DEBATE: is health care a right or a privilege?

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
I It's just that I refuse to play those silly "what if" games because they serve no useful purpose in a debate.

-------------------------

Well that's interesting - because aren't you in fact playing the "what if" games while planning for your OWN future? "What if" this happens - will I be prepared? "What if" I need specialized care - do I have that aspect covered? "What if" my wife and I are both seriously ill - do I have the necessary coverage?

If you never played the "what if" games, then you wouldn't be able to participate in a debate at all - or certainly not this one..

 

[Deb in IA]

Originally posted by C.Ann
-------------------------

Kind of a silly statement, don't you think?

Not at all, C.Ann.

I see patients all the time, who, like you, think "tests, tests, and more tests" are the answer to all their problems.

It just simply is not the case.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Deb in IA
Not at all, C.Ann.

I see patients all the time, who, like you, think "tests, tests, and more tests" are the answer to all their problems.

It just simply is not the case.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're going to respond, why not respond to my ENTIRE post and to the SPECIFIC comment YOU made that that I referred to as silly?

Here - I'll save you the time by copying and pasting exactly what I said:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Deb in IA
[B

There are indeed many, many disorders for which there are NO diagnostic "tests" -- just the clinical acumen of the doctor. [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------------------

And my response was:



That may very well be true, but in this specific case I believe there are diagnostic tests for mono - are there not?

And obviously if there are disorders for which there are "NO" diagnostic "tests", then one would not have to be concerned about them "not" having been done - right? Kind of a silly statement, don't you think?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now - would you like to try to respond again?

And as I previously mentioned, THANK GOD my doctors and the doctors I have encountered in the ER don't feel the way you do about tests or I wouldn't be alive to have this debate with you..

Hmmm...I wonder how many doctors have been sued for NOT performing a few simple tests that would have revealed a fatal condition?? I know one for sure - the doctor I used to work for.. She always had quite a "know it all" attitude when it came to her patients anyhow though - no need for pesky "tests" - so it didn't come as any big surprise when I - as her medical records clerk - had to produce the documentation from the patients file that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she just didn't "bother" ordering the tests that would have saved this mans life..

I wonder if those sort of things have anything to do with the rising cost of medical malpractice premiums?

 

[jrydberg]

C.Ann, obviously I don't know the specifics of your medical problems. But trying to paint it as "tests saved my life" seems a bit bizarre to me. Who decided to administer those tests? Did you just start getting random tests thrown at you? It is not tests that saved your life, but physicians.

I spent 5 hours in the ER the other night with my 5 year old daughter. The only obvious symptom was a high fever. Eventually the ER doctor figured out that he should probably do a urine test. But he didn't start out by throwing a battery of tests at my daughter. He tried to get an idea of what was going on with her first.

That's the point -- not that tests are useless. Tests are a valuable tool in the hands of a skilled doctor. But tests cannot save anyone's life without a good doctor behind them.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by jrydberg

That's the point -- not that tests are useless. Tests are a valuable tool in the hands of a skilled doctor. But tests cannot save anyone's life without a good doctor behind them.

--------------------------------

I can agree with this 100%.. But in my particular case a "good" doctor WITHOUT tests would not have been able to save my life.. It was a condition that is rarely seen anymore and most doctors would have "assumed" that it was a more common, non-fatal condition - used the "band aid" approach based on what was visually apparent to them in a cursory examination - and I wouldn't be here now.. Instead, the doctor ordered the appropriate tests and in less than 2 hours I was having emergency surgery.. After I recovered I signed a waiver so that my particular case could be used as a case study in a large teaching hospital to alert other doctors of the IMPORTANCE of never "assuming" that a patient does not require medical tests just because something may "look" like something else..

Believe me, I do NOT like tests - and I have refused many in the past (lucky for me, it was not foolishly) - but if a doctor can give me a legitimate reason why he feels the test is necessary, then 9 times out of 10 I will agree to it..

Many, many doctors have been sued because they did not order tests and it resulted in serious consequences for the patient.. If anything, they should at least give the patient the OPTION and then let the patient carry to responsibility for agreeing or not agreeing to have the test performed..

 

[Pin Wizard]

Originally posted by southernclass
Right, good people who just don't have the money deserve to die.

I do however believe that certain people take advantage of this system as well as many others just because they are lazy but I still don't think that means they should just be left for dead.

Thank you southernclass!

 

[Pin Wizard]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Tests are a valuable tool in the hands of a skilled doctor. But tests cannot save anyone's life without a good doctor behind them.

I agree that the ones who get the right tests done in the beginning based on symptoms, etc. are very skilled. However, these days they will run every test possible until they hit something just to cover their butts. It's unfortunate that's the reasoning behind it. And the insurance companies and patients are paying for it.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Pin Wizard
However, these days they will run every test possible until they hit something just to cover their butts. It's unfortunate that's the reasoning behind it. And the insurance companies and patients are paying for it.

-----------------------

And this is where I feel it's not a bad idea for the patient to bear at least some of the responsibility.. If a doctor can not give me a clear-cut, definite reason why a test is necessary I will often decline.. At that point I feel the responsibility of tests or no tests has shifted to me and if things go south, then I have no legitimate reason to complain or file a medical malpractice suit.. However, if there are tests that are available and they were not suggested and/or offered, then the burden of responsibility goes back to the doctor and he leaves himself wide open for a lawsuit..

 

[Deb in IA]

Originally posted by C.Ann
-------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're going to respond, why not respond to my ENTIRE post and to the SPECIFIC comment YOU made that that I referred to as silly?

Because I've learned to ignore people who don't know what they are talking about.

 

[CarolA]

Here is a thought for you....

People would not think of going to the grocery and taking a loaf of bread, but we all have to eat.

The same person will go to the hosptial and not pay the bill becuase health care is right.


I work in health care and see both sides. What makes me the maddest are people who can afford to pay and won't. That just drives up the costs for all of us. For example, we had an adolescent Psych program. Mom admitted the kid and then claimed no assests (Of course, mom drove to the hosptial in a Jaguar and had a million dollar house on the beach in Florida.) Mom even tried to claim the kid was an independent minor (Is it any wonder the poor girl was in the psych program?)

I see lots of people who could afford insurance and just decline it because "I never get sick" Then when they do get sick, they don't want to pay. Would these same people not have homeowners or car insurance?

The other thing that I think we need to change is our feelings. As my dad said when someone suggested he sue over his wife's death "medicine is as much art as science" Not everyone can have a good outcome regardless of how good the care is. Not all babies will be born perfect. That is up to God sometimes and the best care won't help.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Deb in IA

Originally posted by C.Ann
-------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're going to respond, why not respond to my ENTIRE post and to the SPECIFIC comment YOU made that that I referred to as silly?

Because I've learned to ignore people who don't know what they are talking about.

--------------------------------------------------

Take a statement out of context and back off when the entire post is laid out before your eyes..

Nice "out"...

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by CarolA
The other thing that I think we need to change is our feelings. As my dad said when someone suggested he sue over his wife's death "medicine is as much art as science" Not everyone can have a good outcome regardless of how good the care is. Not all babies will be born perfect. That is up to God sometimes and the best care won't help.

-------------------------------

I agree.. No one should ever sue if they have received good care.. Save the lawsuits for negligence and incompetence.. Maybe then the medical malpractice premiums would come down..

 

[jrydberg]

I agree.. No one should ever sue if they have received good care.. Save the lawsuits for negligence and incompetence.. Maybe then the medical malpractice premiums would come down..

I agree 100%... though my definition of negligence and incompetence is probably FAR stricter than yours Frankly, I think if the doctor had reasonable rationale for providing the care he/she did, that should be good enough. The end result of the care should not be relevant to a legal proceeding.

People sometimes die. Doesn't mean it's someone's fault. It used to be that people died of "natural causes." Nowadays something always killed them... if only he had gotten the proper medicine, this 98 year old man would still be alive. I think that attitude has a lot to do with malpractice suits and premiums.

 

[mep319]

Originally posted by CarolA
Here is a thought for you....

I work in health care and see both sides. What makes me the maddest are people who can afford to pay and won't. That just drives up the costs for all of us. For example, we had an adolescent Psych program. Mom admitted the kid and then claimed no assests (Of course, mom drove to the hosptial in a Jaguar and had a million dollar house on the beach in Florida.) Mom even tried to claim the kid was an independent minor (Is it any wonder the poor girl was in the psych program?)

I see lots of people who could afford insurance and just decline it because "I never get sick" Then when they do get sick, they don't want to pay. Would these same people not have homeowners or car insurance?

FYI--Assets are not considered in determining eligibility for Medical Assistance/Medicaid as longer as that person is under 21 or an adult responsible for a child under 21. The only thing considered is income..doesn't matter is that have 2 million in the bank, live in a mansion and have beach house in Burmuda. Also if a parent claims "presumptive eligibility" based on SSA...doens't mean they have to "qualfy"...just means they have to make an application for SSI..the parental income is exempt in determining eligibility therefore the child's parent could be Julia Roberts and we exclude her income and authorize the child medicaid.

 

[mep319]

Originally posted by jrydberg
I agree 100%... though my definition of negligence and incompetence is probably FAR stricter than yours Frankly, I think if the doctor had reasonable rationale for providing the care he/she did, that should be good enough. The end result of the care should not be relevant to a legal proceeding.

People sometimes die. Doesn't mean it's someone's fault. It used to be that people died of "natural causes." Nowadays something always killed them... if only he had gotten the proper medicine, this 98 year old man would still be alive. I think that attitude has a lot to do with malpractice suits and premiums.

I agree Doctors are people too and do make mistakes. Of course I hope not to be on the receiving end of such a mistake. Phila/PA has some of the highest malpractice premiums in the country. Phila is also known to award the largest settlements in malpractice cases. I have quite a few friends that are doctors and can't afford to go into private practice b/c of the insurance cost. Many work under the umbrella of University of PA, Thomas Jefferson etc...b/c they pay their insurance. It really is a shame. Many are going into Jersey and Delware to practice medicine as well. My doctor moved to Ohio! It is out of control. I just had a friend who sat on a jury and awarded someone 1 million for complaications from hystroretomy (?sp). I was outraged when she told me...her explanation was that the doctor should have encouraged her to "try" something different first....when did people stop being responsible for their own bodies???

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by jrydberg
I agree 100%... though my definition of negligence and incompetence is probably FAR stricter than yours Frankly, I think if the doctor had reasonable rationale for providing the care he/she did, that should be good enough. The end result of the care should not be relevant to a legal proceeding.

----------------------------------

I don't think you know what "my" definition of negligence and incompetence is in terms of filing a lawsuit because I didn't state it here.. Could you point out where I said that delswife should sue over this incident?

When death - or serious permanent injury - is a result of negligence and incompetence - then yes, a lawsuit is in order.. In the case of a misdiagnosis due to negligence and incompetence that does NOT result in the aforementioned, absolutely not..

 

[jrydberg]

Umm... that's why I said probably... of course I don't know what your definition is. Just saying I have a particularly strict definition of that. I also never claimed or implied that you said anyone should sue. No need to get defensive.

Realistically, I just find it likely (based on what you have said in your posts about doctors and their responsibilites) that my definition of negligence and/or incompetence is far stricter.

 

[jlw29]

Originally posted by mep319
I agree Doctors are people too and do make mistakes. Of course I hope not to be on the receiving end of such a mistake. Phila/PA has some of the highest malpractice premiums in the country. Phila is also known to award the largest settlements in malpractice cases. I have quite a few friends that are doctors and can't afford to go into private practice b/c of the insurance cost. Many work under the umbrella of University of PA, Thomas Jefferson etc...b/c they pay their insurance. It really is a shame. Many are going into Jersey and Delware to practice medicine as well. My doctor moved to Ohio! It is out of control.

I live in the same town as you wave2: HI neighbor!) and starting next week will be driving daily to Camden for my residency because I've been frightened out of PA, especially the PHilly area, with its out of control malpractice. Unless something changes in the next 3 years, I will keep working in NJ rather than closer to home where I can lose everything because of a bad outcome. It stinks! I have several friends who went into OB and NONE of them plan to practice in PA, even if they get their training here.

Originally posted by mep319
I just had a friend who sat on a jury and awarded someone 1 million for complaications from hystroretomy (?sp). I was outraged when she told me...her explanation was that the doctor should have encouraged her to "try" something different first....when did people stop being responsible for their own bodies???

And if the doctor had encouraged something else, s/he would have been sued for not following standard treatment. Can't win.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Umm... that's why I said probably... of course I don't know what your definition is. Just saying I have a particularly strict definition of that. I also never claimed or implied that you said anyone should sue. No need to get defensive.

Realistically, I just find it likely (based on what you have said in your posts about doctors and their responsibilites) that my definition of negligence and/or incompetence is far stricter.

-------------------------------

No problem - I wasn't getting defensive - just wanted to clarify my position and make sure that you knew I do not consider this particular incident worthy of a lawsuit..

As for what I have said about doctors and their responsibilities, I don't think I have really divulged a ton of specifics that would need to be in place in order to warrant a medical malpractice suit so your "likely" is misguided..

Carry on..

 

[jrydberg]

Fair enough.