What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
45 Comments
- SmokenJoe, on 06/30/2009, -1/+12Much of this is very true so many people get lost in the shuffle between doctors. The 'family' doctor wont get paid for complex problems even though they are the ones best at managing them. Skip that 3000 dollar test( or three) and actually go look at the person! We need some lawsuit reform. So much money is wasted with unneeded tests to cover their butts in court if needed. The MD's often dont evenbother keeping up on the results they just need them to confirm their beliefs- same for the multiple consults at times.
- raptorlightning, on 06/30/2009, -1/+11Bust up the drug monopolies. Limit hospital construction and maintenance spending by making sure "hospital grade" doesn't mean a 100 fold price increase.
People will pay anything for their healthcare, but it's up to our morals to not make them pay more than is really necessary. - Kentj1, on 06/30/2009, -2/+11How do they do it in other countries? One reporter finds out . . .
Sicko
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6646340600 ...
John Stossel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I
Frontline
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/ ... - superkendall, on 06/30/2009, -1/+7I've heard the same BS from business consultants seeking to "optimize the process" of companies I was in.
Millions of dollars later nothing had changed except the consultants were driving nicer cars.
Beware people who ay you can get more with less, if only you would give them great stacks of money to show you how. - 3tcp, on 06/30/2009, -0/+5There are so many problems with they way that the health care system is organized that none of the proposed 'reforms' will address. If they are not fixed before we move to government run health care then the system can just charge everything to the government's credit and these issues will never be resolved.
There are inherent problems that lead to an inefficient allocation of resources that will not be addressed by any of the proposed reforms. - DreadPirate, on 06/30/2009, -14/+18That's one thing I don't understand. Why don't people try and bring sanity to the current health care process, rather than bring in the government and make it 10 times more complicated? The umpteen layers of bureaucracy only make everything cost more and do next to nothing to actually improve health care for anyone.
- AdrianKRAZY, on 06/30/2009, -2/+6Just move to Australia. We have free health care for all.
- zoom1928, on 06/30/2009, -0/+4You beat me to it. The statement "if you organize your processes right" sounds just like something some MBA consultant with zero real-world experience would say.
- 3The3Dude3, on 06/30/2009, -4/+7***** you "free market guy". The government is the only one who can fix this. Just like they did Medicare. Oh, wait. Nevermind.
- reeds1999, on 06/30/2009, -3/+6LOL! The US sees itself as "The leader of the free world", yet can not devise a system to provide health care for its citizens!
- SuperCujo, on 06/30/2009, -0/+3Wow!
McAllen has some corrupt doctors - stonebear, on 06/30/2009, -0/+3So who's up for a round of three-card monte?
- guyincognitoo, on 06/30/2009, -0/+3"When in practice, Doctor's engage in defensive medicine to protect themselves against a lawsuit. They perform tests and provide treatments that they would not otherwise perform merely to protect themselves against the risk of possible litigation. The survey revealed that over 76% are concerned that malpractice litigation has hurt their ability to provide quality care to patients."
Because of the resulting legal fear:
· 79% said that they had ordered more tests than they would, based only on professional judgment of what is medically needed, and 91% have noticed other physicians ordering more tests;
· 74% have referred patients to specialists more often than they believed was medically necessary;
· 51% have recommended invasive procedures such as biopsies to confirm diagnoses more often than they believed was medically necessary; and
· 41% said that they had prescribed more medications, such as antibiotics, than they would based only on their professional judgment, and
. 73% have noticed other doctors similarly prescribing excessive medications.
From page 4 of this:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/litrefm.pdf - xcannon69, on 06/30/2009, -2/+5Health care should not be a partisan issue. Its wrong to deny healthcare to anyone, there should be no price on health. In canada everyone is given healthcare no matter what. The canadian conservative party agrees on this issue. If USA can go to war for the billions of dollars it wastes, It can launch a universal two-tier medical system for a fraction of those wasted billions to serve its people. People who say otherwise are playing in the interests of insurance executives and lobbyists.
- AdrianKRAZY, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Yes "Free" See over here we don't spend 1 tillion dollards of the tax money on war. We spend 100 billion on war and then wack the other 900 billion on health care. Anything you have to get done to live happy... anything at all it's all free. You break a leg, free and the government gives you extra cash for taking time off work. If you have a baby... Free and the govenment will give you $5000 to help start you off. Your child gets sick, the goverment gives you money to look after them. Cancer... Free :). What ever it is it's all free.
*trillion might be a slight over extermation but still it's a big number. - diggduggjoe, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2The biggest issue is the lack of market pressure to increase efficiency and reduce prices. The trade off between dozens of unnecessary tests and a single needed one must be done by the patient in consult with their physician. As long as any 3rd party is footing the bills, cost never comes up. At that point the free market is removed from the system and uncontrolled costs will arise.
- maliath, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Read this article:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/0906 ... - zip000, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2That's a really interesting article. It kind of deflates the malpractice lawsuit argument somewhat. I'm not saying that malpractice isn't a problem, but it isn't the only problem.
- notthatdumb, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1@diggdugg:
Thats how socialism rolls. I like it. It tells the truth, is sarcastic, and uses modern slang. Dugg! - 3The3Dude3, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1Dugg because something about seeing this plug, on Digg, in a healthcare thread made me laugh pretty hard.
- Akairenn, on 06/30/2009, -6/+7Because the government loves us and only has our best interests at heart!
(Do I need the /s? Really? *sigh*) - 3The3Dude3, on 06/30/2009, -2/+3Let's pretend I am totally on board with the cause. It still wouldn't negate the level of discomfort I have with a sitting President's (regardless of who it is) personal "logo" on a website bearing his name, propagating "for America". I can't be the only one. Can I?
- deathandtaverns, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1I'm sure that's part of it, but if doctors or their employers own the for profit clinics that do the tests then unnecessary testing is just good business
- diggduggjoe, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1The shocking thing is we have repeated examples of failure, yet the allure of a free lunch is just too strong I guess. I strongly feel the need for a socialized response would be negated with veterinarian level of fees. Without price insulation that modern cover all insurance creates, prices would be very low. I think liability should be lower, too. You picked your doctor, so you are largely to blame if he/she kills you. Aside from clear negligence such as prescribing too much of a drug or leaving stuff inside during a surgery, your experience with any medical service will have an element of risk.
The ideal socialist medical system is both risk free and cost free. That isn't a real possibility, but the public is enthralled with the idea. - rizzin, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1Something else that needs to be addressed is insurance coverage, which is where I think most people have an issue with "Health Care"
Most insurance companies are publicly traded companies and so their focus is on making a profit for their stockholders. If they were to be made into co-ops with buy-in options where all the insured are also stockholders and owners I think it could go a long way to bringing down insurance costs and raising coverage with fewer exclusions.
Under any plan I dont see adding layers of government bureaucracy into the mix is going to make the systems cost any less or move any faster. If anything I see it being a slower, more costly, less efficient system. - GhostInAShell, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1No price on health?
Good luck with finding someone to take care of you, then. Costs come from somewhere. - Elranzer, on 06/30/2009, -2/+3Healthcare isn't a business though, and shouldn't be treated as such. It's a basic human right and needs to be provided as such.
"Free market" ideals only harm this sector. They've got it right in Britain and France, and close in Canada.
Luckily tort reform is on the rise. The amount of insurance that a doctor needs to take out against stupid people and greedy lawyers is what's making healthcare unaffordable. - unclefire, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1hmmm.. you have proof that medicare/medicate are always over budget???
You're two bullets points are additional consquences. That doesn't mean they can't bring costs down. If you place controls the market and stipulate a whole crapload of things, you can make the costs come down. That doesn't mean we'll get something we like-- but costs could come down. - unclefire, on 06/30/2009, -0/+0@abw198700: I'm not for socialized health care, but I don't think your point is necessarily true. If the gov. fixes prices, sets treatment protocols, and keeps admin costs low, they could bring costs down. But at what price to the us, the public?
Medicare apparently has roughly 3% in overhead from admin while private insurance is somewhere in the 20% range. Of course, Medicare doesn't do some things it should and likely benefits from things that the private sector does. - diggduggjoe, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2Insufficient reimbursement will just make many service providers leave the system. The extreme example is the UKs dental system. Losing a filling may take 12 weeks to be fixed. Many people are so desperate they remove their own teeth. That is how socialism rolls. Eventually, everybody stops working because they are all working at a loss.
Please, let me know what profession you are in. We can have the government come in and set your prices just right for the benefit of your clients. They need not ask what your costs are or what your needs are, government just knows you are charging too much.
The idea of government price controls is just plain silly. - GhostInAShell, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2Which retards dugg you down?
Nothing is free. - notthatdumb, on 06/30/2009, -1/+1@Kent:
Thumbs down for using Micheal Moore as a reference. At least Stossel is an actual reporter - GhostInAShell, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2It is not a right.
Labeling it as such forces someone else to provide it for you =/= a right.
Canada and Britain have tremendous costs from healthcare. - notthatdumb, on 06/30/2009, -1/+1Tort reform cuts health care cost. Period. No more "trial lawyer lottery"
- notthatdumb, on 06/30/2009, -0/+0@xcan:
Yeah that is why rich Canadians come to New York or Atlanta for Heart Surgery and cancer treatment. Did you know that the terminal rate for cancer in Canada is 16% higher than in the states?
Try reading Dick Morris' new book. Not like the guy that was Bill Clinton's single biggest asset would know what he was talking about or anything... - zip000, on 06/30/2009, -2/+1Man, I hate John Stossel. He is such a douchebag; he always focuses on one tiny aspect of a problem and then purposefully obfuscates the rest of it to make it look like it is a simple common sense problem. Then the people that are doing whatever he things is wrong look like thieves and liars, even though they are often just making the best of a bad situation.
Whenever I watch his reporting, I always yell at the TV in frustration after just a few minutes. - denizen42, on 06/30/2009, -4/+3Exactly
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -2/+1Medicare and medicaid are consistently over budget. There is nothing efficient about those organizations. The government can fix prices, set protocols, and keep amin costs low all they want, but that will only do two things:
- Reduce competition
- Stifle innovation - unclefire, on 06/30/2009, -1/+0@superkendall-- first, the company in question has to be willing to change its processes. 2ndly, those process changes need to be feasible. Many companies do optimize their processes to improve products-- why do you think that productivity has gone up in the US over the past decade (or more)?
@zoom1928 - So, we should ignore process changes that could make things more efficient and effective? You want to just bury your head in the sand and say no changes in how drs, hospitals, insurance do business? More is not always better. Crappy processes add costs (e.g. non-standard coding, duplicate paperwork, etc.) Admin beauracracy adds costs. Overtreating patients adds costs. Manual processes add costs. - inactive, on 06/30/2009, -4/+2I think the main thing to take from this article is that socialized health insurance will do absolutely nothing to slow the rise in health care costs. It's quite unrelated to the problem.
A couple ideas to make health care cheaper:
- Tort reform
- Extend patent life, giving pharmaceutical companies more time to recoup R&D investments, allowing them to charge less for drugs
</ideas> - zip000, on 06/30/2009, -3/+1This is one place where I agree with the conservatives - not in their underlying point, but in the argument that there is no such thing as free.
I'll certainly admit that I know next to nothing about your system, but I suspect that you have free health care in Australia in that you don't have to pay for services rendered. You do still have to pay for it somewhere - either it is paid in taxes by you or by someone. That isn't the same thing as free.
I'm all for universal health care, but saying that it is free is misleading. - notthatdumb, on 06/30/2009, -2/+0@reeds:
We do have health care for our citizens. Do you know anyone that has been denied treatment when they were sick, regardless of their ability to pay?
Didn't think so - 3The3Dude3, on 06/30/2009, -3/+1You get what you pay for.
- schnikies79, on 06/30/2009, -6/+2"Free."
- jayjayjoni, on 06/30/2009, -8/+2Exactly. Set prices controls on what would be reasonable. So what if doctors and pharmacists lose 50% of their income? It helps the rest of us.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is