hospitals reject injured man

[nelson]

This took place in Tokyo:

A 69-year-old Japanese man injured in a traffic accident died after paramedics spent more than an hour negotiating with 14 hospitals before finding one to admit him, a fire department official said Wednesday.

Injured man dies after rejection by 14 hospitals
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_medical_care_denied;_ylt=AqBBRmWwMHU409TE BmG9y7fZn414

In the Japanese health care system, healthcare services... are provided by national and local governments.

And that's from the Health Care in Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Japan) article at Wikipedia.


.

[MYCAR47562]

And They Say Our Health Care System Is Bad

[Freethinker]

It's a glimpse of what government run healthcare will bring.

[The G]

our elected officials have a heath care system that works great and we can have the same.

[MYCAR47562]

Yea Right G In Every Bill They Have Wrote Up They Get A Better Deal Than Us, Why Would They Wan't To Have To Wait In Line While The 300 Walefare Baby's Are Being Checked Out In Front Of Them

[Freethinker]

our elected officials have a heath care system that works great and we can have the same.

Don't kid yourself. It's one thing to provide health care for a few hundred representatives and senators. It's another thing ENTIRELY to provide health care for a few MILLION people. There isn't enough resource to cover a plan like that. We don't have the personnel, nor do we have the space. Even TRICARE, the health coverage for Military and Dependants is struggling to stay afloat. The only reason MEDICAID stays solvent is because they REQUIRE hospitals to accept it to maintain government grants for residency training programs. It's a shell game now, and if you expand it, the entire house of cards comes tumbling down.

[The G]

That sounds real good if you don't like the idea of national health care, but we are the only major nation doing with out . Seems funny don't you think since we are the No1 nation.

[right$pecial]

Ah, this is one of my few liberalish issues. I don't believe that nationalized healthcare is the best solution, I'm not even sure we could pull it off, but we need to do something about the issue.

Here's my ideas:
1. our country is "sue" happy. Start punishing those who try to sue simply to make a dime. This cuts back mal-practice suits, which cuts back ridiculous mal-practice insurance, which in turn cuts back costs.

2. create a lottery system in which random members of health insurance agencies are thrown into a decompression chamber and then suddenly released every time said company refuses to treat one of their customers over a technicality.

3. give hospitals the right to create special contracts: Oh, you don't have insurance? That's fine we'll treat you but you must sign a contract that states you will show up and help with grounds maintenance once a week for six months, etc.

If all else fails then implement a national health system, it might not be perfect but it is better than nothing if outside of the box ideas, like the above, don't work.

[MYCAR47562]

the problem with national healthcare is that all that have it hate it, if it was so great why do canadian come here?

[gtrman66]

That sounds real good if you don't like the idea of national health care, but we are the only major nation doing with out . Seems funny don't you think since we are the No1 nation.

Maybe it's one of the reasons we are No. 1.

Like mycar stated, Canadians and Europeans constantly come to the US for required surgery they cannot get at home.

If you want to see a glimpse of "nationalized" health care, please visit a few VA hospitals. Remember the pictures that came out of the VA hospital where the windows were broke, paint was peeling off the walls and mold was growing on the leaking ceilings? That, G is what is in store for us.

[Remphoto]

RightSpecial is on the "right" track regarding this country being sue-happy. Plaintiffs attorneys file class action lawsuits for anything and everything. Many of them are wealthy beyond measure (i.e., John Edwards). And guess which party they support?

[right$pecial]

I've had surgery at a VA hospital in the last year, actually. There was a lot of red tape, but they did an excellent job. Sure the place reminded me cosmetically of a hospital from 15 years ago, but the people there were professional and I didn't die.

And what about the people here who go to Canada for treatment because they can't get it here?

Please don't flame me too bad. As you can see from my previous post I'm not "all about" national healthcare. I just like to look at both sides of the issue.

[Freethinker]

That sounds real good if you don't like the idea of national health care, but we are the only major nation doing with out . Seems funny don't you think since we are the No1 nation.

Here's the deal G.

You can't have a national health care system and still be the number one health care provider in the world. It doesn't work that way. Research and development is done by the leading pharmaceutical companies right here in the UNITED STATES because the cost of the research and development of these drugs is offset by the free market ability to price the drugs. Go to a national health care system, and the only way to contain the costs is to make a formulary from which ALL patients can get their drugs. Anything NOT on that list won't be covered by the health care plan. All HMO's and most PPO's have a list of approved drugs, and drugs that carry a higher deductable, second tier drugs, and a list of drugs that they don't cover because of cost. These drugs are usually NEW drugs, but not always. For instance, anti-seizure medications are generally expensive to produce, even in the generic form.

The fall out from having a national health system is that there will be NO revenue to continue development of new drugs. All we will have is the status quo. It will END the research and development of new drugs and treatments. The only research that will continue is government funded research.

That's just in drug development. Research with imaging and testing will grind to a halt in similar fashion. There will be no incentive for hospitals to obtain new CT scanners and MRI's because the fixed payment allowed by a government health care system will not cover the costs of upkeep for the machines, much less the cost of purchasing them. It's already happening with Medicaid, and will be much worse with a "Government Health Care system." Like I said, look into tricare and see how well that's working.

[TaxmanHog]

Here's the deal G.
.............................. All we will have is the status quo. It will END the research and development of new drugs and treatments. The only research that will continue is government funded research.

That's just in drug development. Research with imaging and testing will grind to a halt in similar fashion. There will be no incentive for hospitals to obtain new CT scanners and MRI's because the fixed payment allowed by a government health care system will not cover the costs of upkeep for the machines, much less the cost of purchasing them. It's already happening with Medicaid, and will be much worse with a "Government Health Care system." Like I said, look into tricare and see how well that's working.


Leading to World population reductions, with commiserate effects on the economies of our & all nations.

(+/-) I am not quite sure, this sounds offensive but is it in the end?

If the effects of National Health care cause stale, antiquated and untimely treatments, more people will suffer for a period of time (possibly shorter) and end up dieing sooner.

(+) reductions in the number of non-productive/burdens of society
(-) reductions in the number of productive members.

[Freethinker]

Good point TaxmanHog. The fact is MEDICINE is quite ANTI-Darwinian. We spend more medical money on the last 90 days of life than we do for an entire lifetime of medical treatment prior. Our medical achievements have made old and sick people live longer. But the quality of life for these folks isn't what I would call living with dignity. This is a huge issue, both ethically and financially.

[The G]

Here's the deal G.

You can't have a national health care system and still be the number one health care provider in the world. It doesn't work that way. Research and development is done by the leading pharmaceutical companies right here in the UNITED STATES because the cost of the research and development of these drugs is offset by the free market ability to price the drugs. Go to a national health care system, and the only way to contain the costs is to make a formulary from which ALL patients can get their drugs. Anything NOT on that list won't be covered by the health care plan. All HMO's and most PPO's have a list of approved drugs, and drugs that carry a higher deductable, second tier drugs, and a list of drugs that they don't cover because of cost. These drugs are usually NEW drugs, but not always. For instance, anti-seizure medications are generally expensive to produce, even in the generic form.I think you'll find some of this cost is pick up by our tax dollars. Look at the difference between US and Canada for the same drugs. We are getting humped and its sad when the elderly have to choose between food, heat and drugs.

The fall out from having a national health system is that there will be NO revenue to continue development of new drugs. All we will have is the status quo. It will END the research and development of new drugs and treatments. The only research that will continue is government funded research.

That's just in drug development. Research with imaging and testing will grind to a halt in similar fashion. There will be no incentive for hospitals to obtain new CT scanners and MRI's because the fixed payment allowed by a government health care system will not cover the costs of upkeep for the machines, much less the cost of purchasing them. It's already happening with Medicaid, and will be much worse with a "Government Health Care system." Like I said, look into tricare and see how well that's working. We have to have competition but we need to have pricing controls too.
The oil company's can only wish to have returns like the drug company's.

This can be done there is a difference between can't and won't. :)

[Freethinker]

The cost is NOT picked up by tax dollars. It's funded by the open market and driven by the stock of the companies footing the bill. Occasionally you'll find Universities working with Drug Companies on projects, and those University funded projects can be from Government grants, but more often than not, the Drug Companies pay the Universities through stipends for specific studies and research. Why do you think drugs are legal for sale in Canada? The research doesn't occur in Canada, and drug development does not occur there. It happens in the free market.

Drug Companies will fund and develop 100 drugs for every one that gets FDA approval. The sales of one drug will fund 100 research products in hopes to bring ONE to the market. Competition with pricing controls will decrease productivity. This is all but guaranteed.

The difference between Can't and Won't in this case is profit. If there is no profit, then they Won't develop new drugs. We Can't have it both ways. We can be the leaders in medical research and development, or we can have the status quo and divert money to a doomed medical infrastructure. But we can't have both.

Again I give you the Tri-Care medical model. Their job is to keep the fighting men and women on the job. Tricare doesn't put out research papers, and they don't develop drugs. It is simply too costly to do so. They don't have enough money to take care of the Dependents and Service members. They certainly don't have the funds to maintain the VA system. The whole system is teetering on the edge. If this is the microcosm of National Health Care, we should all be afraid.