There are some very cynical posts in this thread and not totally without reason. But I would like to ask along a different line. We do have members who have medical knowledge and expexperience.

I would like to ask them for their opinion if medicine is so complicated that it is really difficult for a human being to be on all the time. I think I can get my head around most of the symptoms the human body can show. How many different symptoms can your hair show. How many can your skin show? How many can your eyes show? And so on. I do not know them all, but my first take is that the list of possible symptoms is maybe large, but I could probably get my mind around it. Now if I think of all the possible illnesses, I would imagine that my mind bogles. If those two are correct, then the logical conclusion is that any symptom could have multiple possible causes.

I used to work in satellite TV. From memory I think I remember two cases, one where a part was starting to go and periodically and the other where a strong wind a certain direction blew the tree limbs and leaves in front of the dish and blocked the signal. The end result was periodically losing programming while the causes were totally different.

I could imagine medical issues being like that. You take the symptoms and pick the most likely cause and be right most of the time, but once in a while there is another cause and you end up burying your mistake. That is kind of my experience.

Is there an element of truth to that or is the reality really that doctors are dollar-obsessed incompetents?

Arab -

What makes medicine hard is, "the system" not the medicine.

Group practicing doctors have to adhere to the lowest common denominator.

Nurse Practitioners was a big mistake as it confused the Nursing field with the already present, Public Health Nurse who can make rural house calls and report back. Alabama had to send a State delegation to Iran to re learn the use of the PHN.

Medical students should not be graduating into a mountain of debt releasing the hounds of profit motive.

Reimburse via time spent and not procedures done. A minute explaining the use of a medicine should be the same as a minute catheterizing a coronary artery - whether a stent is left or not.

Hope these help start the list.

Moi

StefanIsMe (imported) wrote: Thu May 19, 2011 6:57 am Hmm.. looking back... my last post is a wee titch accusatory and harsh. I stand by my points, but I'll pull back on the vitriol from here on

BTW, Kitten, classy pic!

Oh, and profit-based-insurace schemes suck :p

The folly is to think that government managed insurance is not for profit though, it's just the government gets a lump profit from all their programs. What you really should be concerned with is how much of your life are you willing to let them run? Right now we are seeing our choices in everything slowly fade through government regulation, how long before people realise that while some Socialism can be a good thing, going 100% to anything is always a bad thing?

As for profits, all companies need to make profits, that's how they expand, and in expanding improve the job markets as well as other aspects. However, the only reason you don't pay 75% of your paycheck to insurance is because they are keeping the prices manageable. In a truly Capitalist system people would choose, and businesses that do not offer the best would die out while those which offer the most demanded services and products would survive, and as some die new ones with different methods would appear. The employer forced medical insurance (which takes choice away from many) is actually because the government forces that, so it's not even the employer's fault for such things at this time. If you want the perfect idea of what giving the government more control over choice, that's pretty much it, that and the FDA but that could be a whole new message board.

Hmm.. been reading Ayn Rand, I sense!

I do have to clarify something here. I'm no ribald Socialist. As you stated, some socialist programs can and do work; nobody wants a full socialist government, though. Certainly not me.

However, health care is most definitely one of those things that a socialist approach works for.

Millions of Canadians don't see our system as, quote, "

KittenAB (imported) wrote: Thu May 19, 2011 10:03 pm What you really should be concerned with is how much of your life are you willing to let them run?

". Our system is transparent, if flawed in areas. I feel that it's the stereotypical (to us Canucks) American knee-jerk reaction of "Socialist structures! Eeks! That's evil!". We don't feel as if our goernment is 'running our lives' at all, by allowing the Gvnt. to manage health care. Your reaction feels foreign to me, to be honest.

The government can do good work. Yes, corruption happens, etc. etc. But we trust our government to give us health care, as timely as possible, and of modern, even advanced (Winnipeg is known as a "home" of the best hip replacements available in North America) medicine.

I'm not saying I'm selling my soul to the government here, though; I'm suspicious of them too. I question their moves constantly. I don't trust them in every way. France has many problems in Parliament too, but they supply every citizen with a level of health care with no charge (except taxes of course) that blows away USA's mortality rate.

I couldn't help but notice this line, too; "

KittenAB (imported) wrote: Thu May 19, 2011 10:03 pm the only reason you don't pay 75% of your paycheck to insurance is because they are keeping the prices manageable.

". Of course they are. And, it's wrong, I think, to glom on to this position of even government-run health care is really for profit.

It really isn't "for profit". Not at all.

Sure, the governmnt tries to make a return where it can, but Health Care is an admittedly massve EXPENSE. They never talk about "profit" when talking about the costs of health care here. Profit? From what?

Unemployment insurance here in Canada, now THAT really IS for profit. THey make scads of money off our EI (employment insurance, the new name for it) premiums. We do pay a percentage every paycheck for EI. Loose your job, collect EI at around 65 to 75 percent of your previous income for around 8 months, depending on circumtances.

The government makes and skims boatlads from that system.

But health care? No... that's a pure, 100% expense.

So, yes, they look for efficiencies, but those efficiencies do not come as surprise "Oops! Haha! Sorry, your package doesn't cover nerve degeneration disorders, sir, you go on home to die, now." phone calls from an insurance agent.

StefanIsMe (imported) wrote: Fri May 20, 2011 1:01 am Hmm.. been reading Ayn Rand, I sense!

I do have to clarify something here. I'm no ribald Socialist. As you stated, some socialist programs can and do work; nobody wants a full socialist government, though. Certainly not me.

...

I truncated your quote because I just wanted to let you know I'm responding to you.

The thing is, there has always been a government run health insurance available for those who can't get any other, to varying degrees in varying states. But as I said, those are collapsing quickly because the government misappropriated taxes and now there's almost no money left. There are also subsidised insurance policies and many "sliding scale" clinics across the country, a few federally run subsidised policies as well available everywhere. Those are being bankrupt by our own government. In health insurance the patient's choice in coverage should be the first priority, since most people never use it in their whole lives making everyone pay for everyone's insurance will make us pay a fortune in taxes while not improving care at all. As pointed out before, the control of care is from the medical administrations and doctors themselves, the insurance companies all cover emergency care, and most cover preventative. As it is there are a LOT of procedures that are illegal in the US as well, just because the FDA doesn't want them here (most proven vastly superior to our current procedures in many areas).

It's a broken system that's broken because of the government already, so giving up control of your method of payment won't fix it. Tell me, aren't taxes in Canada pretty high? Not just from this one aspect no, but that's not a balanced system. A balanced system wouldn't pay that much in taxes and have town that die out because of half finished road construction projects.

Government is in the business of profit, 100%, always. That's why politicians become politicians, to make money off the people. Unless the politicians are not paid, it's for profit.