctors, sure. But I think if I were a doctor and my patient were to ask me if "Placebocor" was right for him or her, I'd be tempted to slap said patient... (And maybe the drug costs would go down too, huh?)

Sorry, pet peeve...

To play devil's advocate for a moment...

What about the concept of using "consumer common sense"? Would you buy a car without thoroughly researching the pros and cons, the service track record of the particular model, the safety features and record, etc. etc.? I wouldn't. Why should things be any different for doctors?

The way I see it, there are two "levels" of precautionary measures you can take when dealing with doctors. One is to check out the doctor himself. Does he have a good reputation and credentials? Is he competent? Etc. The second level is to check out the medical advice he is giving you. Is he prescribing proper medication and doses? Is he doing the proper tests? Is his diagnosis accurate?

How vigilent should the average person be when dealing with their doctor? I, personally, like to run everything I get from my doctor through WebMD to make sure his actions make sense. I feel with some critical thinking, I can be assured he is doing a decent job. But I am not above second opinions.

Viewing the big pharms in this context, couldn't this be seen as another source of information a consumer has to make better medical decisions? What if I had severe allergies and a new drug came out that my doctor wasn't telling me about? It seems to me that advertising would be a good way to get the word out to the people, so to speak.

I want to have open dialog with my doctor and not be kept in the dark. In the end, the decisions about what to do with MY body should be MINE to make. To do this adequately, I want to be as informed as possible.

Taft

[2jaded2care]

Taft, I appreciate your arguments and concur with some. Certainly resources do and should exist to allow one to easily validate a doctor's decisions. (Although depending on the patient's personality, I'm not too sure how much doctors appreciate the way some people apply that knowledge.)

OTOH, it seems that in addition to trying to get people to switch from Brand A to Brand B, these commercials IMO have the effect of convincing the audience that not only is something seriously wrong with them, they need Brand B to fix it right up. I'm not going to say that no person has been informed of a health problem via a prescription drug ad, just as they might be informed of a health problem by a newscast. I'm just saying that most people recognize symptoms, go to the doctor to find out if something's serious, and if they don't agree, they get a second opinion.

In addition, IMO the pharms are laying the groundwork for their own comeuppance. The complaints about drug prices will lead to the US following other countries' leads in controlling them. (If elected, Kerry proposes to allow drug importation from Canada.) The pharms' critics claim the real reason for rising prices is not R&D, it's advertising. I, for one, want to know if it's true.

Apologies to non-US readers for the US-centrism we inevitably fall into...

[evil]

sorry. this is a bit off topic.
i just graduated university in canada and i have moved back to the chicago area. i dont have a job and am currently covered under my parents health plan for 3 more months. i dont get prescription coverage though. just last week i had to pay 168 dollars for some asthma medice. this same exact medicine was 40 dollars in canada by the way.
so anyway i am looking for a healthcare plan where i can get some kind of prescription coverage.
i really dont have any clue about american health coverage.

can anyone clue me in please?

and for what its worth i really appreciated the health care system in canada.

[mischief]

I heard a report on the BBC a few months back that was rather alarming. The rate of recreational casual sex in the UK was quite high. In fact, one form of this, in which folks gather for semi-exhibitionist sex in the parking lots of public highway rest stops or the lots of Parks was widespread enough to be causing the Brit equivalent of Parks and Rec to be quite miffed at the amount of trash left behind. I would guess from this report that it's more likely to be an issue of cultural entropy than a fault in the Healthcare system.

BTW: It's better to have a system in which services are universally billed for ANY health problem than one in which coverage is often a guessing game.

Keep in mind: The American neocons like to oversimplify and point out only the sheer number of people waiting for this and that. There are a whole helluva lot of folks here in the USA waiting for transplants and the like.

That perspective also totally ignores that it's not the wait that's the real difference is in the billing (Emergency services in the USA are overburdened in Urban hubs too because they're the only service that even the uninsured can't do without.) .

With real National healthcare the billing issue is MOOT. I'd be more than willing to trade a little wait time for having to calc out the cost for Flu shots and the like (I would guess in the range of $500.00 or more for the visit).

Here's the link on just how many people we're talking about: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-154.html

[2jaded2care]

sorry. this is a bit off topic.
i just graduated university in canada and i have moved back to the chicago area. i dont have a job and am currently covered under my parents health plan for 3 more months. i dont get prescription coverage though. just last week i had to pay 168 dollars for some asthma medice. this same exact medicine was 40 dollars in canada by the way.
so anyway i am looking for a healthcare plan where i can get some kind of prescription coverage.
i really dont have any clue about american health coverage.

can anyone clue me in please?

and for what its worth i really appreciated the health care system in canada.

Sorry Evil, we're just here to kvetch, we're not actually useful.
:)

FWIW, your best bet is to get a job that offers a good plan. I'm with Blue Cross/Blue Shield HMO, and most prescription drugs I've had so far, there's only been a small (around $10 I think) co-pay. Some, of course, are not considered "necessary", so I'm paying full price for those if I want them... I know nothing about non-group health plans, except they're not fun.

And you could always vote Kerry and wait... Or get your meds from Canada. I wouldn't blame you. This status quo cannot be sustained.

[Taft]

sorry. this is a bit off topic.
i just graduated university in canada and i have moved back to the chicago area. i dont have a job and am currently covered under my parents health plan for 3 more months. i dont get prescription coverage though. just last week i had to pay 168 dollars for some asthma medice. this same exact medicine was 40 dollars in canada by the way.
so anyway i am looking for a healthcare plan where i can get some kind of prescription coverage.
i really dont have any clue about american health coverage.

can anyone clue me in please?

and for what its worth i really appreciated the health care system in canada.

This is pretty obvious, so I apologize if you've thought of it already...

Have you tried asking for generic equivalents of your medicine? Its often a lot cheaper, if its available. Also, a doctor can often recommend cheaper alternatives available on the market. But then you have to pay for a doctor's visit...

I'm not sure you are going to get a better deal by changing plans. All Health Insurance companies' prescription coverage plans are getting worse these days. I'm paying twice as much for them this year as I was three years ago, and I'm fully covered. Even for us lucky enough to have employer sponsered health insurance policies, things are getting worse and far more expensive.

Taft

[evil]

This is pretty obvious, so I apologize if you've thought of it already...

Have you tried asking for generic equivalents of your medicine? Its often a lot cheaper, if its available. Also, a doctor can often recommend cheaper alternatives available on the market. But then you have to pay for a doctor's visit...

I'm not sure you are going to get a better deal by changing plans. All Health Insurance companies' prescription coverage plans are getting worse these days. I'm paying twice as much for them this year as I was three years ago, and I'm fully covered. Even for us lucky enough to have employer sponsered health insurance policies, things are getting worse and far more expensive.

Taft

unfortunately the medicine isnt offered in generic. however the insurance company informed me that they could order the medicine from canada.
but. i only have this insurance for 3 more months. so i hope i find a job with benefits by then.
i was recently offered a job, but i had to turn it down as it offered no benefits and it wouldnt have been worth it to buy my own.
i find the whole health coverage debacle in the US pretty disgusting especially when i remind myself that the US spends as much on "defense" as all the other nations combined.

[Bobcat37]

1. we don't really live in a true democracy. more like a representative republic.

2. democracy is more comparable to communism. socialism is comparable to capitalism

a democracy is not inherently capitalistic

I know all of that... it was late ok? I swapped a few words by accident -_-

My condolences. Having looked after a terminally-ill child for nine years, and having simultaneously gone bankrupt, I am extremely grateful that, on top of the anguish that caused, we did not have to forego decent medical treatment for him due to economic circumstances.

My parents dealt with the same thing with me, I and my mother have had many medical problems throughout our whole lives, I still have a incurable chronic disease that will be with me the rest of my life, my parents went bankrupt trying to pay all the medical bills many years ago... yet, they also are against a national health care system... They must be stupid or something I guess? :confused:

Just something to ponder for now, shower time!

[iGav]

I heard a report on the BBC a few months back that was rather alarming. The rate of recreational casual sex in the UK was quite high. In fact, one form of this, in which folks gather for semi-exhibitionist sex in the parking lots of public highway rest stops or the lots of Parks was widespread enough to be causing the Brit equivalent of Parks and Rec to be quite miffed at the amount of trash left behind.

I must be hanging in the wrong kind of parks... :eek: :p :p


I would guess from this report that it's more likely to be an issue of cultural entropy than a fault in the Healthcare system.

Our NHS is a great idea, poorly executed. It's failing for a variety of reasons. In some respects it's very good, in others it can be very poor.

What would contribute massively to a reduction in use of the NHS?? decent education for one thing.

[mischief]

I must be hanging in the wrong kind of parks... :eek: :p :p


Apparently the emphasis on parking lots was due to it being a rather specific kink. Couples would park in a particular lot after finding the location on an internet forum and... er... couple in their car, leaving the dome light on. These gatherings were compared to the American rogue Rave phenomenon.

[pseudobrit]

unfortunately the medicine isnt offered in generic.

Flovent or Serevent, right?


but. i only have this insurance for 3 more months. so i hope i find a job with benefits by then.
i was recently offered a job, but i had to turn it down as it offered no benefits and it wouldnt have been worth it to buy my own.
i find the whole health coverage debacle in the US pretty disgusting especially when i remind myself that the US spends as much on "defense" as all the other nations combined.

It's a pretty sad standard, eh?

[blackfox]

I apologize for going off-topic...

You know I feel that an under-appreciated element of the rising cost of helathcare, is our (in the US, at least) inadequate attention to the new, poorly understood causes of the rise of chronic illnesses in the past few years/decades. There has been a huge rise in certain conditions that can be tied (indirectly) to our modern environment, both physical and social. A short list:

1. Chronic Asthma (bronchitus) - can be linked somewhat to generally poorer air-quality, especially in cities.

2. Social Anxiety Disorder - Perhaps it always existed, but I am of the opinion that societal changes affecting social development of children are largely to blame for it's rise.

3. ADD - Again, perhaps it has always been around. It is of my opinion that the ubiquity of TV and other visual mediums affect childhood development. If you know anything about the effects of the technology of the TV (separate from content), it is a very compelling connection. There is also the content and the implied priorities, of course.

4. Epilepsy/seizures - see #3

5. Cancer - Of course a huge mystery, and it has been around a while. Still, between declining air-quality, preservative-laden and GM food, increased radiation exposure from electronic devices, it is almost surprising that we all don't have it...

6. Obesity - people are beginning to recognize this one...

There are soooo many more to list...

The point is, no-one seems to be realizing that we are creating a sicker society in which we are not going after the causes. Pharmaceutical companies are able to treat many of the above conditions with maintainance, but w/o any increased understanding to solve the problem or make a permanent solution. This all contributes to a rising cost of Health Care, especially as the first generations of us growing up in the "modern" world age, and become even sicker...

I find the Pharmaceutical companies somewhat analgous to the Tobacco companies - They know their customers will need their product, and are able to manipulate pricing to maximize profit, although they often offer deals to get customers of competitors to switch. They often know that their products have inherent health-risks, which they deny or downplay, partially by the use of deceptive marketing...

Anyway, just wanted to mention this, not that it solves any of the problems we face w/ regards to the Helath Care Crisis...

[2jaded2care]

Blackfox, not sure I agree with you on some of the causes you cite for # 5, but here's one lots of people don't think about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/380274.stm

Not to scare people, but something to think about...

[evil]

Flovent or Serevent, right?

close.....advair, which is actually a combination of the two

and also black fox--you can add diabetes to the list.

[pseudobrit]

close.....advair, which is actually a combination of the two

and also black fox--you can add diabetes to the list.

Look into getting it shipped from Canada with your US prescription. It's about half as expensive in most cases.

Also diet related --

heart disease

colon polyps

[Ugg]

To play devil's advocate for a moment...

What about the concept of using "consumer common sense"? Would you buy a car without thoroughly researching the pros and cons, the service track record of the particular model, the safety features and record, etc. etc.? I wouldn't. Why should things be any different for doctors?

The way I see it, there are two "levels" of precautionary measures you can take when dealing with doctors. One is to check out the doctor himself. Does he have a good reputation and credentials? Is he competent? Etc. The second level is to check out the medical advice he is giving you. Is he prescribing proper medication and doses? Is he doing the proper tests? Is his diagnosis accurate?

How vigilent should the average person be when dealing with their doctor? I, personally, like to run everything I get from my doctor through WebMD to make sure his actions make sense. I feel with some critical thinking, I can be assured he is doing a decent job. But I am not above second opinions.



Isn't that one of the largest problems with the medical system in the US? The lack of reliable information about doctors and how good/bad they are?

Sorry, no links to back it up, but I believe I've read that one of the reasons for such high malpractice ins. rates is the fact that disciplinary bodies do not divulge info about docs who are in trouble. The few run ins I've had with the health system it seems that everything is word of mouth and there is very little written info available about doctors and how good they are. A transparent system would be very welcome IMO.

[pseudobrit]

Look into getting it shipped from Canada with your US prescription. It's about half as expensive in most cases.

Oh, yeah. I forgot that it's Canada's healthcare system in a shambles, and they're crossing the border en masse to get treatment.

[IJ Reilly]

Oh, yeah. I forgot that it's Canada's healthcare system in a shambles, and they're crossing the border en masse to get treatment.

I don't care how many of them come here, so long as they bring some prescription drugs with them. I'd call that a fair exchange.

[evil]

Oh, yeah. I forgot that it's Canada's healthcare system in a shambles, and they're crossing the border en masse to get treatment.

when i lived in toronto for 3 years i never heard of anyone going to the us to get treatment.
in fact my girlfriend had some kidney problems and she was hospitalized a couple times and i found the hospitals to be very nice and clean and her doctors seemed very good.
im not a hospital conesseuir or anything though....

[jelloshotsrule]

blackfox- bingo!!! you've hit the nail on the head. we are too hung up in fixing problems, rather than finding what causes them and preventing them in the future.

as kerry mentioned tonight... 25% of kids in harlem have asthma? and that actually sounds low, sadly.

as for cancer... need to get the corporations out of the epa's business. same with fda

anyways, your post got me excited, but now i've lost my train of thought so i'll end it here.

word

[zimv20]

im not a hospital conesseuir or anything though....
thanks for clearing that up

;-)

[Taft]

Isn't that one of the largest problems with the medical system in the US? The lack of reliable information about doctors and how good/bad they are?

Sorry, no links to back it up, but I believe I've read that one of the reasons for such high malpractice ins. rates is the fact that disciplinary bodies do not divulge info about docs who are in trouble. The few run ins I've had with the health system it seems that everything is word of mouth and there is very little written info available about doctors and how good they are. A transparent system would be very welcome IMO.

That would be a good thing. I'm lucky enough to have friends who work in the same hospital as my doctor. I got a good referral and haven't had any problems. Without that referral, I would have been up poop creek. Most hospitals' "find a doctor" services are a joke. There is NO information available about that doctor's history background, etc. To get that, you have to call the doctor directly and hope he is being upfront with you. Not ideal. The whole industry needs reform.

I wonder what would happen if you started a "rate the doctor" service on the internet. Kind of like epinions.com, but for doctors. How fast do you think you'd have the AMA on your back? In fact, there could even be a law against it, for all I know.

Taft