Forums | MacLife

DevoDoc wrote:

Come on, res, you can't possibly think that naturalnews.com is a reputable source of information. It is so clearly biased against the mainstream medical establishment. Everyone they quote in that article has written a book about alternatives to traditional medicine.

Anyway, I'm not saying doctors are being altruistic, but most would like to see a single payer system just to avoid the headaches and overhead that comes with dealing with multiple insurance companies, not because they are recruiting more suckers for their "designer drugs."

Newsweek had an article about the striking differences in Medicare costs between similar cities.
We're talking double and it was all on laid on doctor ordered testing and medications.

The problem could be helped by changing physician reimbursement - no more fee-for-service. It encourages unnecessary procedures and tests. This is one area where a system like NHS helps in that physicians are salaried and hospital operating budgets aren't based on census. There is the reality for the establishment - especially with more and more physicians moving away from primary to specialty care - that encouraging wellness really isn't cost-effective. Having sick people who need expensive medications and procedures is quite profitable.

These are more needed reforms that the current bill does nothing to address. Americans are unhealthy.

Farmerkev wrote:

DevoDoc wrote:

Come on, res, you can't possibly think that naturalnews.com is a reputable source of information. It is so clearly biased against the mainstream medical establishment. Everyone they quote in that article has written a book about alternatives to traditional medicine.

Anyway, I'm not saying doctors are being altruistic, but most would like to see a single payer system just to avoid the headaches and overhead that comes with dealing with multiple insurance companies, not because they are recruiting more suckers for their "designer drugs."

Newsweek had an article about the striking differences in Medicare costs between similar cities.
We're talking double and it was all on laid on doctor ordered testing and medications.

And this is due to doctors being "bribed" into prescribing "designer drugs?" I don't think so.

resedit wrote:

I'm not saying all doctors are crooked, but I am saying some don't necessarily have the best interests of the country in mind, or they may not understand how the quality of care can potentially drop despite them having the best interest in mind.

No, you're saying that most doctors are crooked and you still haven't shown anything to back up the idea that 73% of doctors want a public option or single payer because they'd make more money.

radarman wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

DevoDoc wrote:

Come on, res, you can't possibly think that naturalnews.com is a reputable source of information. It is so clearly biased against the mainstream medical establishment. Everyone they quote in that article has written a book about alternatives to traditional medicine.

Anyway, I'm not saying doctors are being altruistic, but most would like to see a single payer system just to avoid the headaches and overhead that comes with dealing with multiple insurance companies, not because they are recruiting more suckers for their "designer drugs."

Newsweek had an article about the striking differences in Medicare costs between similar cities.
We're talking double and it was all on laid on doctor ordered testing and medications.

One word: Malpractice. I suspect if you looked at the malpractice lawsuit rate, you would find a curious correlation with the amount of 'unnecessary' testing and procedures.

Not true.  Newsweek must have run a similar (same?) story as the New Yorker...which looked at Medicare costs in two towns in Texas...where malpractice lawsuit costs are capped at a fairly low amount.

Doctors who own machines and etc were making profits off extra tests and procedures.  There was also the fact that most medical practitioners don't run like a lean efficient company with the most price-effective treatment in mind.

JakeTheTall wrote:

...  There was also the fact that most medical practitioners don't run like a lean efficient company with the most price-effective treatment in mind.

That would be easier to do if they could plan their budget better. Different insurance companies pay different fees for the same test and procedures. Some pay promptly, others have to be hounded. Sometimes forms have to be resubmitted several times.

With a single payer system, the doctor (whose office is a small business, BTW, with payrolls and overhead just like any other), will save a lot of money by not having to waste time and resources dealing with a multitude of insurance company red tape.

DukeofNuke wrote:

What are "Designer Drugs" ?

The term "Designer Drugs" was used to describe the new synthetic drugs that emerged in the 80's. Ecstasy is the best known and most popular of these drugs.

I have no idea at all what res's use of the term, in this context, means.

resedit wrote:

Understandable.

There's a whole market of people who are not being prescribed the designer drugs that these doctors prescribe to get their free vacations to the Bahamas. Got to get that untapped market to come in and get drugged up.

Would it be fair to assume that you have a pretty strong bias against doctors and mainstream medicine?

This is a pretty extreme accusation you're making.

bratboy wrote:

radarman wrote:

One word: Malpractice. I suspect if you looked at the malpractice lawsuit rate, you would find a curious correlation with the amount of 'unnecessary' testing and procedures.

I don't believe the facts support this.

You don't think that a lot of unnecessary testing is done to cover the doctor's (or the hospital's) asses? All it takes is one "Well, gee - Dr. Nogood, why *didn't* you run X test - that experts agree would have likely found the problem?" during the malpractice suit to sink a case. It doesn't really matter what the answer is - just that a test that might have helped wasn't performed.

radarman wrote:

You don't think that a lot of unnecessary testing is done to cover the doctor's (or the hospital's) asses? All it takes is one "Well, gee - Dr. Nogood, why *didn't* you run X test - that experts agree would have likely found the problem?" during the malpractice suit to sink a case. It doesn't really matter what the answer is - just that a test that might have helped wasn't performed.

Are suits based on omissions common?

Doctors that pay the highest insurance rates are surgeons and obstetricians. 

Public Citizen analyzed a public use file from the National Practitioner Data Bank, which includes information about malpractice judgments and settlements since September 1990. The analysis found that 4.8 percent of doctors in the United States (40,118) who have paid two or more malpractice awards to patients are responsible for 51.1 percent of all the reports made to the Data Bank. Those doctors have paid out nearly $21 billion in damages, more than 53 percent of the total damages paid. The analysis also found that 1.7 percent of doctors (14,293) are responsible for 27.5 percent of all malpractice awards; 14, 293 have made three or more payments, totaling $11 billion.

...

According to National Practitioner Data Bank figures, even doctors who have paid repeated malpractice claims are seldom disciplined. For instance, of the 2,100 doctors who have paid four malpractice claims, only 314 — 15 percent — have been disciplined. A Vanderbilt University study found that doctors with past records of malpractice claims can be expected to have "appreciably worse claims experience" than other doctors in future years.

Link.

Another article regarding malpractice costs.

Designer drugs might include HGH. Also, v*agr*, and similar. Also, the various anti-allergen things.

Anything 'designed' to act on a very particular 'problem'. As opposed to painkillers or other broad spectrum treatments.

I think.

I'd prefer Cannibis–X, but that's had problems in testing and approval and DoJ assessments.

DevoDoc wrote:

daemon wrote:

Designer drugs might include HGH. Also, v*agr*, and similar. Also, the various anti-allergen things.

Anything 'designed' to act on a very particular 'problem'. As opposed to painkillers or other broad spectrum treatments.

So we shouldn't create drugs that target specific diseases? Gee, that drug that cures prostate cancer is really expensive, let me give you some broad spectrum chemotherapy.

(I know that wasn't your argument, daemon.)

I always thought that designer drugs were slight alterations to illegal drugs to make them legal.