Oh yes, support our troops™

[chicot]

let's say this guy didn't have supplemental insurance. His toe could have gone gangrenous before the national health got around to him.

 

The point is, when the state welfare insurance system almost mandates that people essentially DOUBLE their spending on health insurance, it's a !@#$ed system.

 

As Mancunian points out, if his toe was that serious he could have been seen sooner.

[meazza]

let's say this guy didn't have supplemental insurance. His toe could have gone gangrenous before the national health got around to him.

 

The point is, when the state welfare insurance system almost mandates that people essentially DOUBLE their spending on health insurance, it's a !@#$ed system.

 

What about the Canadian one?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

umm, I have a chest infection. Last Thursday rang the Dr's at 8am and had an appointment for 8.20am. Bet you don't get to here those stories though. All you'll here is the neagtives.

The main issue whether its private or public healthcare in the UK is a lack of Doctors. We have private healthcare and my other half has still had to wait for 3 weeks to see someone.

 

Wonder why that is....could it be that in a futile attempt to save costs, the National Health has driven down the salaries for doctors, thereby making the eight-year med school commitment a daunting one?

 

Even in health care, free markets are always preferable than socialist "solutions."

 

And I wouldn't say funding of the National Health is an insignificant issue, not government inefficiency. One Conservative MP stood and spoke at length about a brand-new hospital in his district that only had administrative staff working in it. No doctors, no patients. Just administrators.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

What about the Canadian one?

 

What about it? It's the same inefficient government-based system, more or less.

[meazza]

What about it? It's the same inefficient government-based system, more or less.

 

Inefficient? Do you know this for a fact or presume it? I've lived here my whole life and my only B word against the system is the long waiting time for people with ailments that can wait (The most you'll wait is around 12 hours). If it's serious, you're rushed to see a doctor. It's really not as bad as people make it sound. To be honest, I don't mind waiting if other people (even the unfortunate) have access to medical care.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Inefficient? Do you know this for a fact or presume it? I've lived here my whole life and my only B word against the system is the long waiting time for people with ailments that can wait (The most you'll wait is around 12 hours). If it's serious, you're rushed to see a doctor. It's really not as bad as people make it sound. To be honest, I don't mind waiting if other people (even the unfortunate) have access to medical care.

 

COST-wise it's incredibly wasteful and inefficient. There's a reason you're taxed to death, you know.

[DC Tom]

COST-wise it's incredibly wasteful and inefficient. There's a reason you're taxed to death, you know.

 

But Americans can do it so much better.

 

I mean, how can a culture that considers magnets, crystals, herbal remedies, and homeopathy insurable treatments but has one of the lowest child vaccination rates in the developed world possibly fail to implement an effective universal health care system?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

But Americans can do it so much better.

 

I mean, how can a culture that considers magnets, crystals, herbal remedies, and homeopathy insurable treatments but has one of the lowest child vaccination rates in the developed world possibly fail to implement an effective universal health care system?

 

Didn't say they could. But your reason above is a perfect one for WHY we don't do it. One american is stoopid enough. 300 million americans voting on something is equivalent to retardation on an historic scale.

[meazza]

COST-wise it's incredibly wasteful and inefficient. There's a reason you're taxed to death, you know.

 

Like I've stated many times. I don't mind paying higher taxes for lower priced education and free healthcare. The reason being I benefited from these advantages. It is inefficient but I don't prefer the American model either.

 

So we're all basically !@#$ed.

[DC Tom]

Like I've stated many times. I don't mind paying higher taxes for lower priced education and free healthcare. The reason being I benefited from these advantages. It is inefficient but I don't prefer the American model either.

 

So we're all basically !@#$ed.

 

I prefer the American model: it !@#$s the people worst who can't un!@#$ themselves.

[meazza]

I prefer the American model: it !@#$s the people worst who can't un!@#$ themselves.

 

To each his own

[Alaska Darin]

Army medical treatment (I can't speak for the other branches) has been sh*tty for a long time. Rather than seeing this issue politicized, I'd like to just see it addressed.

It'll never happen. DoD is a bloated beast and until that changes, there's no way medical care ever gets to the top of the list. I'll give them a ton of credit for money well spent on battlefield medical care, but at the end of the day the majority of it is still a government program, so it's ripe for being totally screwed.

[Alaska Darin]

Inefficient? Do you know this for a fact or presume it? I've lived here my whole life and my only B word against the system is the long waiting time for people with ailments that can wait (The most you'll wait is around 12 hours). If it's serious, you're rushed to see a doctor. It's really not as bad as people make it sound. To be honest, I don't mind waiting if other people (even the unfortunate) have access to medical care.

You mean in your experience, right? I have plenty of Canadian friends and there are plenty of stories they could tell you that don't jibe with what you're saying. One of them is still on the waiting list for back surgery - and it's been THREE YEARS. He can't work and is barely getting by - he's already given up his house. Whoo-hoo. Free!

[meazza]

You mean in your experience, right? I have plenty of Canadian friends and there are plenty of stories they could tell you that don't jibe with what you're saying. One of them is still on the waiting list for back surgery - and it's been THREE YEARS. He can't work and is barely getting by - he's already given up his house. Whoo-hoo. Free!

 

Well like I said, it is my own personal experience. I can't speak for the American model since I have only studied it in a classroom and can only judge what I have seen. I know plenty of people who have had surgery (knee, shoulder, amongst others) and haven't waited very long.

 

Of course, if so much of the money that is allocated to health care wasn't being used inefficiently (due to corruption), maybe it would actually be more efficient and it would work. But of course that is what you've been saying since the first time you've ever posted.

 

It's a pipedream, I know.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The problem with this issue has little to do with our current situation in Iraq (well, it does in the sense that it's the country where these guys are getting injured).

 

Army medical treatment (I can't speak for the other branches) has been sh*tty for a long time. Rather than seeing this issue politicized, I'd like to just see it addressed.

 

I think Bob Woodward would argue with what you said... Didn't his wife say that if he was any place else in society, he would be dead... Believe it or not they can take chances... Anywhere else... The lwyers would get involved and the risk of treating people the way they did Woodward would have been too great...

 

Such a wound like that... The military was the best place for treatment...

[ExiledInIllinois]

Inefficient? Do you know this for a fact or presume it? I've lived here my whole life and my only B word against the system is the long waiting time for people with ailments that can wait (The most you'll wait is around 12 hours). If it's serious, you're rushed to see a doctor. It's really not as bad as people make it sound. To be honest, I don't mind waiting if other people (even the unfortunate) have access to medical care.

 

No different than the triage type system already employed in American ER's...

 

???

[DC Tom]

I think Bob Woodward would argue with what you said... Didn't his wife say that if he was any place else in society, he would be dead... Believe it or not they can take chances... Anywhere else... The lwyers would get involved and the risk of treating people the way they did Woodward would have been too great...

 

Such a wound like that... The military was the best place for treatment...

 

Like Darin said: battlefield treatment. Though arguably certain hospitals in downtown Baltimore would be even better places for treating a wound like that.

 

But then, certain hospitals in downtown Baltimore arguably provide battlefield medical treatment.

 

And lost in all this is that Walter Reed isn't necessarily representative of Army medical care. Woodward was evac'd through the main US hospital in Germany, I'm sure...which is one of the most modern and best funded military hospitals anywhere, for the simple reason that it was planned from its inception to be very busy (first serving the US NATO forces, then serving CENTCOM). Walter Reed...again, BRAC: it's scheduled to close in a couple of years, why would anyone even begin to think it's getting decent funding?

[OCinBuffalo]

I would like to temper this debate with some good old facts:

 

1. We work with heath systems and have found that in general - a hell of a lot more emphasis is placed on Acute(right now) care, than on Long Term(recovery) Care. This is simply a prejudice that exists. I have some idea why - it appears that everyone is more concerned with the immediate "save the life now", than they are: "make sure the guy recovers". Beyond the obvious arguments for why this occurs, it also has to do with the prejudices/perceptions regarding the role of Acute Doctors and Nurses = the Varsity - vs. the role of long term care nurses = the JV.

2. Based on #1, when budget time rolls around, Acute care always eats first. Every Doc will tell you that they NEED the latest and greatest, 100 million dollar machine, regardless if it makes business sense. Why? Because it validates the Doc. Doctors generally make this case every time, and in their mind, if getting that machine means that the recovery people get less money/staff, well they will have to make due. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, because the other side of the argument is: what if that 100 million dollar machine saves two lives? It is what it is.

3. This story is all about deficiencies(Health Care term) in the NURSING care that RECOVERING patients get, so, based on #1 and #2, it is not a SURPRISE, in fact, it's commonplace in every hospital in the country. You would be truly SURPRISED by how many Deficiencies(based on surveys done by the Joint Commission, and/or federal and state surveyors) hospitals/nursing homes get every day. Btw, the whole survey system is BS and causes more trouble that it fixes.

4. Every hospital in the country has set itself up to get rid of its patients in 3-4 days after a procedure/acute care delivery because that's all insurance pays for. There are some cases where they are setting up sub-acute units - so they can bill Medicare for the recovery time, but that's it. This leads to a body-shop, or piece-work mentality = "get em, get em out, get the next ones in, etc., what happens to them afterwards is somebody else's problem." This mentality is pervasive throughout most health systems we encounter.

 

These conditions/priorities/prejudices exist in every hospital, today, in America, so we shouldn't be shocked when they occur in the military.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I would like to temper this debate with some good old facts:

 

1. We work with heath systems and have found that in general - a hell of a lot more emphasis is placed on Acute(right now) care, than on Long Term(recovery) Care. This is simply a prejudice that exists. I have some idea why - it appears that everyone is more concerned with the immediate "save the life now", than they are: "make sure the guy recovers". Beyond the obvious arguments for why this occurs, it also has to do with the prejudices/perceptions regarding the role of Acute Doctors and Nurses = the Varsity - vs. the role of long term care nurses = the JV.

2. Based on #1, when budget time rolls around, Acute care always eats first. Every Doc will tell you that they NEED the latest and greatest, 100 million dollar machine, regardless if it makes business sense. Why? Because it validates the Doc. Doctors generally make this case every time, and in their mind, if getting that machine means that the recovery people get less money/staff, well they will have to make due. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, because the other side of the argument is: what if that 100 million dollar machine saves two lives? It is what it is.

3. This story is all about deficiencies(Health Care term) in the NURSING care that RECOVERING patients get, so, based on #1 and #2, it is not a SURPRISE, in fact, it's commonplace in every hospital in the country. You would be truly SURPRISED by how many Deficiencies(based on surveys done by the Joint Commission, and/or federal and state surveyors) hospitals/nursing homes get every day. Btw, the whole survey system is BS and causes more trouble that it fixes.

4. Every hospital in the country has set itself up to get rid of its patients in 3-4 days after a procedure/acute care delivery because that's all insurance pays for. There are some cases where they are setting up sub-acute units - so they can bill Medicare for the recovery time, but that's it. This leads to a body-shop, or piece-work mentality = "get em, get em out, get the next ones in, etc., what happens to them afterwards is somebody else's problem." This mentality is pervasive throughout most health systems we encounter.

 

These conditions/priorities/prejudices exist in every hospital, today, in America, so we shouldn't be shocked when they occur in the military.

These points are all well-taken. My point in posting this was that the soldiers are being used as props for this President, and those that are prosecuting the war can't even do their best to make sure that people who have been severely wounded in it are well-taken care of. I am shocked this is occuring in the military precisely because of the rallying cry to support these guys, because of the notion that any dissenting move is a move against them. In the meantime, those who have given their limbs, their mobility, and more for this war are not being tended to properly.

[DC Tom]

These points are all well-taken. My point in posting this was that the soldiers are being used as props for this President, and those that are prosecuting the war can't even do their best to make sure that people who have been severely wounded in it are well-taken care of. I am shocked this is occuring in the military precisely because of the rallying cry to support these guys, because of the notion that any dissenting move is a move against them. In the meantime, those who have given their limbs, their mobility, and more for this war are not being tended to properly.

 

And lost in all this is that Walter Reed isn't necessarily representative of Army medical care. Woodward was evac'd through the main US hospital in Germany, I'm sure...which is one of the most modern and best funded military hospitals anywhere, for the simple reason that it was planned from its inception to be very busy (first serving the US NATO forces, then serving CENTCOM). Walter Reed...again, BRAC: it's scheduled to close in a couple of years, why would anyone even begin to think it's getting decent funding?