|
Perhaps when doctors order an overdose, they should be required to type the precise percentage it will be an overdose by, e.g. "You have ordered a 1500mg dose of Floobium for a patient weighing 100lbs. This is an overdose of 17,000%. Please type "17,000%" to verify that you are aware of this. If the number is different each time, the doctor won't be able to just go click, click, click on autopilot. But they will not be inconvenienced with ordering a 150% overdose for a unique circumstance.
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Cheesus posted:Only the consumer logic of "a cheaper product is better regardless of quality". 2018: "I can get a healthcare plan for half the price? Thank you President Trump!" 2019: "What do you mean this healthcare plan doesn't cover the condition I was just diagnosed with? Curse you, Democrats for not warning me! You liberals don't care about the white working man! All you care about is helping gay minorities!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Unbelievably Fat Man posted:That's not the whole story. The Democrats worked overtime to make sure they lost Ted Kennedy's seat, trying to replace him with an empty suit with no charisma who couldn't even pretend to know about Boston sports (which is an absolutely stupid and absolutely necessary part of Massachusetts politics). Who the gently caress cares about stupid tribal loyalties like that when people's lives are at stake? Take some loving responsibility. I'm a huge Dungeons and Dragons fan but I don't give a flying gently caress whether a politician has even heard of the game. Grow up, sports fans.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
I certainly wouldn't vote for a man who can't spell "Drizzt" though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Republicans find most Democrats easy to attack, because they usually fail on pandering to the tribal loyalties of morons. If you spend your formative years studying law and economics, you end up kinda boring but also quite good at running things. Think Angela Merkel, a charisma-free zone who couldn't win an election in the USA in a million years, but really has run her country quite efficiently (as a conservative even.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:MedicareX (which is an incredibly dumb name though) seems fine as a public option, since it just piggybacks onto the existing Medicare network but would be managed differently with its own schedule of benefits. Gotta have a name that idiots understand, because otherwise it gets demonized by the Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah but medicaid is for poor people (including many, gasp, minorities) and medicare is for good, honest old people (mostly white) who worked their whole life and earned it so you can see why people pick the latter and not the former for their branding Branding is VERY important. The weak-rear end branding of the ACA is what got it called Obamacare, because no-one could remember what it was really called. If a new system isn't branded with a name that even morons instantly take to, it's going to get named by the Republicans, and they always have a "sparkling" turn of phrase that sticks in the mind. Medicaid is a terrible name because it evokes charity and shame. You need people to be proud to say "I have a medicare-for-all plan!" rather than humiliated.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:"Your taxes will go up some, but your insurance premiums you constantly bitch about increasing will go away completely.". There's trust issues there. You need to expect people to trust that they won't have to pay both increased taxes and insurance too. Americans are too used to being hosed over that way. Plus, it's also a way of saying "All you people who work in the health insurance industry/healthcare billing? Vote us for unemployment." And that's a lot of people. Hillary got in trouble for being slightly hostile to coal mining, which employs 3 guys and a robot. Healthcare bureaucracy employs a LOT of people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I want to be clear that I am not being a dick here and am bringing this up just as an important talking point: Pretty much everyone else has some form of universal or semi-universal coverage and they do not have massive unemployment. The British NHS was established in 1948 during the Great Reconstruction after the devastation of the war and I know of no massive unemployment. That's because health insurance wasn't really a thing back then. Most people just paid out of pocket for the doctor. There was not the vast horde of billing/support/insurance claim/coding people that there are in the USA today. These might not be long term job losses, but very few people can see further than next year.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
It’s possible for many ordinary people to pay off a $6000 bill *eventually* with the aid of crowdfunding and penny-pinching. Not so much a $100k bill.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
knox_harrington posted:Can I ask a question about how you physically access healthcare in the US? I live in the UK but the work I manage takes place in the US and I'm over every month. If you are just in the USA for a couple of days a month for work and you get sick, what you want is a non-hospital “Urgent Care.” They can treat things like sniffles and sprains and they shouldn’t be too expensive out of pocket (probably about $100.) You walk in and wait, usually about an hour. But be sure it is not an “Emergency room” at a hospital because those charge an arm and a leg.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I like using the local urgent care places, but apparently those are easy to confuse with freestanding emergency rooms. Our local urgent care will quote out-of-pocket prices, so you can just ask that. If they um and haw and say "It depends" they are probably a freestanding emergency room. A real urgent care will say something like "Our uninsured rate is $120 not including tests." And then say "no" to tests except those that are truly necessary because they can be $TEXAS.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Devor posted:The other insurance companies are the ones who stand to lose, when the cheap healthy patients get stolen. Expect fast lawsuits from people with deep pockets. Wouldn't it make more financial sense for them to just start doing it themselves?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:They won’t afford it so UHC happens or insurance cuts everything and people just file bankruptcy to the point it crashes the economy. The way people are pushing UHC now though I could totally see it happen within my lifetime. I can fully see UHC happening when Democrats get power again...and then getting rolled back 8 years later when Republicans have power. Repeat ad infinitum.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
Virtue posted:It’s a good thing I’m not a doctor because I would never take poor patients. This is actually why we need universal healthcare: providing a service that costs $TEXAS to someone without two pennies to rub together is commercially insane. But since society (at least the non-libertarian part of it) finds it unacceptable to just let people die if they are broke, the only solution is social healthcare (or private insurance so heavily regulated and subsidized it might as well be socialized medicine.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Reik posted:It seems like one of two things is going on: It is always #1 as far as I know. I have marketplace health insurance, and if I need to see a doctor I need to phone them up and have the following conversation "Do you take X? Great, you take all X's plans - do you take X from the healthcare exchanges - you know, Obamacare? Oh, you don't? Thanks." Fortunately I live in an urban area with a lot of doctors so I can always find someone. But if I was in a one-horse one-doctor town it might be a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Reik posted:It's hard to reach market equilibrium when the alternative good is death. The market works pretty great for purely optional healthcare - cosmetic surgery for vanity reasons, or LASIK, or that sort of thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
Guess what an uncomplicated birth costs the NHS? https://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2016/feb/08/how-much-have-i-cost-the-nhs Roughly $4,000 for an uncomplicated birth. Cost to mother: $0 (except maybe a few pounds for parking or snacks)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:
They are working hard on it!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
19% of uninsured people think m4a would leave them worse off... Can't help some morons, can you?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
It’s a lot easier to add Trans medicine after the bill has passed than to deal with Tulsi Gabbard voting against it for that reason. Perfect enemy of good etc. As you say, most socialized medicine systems didn’t allow it at first but changed over time. It *will* be poisoned and neutered and used as a weapon by Republicans and nothing we can do can make it “ironclad” - conservatives in countries with socialized medicine continually attack and neuter it, and it needs to be repaired and shored up by subsequent left-wing governments. That is the way of the world.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I am very, very suspicious of the Swiss system because it reminds me too much of the US system. Assholes always like to praise how innovative it is, but that again reminds me of the US system where the same rhetoric is used to justify profit versus performance. If you actually take a look at it, it's a thin veneer of private medicine over a strongly state-controlled system. And even with that, it's one of the most expensive systems in Europe.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:There are plenty of people who pay into health insurance and never bother going to the doctor. Insurance companies love these people and it’s why the individual mandate was the only thing they liked about the ACA. My husband for one. Never gets sick, usually too busy for an annual check-up. What a boon to our insurance company he is!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2019 21:48
|
|