Our terrible for-profit medical system

[gounion]

The right pretends our medical system is the best in the world. It may be - for the rich. But not so much for everyone else.

A few weeks ago my wife's father in Georgia - who is 83 with lots of ailments - had to go to the hospital, and we couldn't move him without his screaming in pain. We called an ambulance. it showed up 11 hours later, at 11 PM at night. Once at the hospital, he was put into a wheelchair in great pain. He had to set there for eight hours before he was seen. His stay was a shit show. Nurses never showed up when called.

And me, I have great insurance. But it took over a month to get a colonoscopy. Sorry, Joe, but it came out fine. Hate to bust your bubble of hope.

Isn't that what the right complains about "socialized medicine"? Long wait times?

It seems to me that our for-profit health care system is getting worse, as the corporations, as always wants more profit for less service. Yet the right on the board wants to pretend everyone LOVES the system!

[Bludogdem]

Was it a private hospital, 25% of the hospitals in the USA are private, or was it a non-profit hospital, 75% of the hospitals in the USA are non-profit or municipally owned.

[Number6]

The right pretends our medical system is the best in the world. It may be - for the rich. But not so much for everyone else.

The healthcare system in the U.S. is good but it's like an exclusive country club where most people have to play a public golf course because they can't get access to the country club.

A few weeks ago my wife's father in Georgia - who is 83 with lots of ailments - had to go to the hospital, and we couldn't move him without his screaming in pain. We called an ambulance. it showed up 11 hours later, at 11 PM at night. Once at the hospital, he was put into a wheelchair in great pain. He had to set there for eight hours before he was seen. His stay was a shit show. Nurses never showed up when called.

Sorry to hear about his problems. I can understand how some patients have to wait longer than others because the hospital has to triage and re-triage patients. If you FIL's condition wasn't high enough on triage evaluation then I can see the wait.

And me, I have great insurance. But it took over a month to get a colonoscopy. Sorry, Joe, but it came out fine. Hate to bust your bubble of hope.

Isn't that what the right complains about "socialized medicine"? Long wait times?

In most cases, a colonoscopy isn't an emergency procedure and with more people getting them appointments for a colonoscopy have longer lead times. I get my medical treatment from the Navy and I had a colonoscopy three years ago. I was referred to a local, civilian medical group specializing in colonoscopies and I had to wait a month also. It was no big deal to me.

It seems to me that our for-profit health care system is getting worse, as the corporations, as always wants more profit for less service. Yet the right on the board wants to pretend everyone LOVES the system!

I think it would be interesting to see how not-for-profit hospitals compare to for-profit hospitals in terms of access times, wait times, outcomes, etc...

[gounion]

The healthcare system in the U.S. is good but it's like an exclusive country club where most people have to play a public golf course because they can't get access to the country club.

Yup.

Sorry to hear about his problems. I can understand how some patients have to wait longer than others because the hospital has to triage and re-triage patients. If you FIL's condition wasn't high enough on triage evaluation then I can see the wait.

A system that leaves someone in excruciating pain isn't one that's working, though, is it?

In most cases, a colonoscopy isn't an emergency procedure and with more people getting them appointments for a colonoscopy have longer lead times. I get my medical treatment from the Navy and I had a colonoscopy three years ago. I was referred to a local, civilian medical group specializing in colonoscopies and I had to wait a month also. It was no big deal to me.

Exactly. I wasn't in a hurry - but the right's argument against systems like Canada's is wait times. I've got LOTS of friends in Canada (my Union has tens of thousands of members at Canadian companies), and they all say that yes, you have wait times for non-time sensitive procedures, but if you need it quickly, you get it.

I think it would be interesting to see how not-for-profit hospitals compare to for-profit hospitals in terms of access times, wait times, outcomes, etc...

Probably not good, as the for-profits do everything they can to shunt non-paying customers to the non-profits. Our system is predominately for-profit, and it's clearly not working.

[gounion]

Was it a private hospital, 25% of the hospitals in the USA are private, or was it a non-profit hospital, 75% of the hospitals in the USA are non-profit or municipally owned.

So why was everything so fucked up at that for-profit hospital?

[ZoWie]

The point is that, in our health system, everything anyone in it does has to show a profit. All the way from Tylenol to open heart surgery. Includes labs, medical buildings, even testing. Everything. It's like one of those legal contracts you read and try to understand where you see references to the principals, their contractors, their suppliers, their shippers, and all their heirs, successors, and assigns. In this case, though, it's not only about liability but also their getting their profit too. And of course all the people who are sharing the proceeds from your medical bill also have their own bills to pay. On and on.

Those "free" covid tests? Your taxes at work. The number of entities that got a piece of the action is also full of contractors, heirs, successors, and assigns, asymptotic at infinity. Somewhere along the line your free test might even have figured in why groceries cost more every week.

This is a good model for business in general, but not exactly the best way to deliver affordable health care. There has to be a better way to do it. Note that I really am aware that having the government pay for everything presents its own set of problems. Health care is evolving but right now it hasn't hit on a model that pleases everybody.

[Number6]

A system that leaves someone in excruciating pain isn't one that's working, though, is it?

How busy was the emergency room when he arrived? If a patient isn't in a life threatening or possible loss of limb(s) situation then they have to wait until those with more serious problems are taken care of. Nurses, EMTs, and med techs are limited in what they can do for a patient until a doctor sees them.

Exactly. I wasn't in a hurry - but the right's argument against systems like Canada's is wait times. I've got LOTS of friends in Canada (my Union has tens of thousands of members at Canadian companies), and they all say that yes, you have wait times for non-time sensitive procedures, but if you need it quickly, you get it.

While stationed in England in the mid-90s, our English secretary had to have a non-emergency surgery and she had to wait something like four months for it. It didn't phase her to have to wait that long because services were limited and those with more serious conditions came first, and because the wait really wasn't that long. Conservatives will have you think they'll call their doctor and get immediately seen and be scheduled for a a routine, non-emergency surgery the next day. That may happen with a private doctor and hospital where the patient pays tens of thousands of dollar for that service but for the average person that just doesn't happen.

Probably not good, as the for-profits do everything they can to shunt non-paying customers to the non-profits. Our system is predominately for-profit, and it's clearly not working.

In most cases, that's probably true. If a hospital accepts Medicare the have to accept and treat patients presenting themselves to an emergency room. The Emergency Treatment and Labor Act prohibits patient "dumping" from a private hospital to a public hospital because of a patient's inability to pay. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop some hospitals from dumping non-paying patients onto the street.

[gounion]

How busy was the emergency room when he arrived? If a patient isn't in a life threatening or possible loss of limb(s) situation then they have to wait until those with more serious problems are taken care of. Nurses, EMTs, and med techs are limited in what they can do for a patient until a doctor sees them.

He was in pretty rough shape. He was in severe pain. Once they saw him, they had him on morphine. He had originally fell and broke a leg. Then he lost feeling and movement on the other side, so we thought it was a stroke. Turned out it was two places in his neck, so he had to have back surgery.

But it took them three days to figure out that was what was wrong. It's been a mess. Of course, he was refusing to go to the hospital, so by they time he acquiesced, he was bad off.

While stationed in England in the mid-90s, our English secretary had to have a non-emergency surgery and she had to wait something like four months for it. It didn't phase her to have to wait that long because services were limited and those with more serious conditions came first, and because the wait really wasn't that long. Conservatives will have you think they'll call their doctor and get immediately seen and be scheduled for a a routine, non-emergency surgery the next day. That may happen with a private doctor and hospital where the patient pays tens of thousands of dollar for that service but for the average person that just doesn't happen.

Yeah, they don't care how the regular person is treated.