Hospitals / Doctors now refusing to take Medicare

[Excaliber]

I did a quick check on the numbers, comparing to Mexico. For drug related iatrogenic cause of death (essentially Doctors/Hosptials responsible for a patients death) were running about the same rate as Mexico on a percentage basis. Mexico actually is a little better than the US in that regard.

The World Health Organization ranks America 15th out 25 civilized Nations for health care. The best health care in the world in America? FAR from it!

Iatrogenic cause of death (death by Doctor) is the THIRD LEADING CAUSE of death in the United States. Our health care system is badly broken.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I did a quick check on the numbers, comparing to Mexico. For drug related iatrogenic cause of death (essentially Doctors/Hosptials responsible for a patients death) were running about the same rate as Mexico on a percentage basis. Mexico actually is a little better than the US in that regard.

The World Health Organization ranks America 15th out 25 civilized Nations for health care. The best health care in the world in America? FAR from it!

Iatrogenic cause of death (death by Doctor) is the THIRD LEADING CAUSE of death in the United States. Our health care system is badly broken.

If I were you, I wouldn't go to any doctors. Catch a flight to mexico and get cured.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I did a quick check on the numbers, comparing to Mexico. For drug related iatrogenic cause of death (essentially Doctors/Hosptials responsible for a patients death) were running about the same rate as Mexico on a percentage basis. Mexico actually is a little better than the US in that regard.

The World Health Organization ranks America 15th out 25 civilized Nations for health care. The best health care in the world in America? FAR from it!

Iatrogenic cause of death (death by Doctor) is the THIRD LEADING CAUSE of death in the United States. Our health care system is badly broken.

The WHO is a political organization funded by participating GOVERNMENTS They have and do produce any reports the PAYOR wishes them to produce. Their stats come PRIMARILY from the same Governments that PAY their bills. But in our case, the stats they use come from our reasonably honest and reasonably accurate in depth reporting of our medical groups, not a Government body with a vested interest in the reports. A superb for instance is life expectancy. Most countries only compute life expectancy AFTER a child has survived to 6 months of age. And they do not count military or accidental deaths. In the US we count every life from conception onward. If they die for any reason, that lowers our life expectancy. WHO corruption is what sunk Obummers first lying attempt to say our health care was BAD when it is, was, and will be the best health care system on the planet if the health care bill flounders.

If I quoted a Republican or Conservative organization, you would, AND HAVE, disputed their findings.

[Excaliber]

Dan, is there ANY organization you believe outside of the Republican party spin machine? It would appear you don't.

Do you still agree with Rush, "there is not ONE THING wrong" with American health care?

Just checking, because your so deep in denial here it's frightening.

[fastd]

Ex,

That study that you referred to really is a sham; you would do look into it before you start touting it as proof of poor quality health care in the US. One could argue that you are shouting first and thinking later.

[Excaliber]

I don't usually cite ONE "study" and that is the case here. I DO my research on a topic, form an opinion, popular or not, and state what I believe. Often others cite a different study or call my conclusions a "sham". OK, make your case, either way. There is FAR more data available than I have even touched on to make a case for WHY the American health care system is in deep trouble. Why it desperately needs reform. Obviously SOMETHING is wrong, or we wouldn't even be having discussions about health care reform!

It is widely acknowledged by BOTH parties that something has to be done to get a handle on ever increasing health care costs. Various solutions have been offered, one key component that has been not been widely discussed is WHY are the health care costs so high and climbing?

A couple of thoughts on that: One aspect has to do with tort reform. But when you consider the horror's of a real case of malpractice, it's going to be very hard to make the argument we should limit it. It's a very tough issue with good arguments on both sides.

Another reason I think costs are spiraling out of control is because we equate more money spent per patient in terms of better overall health care. I don't believe that is an accurate way to judge it and may be the FUNDAMENTAL reason that costs are ever increasing! In a nutshell, we rely to much on drugs and tests, fancy equipment and life prolonging extraordinary measures to preserve life another "two weeks". Why can't we simply let people die peacefully? We really really need to talk about this whole "death squad" issue in reasonable terms. But we can't, because as soon as it's mentioned it BECOMES "death squads".

[fastd]

Ex,

As usual, when confronted with a fact that exposes your misstatement, you evade and switch topics. That is why discussing with you is useless; you don't process any new information that runs counter to your objective. You are trying to win the "debate", without searching for any truth. There is a big difference.

I kept it simple: you referenced the WHO report that ranked the US 15 out of 25; I called BS on the report. Rather than defend the report, show us that you actually read it, how it was accurate, etc. you discard that report and cite multiple other unnamed sources and then put the onus on me to make my case. You accuse nearly everyone an opinion counter to your own of Republican spin, brainwashing, etc. but you are as guilty of Democratic spin as anyone. Your claim that you are just pushing people's buttons for the fun of it is either: 1) untrue and a cover for you ultra left wing views; or 2) a deeply twisted desire for entertainment at other people's expense. But, it is like a car wreck for me; I can't look away. I will say that it does add to my Club Cobra entertainment experience though.

[Excaliber]

I'm not changing the subject at all, indeed, BRING IT ON!

In my post #121 I cited two of my opinions based on studies. One was the WHO, the other was a study that shows Mexico and the USA run about the same rate for doctor related deaths in the USA. It was not clear to me WHICH of the two statements you wish to challenge.

The WHO study aside for a moment, I find it disturbing that you glossed over my statement that Doctors/Hospitals themselves are the third leading cause of death in the USA. That alone should tell you something is wrong assuming you wish to dismiss the WHO study.

Here is yet another study you may wish to dismiss:
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ranked the USA 15th out of 19 countries studied. Using different data points than the WHO study. Yet ANOTHER study using different data points than either the London School or WHO ranked the USA 13 out of 15 countries.

The evidence is clear, the USA lags behind most other industrial nations when it comes to health care. The question should be: WHY? No question we spend MORE PER PATIENT than any country in the world, yet we are not #1. WHY?

One reason may be because a large percentage of our population lacks coverage or is under covered. Various data/studies report a HUGE number of people dying each year in the USA because they lack medical coverage. Such numbers would certainly have a serious impact on ANY study as it concerns quality of health care. You could say, but you would be wrong, that for those WITH COVERAGE we have the best health care in the world. But for the NATION as a whole, we rank well below the rest of the world.

How is it possible we could have the best care in the world when the FACT is the third leading cause of death in the USA is iatrogenic? That "data point" is considerably more disturbing than any "study" by WHO or the London group!

BUSH tried to get a handle of health care reform. Even HE recognized we have a problem. He failed, as have so many Presidents before him. They have ALL recognized we have a problem! It is astounding to me that so many here refuse to acknowledge that simple premise so widely acknowledged by virtually every politician in the land for ANY party.

[fastd]

You cited the WHO

[Excaliber]

I did, I don't have a problem with their data. Many others do. That's why I looked at additional sources which came to the same basic conclusion as WHO. USA far from #1, no matter "who" or "how" you crunch the numbers.

Basic reason: I believe the large percentage of uninsured/under insured are skewing the numbers. If that large group were factored out, we might well be #1.

[fastd]

Let's agree, at least, what this issue is:You cited the WHO report to indicate that the quality of health care performance is 15th out of 25 civilized countries. I said the the report was a sham. You included an unsubstantiated fact that Mexico's doctor induced deaths are about the same or a little better than in the US - that may be, I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other (don't get excited but I would be interested to see your source - is that OK?).

In your response, you set the WHO story aside and go on to cite other sources, never returning to the WHO story. You could possibly be right about everything here, but you never do the work to support your argument. You are too busy trying to denigrate the entire health care system in the US; there are good and bad things about it.

My point is that the WHO ranking is misleading because it relies on highly subjective factors including "fairness" that make its use to prove that the US Health Care QUALITY is relatively poor. US Health Care DELIVERY maybe very poor, in fact, I think most everyone agrees that it needs to be fixed.

It was a simple comment, but rather than slow down and address a simple point, you choose to rabidly respond to a point not even made, disregard your original comment and switch to other lines of attack. Calm down and focus.

[Excaliber]

I am not trying to make a case, win an argument of denigrate the system. I am seeking to understand the cause and effect relationship of our "broken" medical care system. Broken on many levels, in need of repair on some level. Some say it only needs "tweaking". I disagree, based on my personal "research" it needs an overhaul.

I'm not sure the current health plan reform goes far enough to accomplish that, but it's a start. I heard an interesting comment by a health professional in Switzerland the other day. Their health care system is undergoing an almost constant "tweaking" as they learn to adapt and fine tune it.

[fastd]

You're understanding of the cause and effect relationship of our "broken" medical care system would be better served by really trying to understand it, looking a little more deeply into issues; I merely attempted to share my experience with a report that you cited (but I don't think read) in support of a comment you made that I think was misleading. Instead of taking my comment for what it was worth, and do the research, you chose to attack. That is not helpful in moving the discourse forward and increasing everyone's collective knowledge regarding the state of health care in the country.

[Excaliber]

Actually Dan40 "drew first blood" on the attack side of the WHO study.

I have read details of that report, how the data was gathered and what it was based on in particular. Like I said, I think it is a fair asessment, based on my review, while understanding there are many that question the methodology used to arrive at the numbers. One big reason I think it is fair is because it essentially mirrors other studies using different methodologies that arrive at much the same conclusion.

My opinion on Mexico deaths due to iatrogenic causes is my own "data point". I simply looked at the number of iatrogenic deaths (verified drug related) in Mexico, and then related that number to the population. Same for the USA. The percentage of deaths number to the population number show Mexico has slightly fewer deaths than America in that regard.

Frankly I was surprised it was even close, Mexico does not rely nearly as heavily on drug therapy as the US does. I expected the percentage of drug related iatrogenic deaths in Mexico to be MUCH less than the USA, not just slightly less. The higher than expected number in Mexico may be due to less stringent control of bad drug interaction's or poor drug quality control in general.

[fastd]

please post where you found the number of iatrogenic in Mexico and the US; I'd like to review the numbers myself.

[Excaliber]

It will take me a bit to find the original source, but I did record these numbers from it to arrive at my conclusion. It was "quick ball park math" and a closer percentage analysis may differ somewhat from my conclusion. Feel free to "crunch the numbers" more accurately than the quick review I did.

Mexico
Population - 101,879,171
Deaths from pharmaceuticals – 60,414

Population – 278,058,881
Deaths from pharmaceuticals – 165,000

[fastd]

I would still like the original source if you can ever find it.

I am not defending the US or Mexico; I am interested in understanding whether your facts are correct though. I think, a simple measure of population does not capture actually usage of pharmaceuticals, i.e., if population usage is only 10% in Mexico, but 50% in the US, then the numbers of deaths in the US is relatively lower based on the population and deaths numbers that you provided. See what I am saying?

[Excaliber]

I do indeed see what your saying! It's a good example of the need to understand HOW the data points are arrived at and WHAT they really mean. Rather than just quote numbers.

One of the often over looked things Obama has done since taking office, as was mentioned earlier, is the push for electronic medical records.

Hopefully this will also asisst with getting a handle on the 165,000 deaths per year from faulty drup prescriptions. Drug interaction problems for one thing. Another would be simply to much drug(s) for the condition.

My son was prescribed a drug for siezure control when he was little (he's grown out of that problem now, thank God). My Ex, being a chemistry Professor, determined that the amount prescribed was to much for his body weight, age, size, etc. She cut the dosage down to about 2/3rd's of the original amount. My son did well on that, no lasting APPARENT side effects. I say apparent because in general I don't trust drug therapy.

[fastd]

I agree with you that the way drugs are prescribed in this country is a real mess; your Ex sounds like she is a smart women (on a couple of different levels) cutting down the dosage.

I think the same is true of vaccines, where the dosage for newborns (with undeveloped immune systems) is the same as a full grown man.

Doctor/hospital related deaths are a travesty, here, Mexico and anywhere - however, is this problem addressed in the health care proposals?

[Excaliber]

The number of deaths related to drugs Mexico vs the USA was no more than just "numbers" in my original source. It did not go into depth as to why, how much, how come, it's just a number concerning confirmed deaths. An interesting number that raises some good questions, whats going on here, in either country?

Is it addressed in the current health care debate? Not that I can see and THAT is a fundamental problem!