Government run health care

[Karen]

By the way, I had my annual physical today, and asked my doctor about the mammogram study.

She replied that she thinks I should get one anyway. She stressed that there are no risks associated with getting one annually in terms of radiation exposure over time. And, she added, she's in her forties, and she's still planning on getting one annually.

So I will have my squish-o-gram in a couple weeks. I don't "do" pain for beauty's sake - hence not having pierced ears or wearing high heels, but I will endure pain for my health's sake.

[Puckstop31]

We need to focus on facts - not the hyperbolic hysterical horse crap people make up.

AMEN!!!!

So, how do we pay for it? Did you happen to see the article the NYT had today? The one about our debt and its intrest?

[cassiesmom]

Yes, I have ideas as to how to make it better and more affordable.

1.) Limit the awards for pain and suffering to reasonable amounts. Not the amount a good speaking lawyer can get out of a emotional jury.

2.) Allow insurance companies to sell policies in multiple states.

These two things by themselves will reduce the cost of care. There are more good, no GREAT ides out there. The problem is more people need to be willing to take on the responsibility themselves for THEIR healthcare. That alone is why it is dangerous to speak about healthcare as a right.

I'm not sure I want insurers selling across state lines. They can write a crappy policy, sell it dirt cheap (so people will buy it) in an insurance statute-friendly state (where they can win any cases that may go to court), and still be making money hand over foot.

My #2 would be
2.) Figure out a way for prescription drug manufacturers to sell their products cheaply. Why does my antihypertensive cost $3 a pill? Maybe the V.A. is onto something - they buy in enormous quantities, keep their formulary pretty tight, and pass the savings on to their patients.

Did you all see the story on 60 Minutes last night about older people in intensive care units? Heartbreaking.

[Puckstop31]

Oh SAS! You didn't recognize the new, kinder, gentler version??

And, as ALWAYS with you.... Focus on "style" and never have anything to say about substance. Frankly, its a good thing this kind of stuff is all you ever have to say. Proves my point.

I try... I really do. But fake emotion is my kryptonite. If you REALLY cared about people, you would rail for more JOBS and not fake "free" health care for all. Nor would you insult our Constitution and those who still believe in it.

[Puckstop31]

I'm not sure I want insurers selling across state lines. They can write a crappy policy, sell it dirt cheap (so people will buy it) in an insurance statute-friendly state (where they can win any cases that may go to court), and still be making money hand over foot.

Supply and demand. Some people might buy such a "crappy" policy... Others might shop around for the best policy. Its how a free market works. Of course, the tough part of a free market is some people win... Some people lose. Its how it is... Its how it always will be. History does not lie. Knowing that, i'd rather that destiny be MY choice. Ya know?

There are more smart people out there than I think you believe.

My #2 would be
2.) Figure out a way for prescription drug manufacturers to sell their products cheaply. Why does my antihypertensive cost $3 a pill?

Supply and demand? R&D costs? Crazy government regulations? Do you know what it takes to get a drug to market?

[Edwina's Secretary]

She stressed that there are no risks associated with getting one annually in terms of radiation exposure over time. And, she added, she's in her forties, and she's still planning on getting one annually.

If there is no risk...why are the techs behind a lead shield?

I don't think there is enough data one way or the other.

But if you feel confident in the advice of your healthcare provider - I think you should follow his/her advice - and not be controlled by profit-driven insurance company executives!

[sparks19]

well... I have lived in both worlds... "Free healthcare" in canada and the US system. BOTH systems are severely broken.

read the latest on my step father's saga who has been severely ill for at least a year... can no longer work... can't even make his weekly Drs appts without being totally run down for days unable to even get off the couch. went in for lung surgery (his second in less than two months) and was kicked out of the hospital because they just didn't have room for him. a man who is 60 years old having more infection removed from his lungs than his doctor claims he has ever seen. well you can read the thread if you wish. It was a disaster.

he is still not back to normal. still not able to work, still not able to do more than cook a meal and sweep the floors without being totaly run down and still no closer to a diagnosis than he was a year ago and can't get the REAL care he needs because they just don't have room and he isn't going to die tomorrow.

people here can't afford to get the care and suffer from the same problems.... but making it "free" for everyone isn't going to save everyone. There HAS to be an inbetween.

they can't make it work properly in Canada with a FrACTION of the population and you may be thinking "well more people more money for taxes" well ... also think of it this way... more people to go to emergency and run to the doctor for every cough and sneeze and that IS what happens. when it becomes "free" people will go for EVERYTHING because they can. emergency rooms, hosiptal beds, doctors offices will become totally clogged. I went to emerg with mono one year... didn't know it was mono. severely swollen throat to the point I couldn't swallow and it was affecting my breathing. I waited TWELVE hours in emerg. My father insisted I had to be seen (I was a teen) I was in really bad shape. couldn't eat, coudl barely drink, trouble breathing he thought I was having an allergic reaction to something after going to the ONLY doctor in town that was taking new patients and she pushed me off with some antibiotics and an "OH sorry you will be fine here you go" as she did everytime I came to her.

i've seen both and with a larger population it just DOESN'T work either way. there HAS to be middle ground.

as for mammograms...

I will have one every year as soon as I can get them. it's MORE likely I will die from breast cancer than die from radiation. with large breasts and with my grandmother dying from cancer (not breast cancer though) I will get the testing when I can. I give myself regular exams but sometimes it doesn't show up as obviously as some think nor does it show up in the exact areas people thing.... can even be under the armpit. I am a large breasted woman and I DO and will continue to take it seriously whether I need to pay for it or not.

[Lady's Human]

The techs are behind lead shielding because they would recieve many times beyond the PEL or TLV through a day of work were the shielding not in place.

The person getting the mammogram does it once a year (if that)

Your rough dose of radiation from natural backgraound sources is roughly 350 millirems, depending on lifestyle.

A mammogram exposes you to 70 millirems. Given that, the level of exposure is comparatively minimal.

The person doing the mammogram does it repeatedly throughout the day, day after day, year after year.

As radiation damage is cumulative, they need the shielding.

[blue]

Health Care is not a Right. Health Care is a service.

Freedom of Speech is a Right, not a service. The Right to protect your self, ala the 2nd Amendment, is not a service.

Sparks and LH should be ashamed of themselves for bringing logic and real life experience into a purely emotional argument.

[WHITEPOST]Sarcasm[/WHITEPOST]

[Edwina's Secretary]

The techs are behind lead shielding because they would recieve many times beyond the PEL or TLV through a day of work were the shielding not in place.

The person doing the mammogram does it repeatedly throughout the day, day after day, year after year.

As radiation damage is cumulative, they need the shielding.

Gosh LH...Think I might have said that tongue in cheek?

But...first - annual mammograms have not been around long enough to know conclusively the effects of the exposure.

And...I am not sure how many mammograms you have had (joking again! ) but earlier this year I had a "positive" mammogram. So back I went. For TWO HOURS I was pulled, pushed and repositioned. "Now put your left leg over your right ear"....etc...etc. They could not "see" anything. But I was to go back in six months. Again I did. And again I was pushed and pulled. And again they could not "see" anything.

They tell me I should go again in four months. I highly doubt I will do so. At this point I feel they are trying to prove they were right.

So in less than a year I have had over two decades of "once a year if that" exposure.

And a false positive.

And all those millirems concentrated in one part of my body - unlike what I receive enviornmentally.

I lost an aunt to breast cancer and one grandmother had breast cancer.

But I still think for myself. And decide for myself. And I don't listen to lay people who try to stir up hysteria by misreporting studies for their own political agenda.

[Lady's Human]

As opposed to stirring up hysteria by passing on junk science to promote their own political agenda?

Or as opposed to stirring up hysteria by playing on emotion and ignoring logic to promote their own political agenda?

[Edwina's Secretary]

As opposed to stirring up hysteria by passing on junk science to promote their own political agenda?

Or as opposed to stirring up hysteria by playing on emotion and ignoring logic to promote their own political agenda?

Yes.

Having a bad day?

[cassiesmom]

Dr. Rob, physician and musician, on health care reform...

Read the entire poem at http://distractible.org/2009/10/04/seuss-was-a-doctor/

A plan that is public creates great distress,
Just growing the government won’t fix this mess!
Absolute power just leads to excess!
(But what’s their alternative’s anyone’s guess)

The patients are now in the poorest condition
We’ve put them all into this dreadful position
Ignoring the help of those greedy physicians
And trusting their health to those smart politicians

[Edwina's Secretary]

I am very sorry, Cassiemom, that you felt you had to delete your post.

Don't feed the bullies!

[joycenalex]

[QUOTE=Edwina's Secretary;2211020]If there is no risk...why are the techs behind a lead shield?

ES, i didn't get that your comment was tongue in cheek, i've had patients ask me that over the last 15 years, i'm sure more will. that radiologist isn't trying to prove he's right by asking you to return for follow up diagnostic exams, he's trying to prove that he's wrong, that the first positive mamm was an error, and that there isn't a very small cancer and the only way to prove this negative is a series of identical mamms for (often) 2 years. if there had been a high degree of suspicion for a small cancer, they very likely would have discussed a biopsy instead of followup films. since you were in a mamm room for 2 hours, it has to be very deep, very small, very central area, the tech must have been sweating razorblades at the end of it. i'm hoping for continued good health for you