jcd11235 0 #151 March 9, 2009 QuoteSo you would rather let a lobbyiest decide what medical care you should get? I'd prefer to take my chances with the government, who may be lobbied, than with the corporations that hire the lobbyists. The lobbyists may influence decision making, but the worst case of such influence is what the corporations would decide on their own.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #152 March 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAmericans were ranked #1 in "Level Responsiveness" - which is satisfaction. Would you be so kind, sir, since you claim to have read the study, to post a quote of the relevant text of the study that defines level responsiveness as customer/patient satisfaction? QuoteResponsiveness: Responsiveness includes two major components. These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider). That's essentially what I thought it meant, not satisfaction of service. The study's findings w/r/t responsiveness are also consistent with anecdotal feedback I've heard from European skydivers who have received medical treatment in the US. It's the only area in which they felt America was superior to their home country's services. I can sort of see LR's view on this - let's look at the points the report raises. A doctor that: Treats me with dignity Protects my medical information Respects my right to make choices regarding my healtcare Provides me prompt attention Provides access to social support networks Provides a high quality of care/amenities And a system that allows me my choice of doctors. I'm thinking if I get all the above, I'm going to be pretty damn well satisfied....wouldn't you?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #153 March 9, 2009 QuoteI'm thinking if I get all the above, I'm going to be pretty damn well satisfied....wouldn't you? You're reaching to equate his definition with the one in the study. They are not close.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartinOlsson 0 #154 March 9, 2009 Quote So you would rather let a lobbyiest decide what medical care you should get? I'm getting a bit side stepped now but, I would rather get rid of all corporate power in decisions concerning health care. Insurance companies, lawyers and lobbyists. I was just trying to point out that basically the same group that you are accusing of destroying healthcare are the ones you trust the most. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #155 March 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo you would rather let a lobbyiest decide what medical care you should get? I'd prefer to take my chances with the government, who may be lobbied, than with the corporations that hire the lobbyists. The lobbyists may influence decision making, but the worst case of such influence is what the corporations would decide on their own. You also are selectively forgetting that you, as the customer, get to decide which corporation/ insurance company you want. If you think coventry sucks - drop them and go for Blue Cross. While we do get a vote in government, in reality if "the government" mandates, you have no choices. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #156 March 9, 2009 QuoteQuote So you would rather let a lobbyiest decide what medical care you should get? I'm getting a bit side stepped now but, I would rather get rid of all corporate power in decisions concerning health care. Insurance companies, lawyers and lobbyists. I was just trying to point out that basically the same group that you are accusing of destroying healthcare are the ones you trust the most. /Martin No...as I have said above. It's MUCH easier for me as the physician to get an insurance company to approve something than it is to get the government to approve. In reality, I would RATHER not have to fight either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #157 March 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'm thinking if I get all the above, I'm going to be pretty damn well satisfied....wouldn't you? You're reaching to equate his definition with the one in the study. They are not close. I stated my view - if your opinion (since that is what we're talking about, here) is different, that's your lookout.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #158 March 9, 2009 QuoteYou also are selectively forgetting that you, as the customer, get to decide which corporation/ insurance company you want. I'm not selectively forgetting anything of the sort. Health insurance is, best case, an experience good, although is probably better described as a credence good. Consumers having a choice offers little to no benefit.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #159 March 9, 2009 You are correct. I put my spin on it by refering to autonomy, confidentiity, amenities, etc. as "customer satisfaction." Those things are probably sure to piss people off. Aside - do you see patient "autonomy" as indicative of "conflict of interest." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #160 March 9, 2009 QuoteAside - do you see patient "autonomy" as indicative of "conflict of interest." Not trying to be flippant, but no. It's only a single interest, so it doesn't have anything to conflict with.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #161 March 9, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote And there's always life expectancy too! Which is much more dependent upon lifestyle choices and heredity than medical efficacy. Funny how you always resort to "culture" when data show your preferences for both guns and healthcare lead to poor outcomes compared to other nations. So disprove it - I'll be interested to see what you blame America's spiraling problem with obesity and concommitant heart disease on, since diet, smoking, drinking, etc *ARE* lifestyle choices. Standard protocol for proofs is that the person making the claim has to provide the proof. You claim it's culture - YOU prove it. I suppose you think there are no obese people and no smokers in western Europe. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #162 March 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI do NOT want the government involved in medical decision making. I would rather it be the government than for-profit insurance companies or HMO's. Why? A few examples of companies run for profit: Enron Tyco GM WaMu AIG Bear-Stearns Madoff Investment Securities Indymac Like I'd trust their execs to make decisions for me.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #163 March 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo you would rather let a lobbyiest decide what medical care you should get? I'd prefer to take my chances with the government, who may be lobbied, than with the corporations that hire the lobbyists. The lobbyists may influence decision making, but the worst case of such influence is what the corporations would decide on their own. You also are selectively forgetting that you, as the customer, get to decide which corporation/ insurance company you want. If you think coventry sucks - drop them and go for Blue Cross. While we do get a vote in government, in reality if "the government" mandates, you have no choices. What planet are you living on? Most of us only get to change health insurance company if we quit our jobs and get a different employer.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #164 March 9, 2009 I guess that is where you and I differ. When I'm given "choice" I find little conflict with my "interests.". On the other hand, when I am given no choice, I find there to be a conflict. It seems that care under the American system is less prone to putting something else ahead of the patients' best interests - as defined by the patients. That is what autonomy is all about, isn't it? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #165 March 9, 2009 Quote I'd prefer to take my chances with the government, who may be lobbied, than with the corporations that hire the lobbyists. The lobbyists may influence decision making, but the worst case of such influence is what the corporations would decide on their own. In the past 5 1/2 years I have been in need of more medical care by specialists than most people will have to in their entire lifetime. I have seen many specialists that are excellent in their field. All have been by my choosing. My medical bills are currently approaching $250,000 (What hasn't been covered by my insurance company has been paid by me. I'm referring to my co-pays.). Not once has my insurance company interfered in my care or denied a single bill. This paranoia the government is promoting is simply a power grab. Don't drink the Kool-Aid! Do not help tie the hands of Dr. Bordson behind her back. BTW: If the government is so efficient, why can't our Secretary of the Treasury figure out how to pay his taxes? _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #166 March 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI do NOT want the government involved in medical decision making. I would rather it be the government than for-profit insurance companies or HMO's. Why? A few examples of companies run for profit: Enron Tyco GM WaMu AIG Bear-Stearns Madoff Investment Securities Indymac Like I'd trust their execs to make decisions for me. Hmm... And we can take a look at the government of the US to see what real fiscal responsiility is. Or a not-for-profit govt like Iceland. Which is doing splendidly. Businesses in the red go out of business if they stay in the red. A government merely continues on. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #167 March 9, 2009 QuoteI guess that is where you and I differ. When I'm given "choice" I find little conflict with my "interests.". On the other hand, when I am given no choice, I find there to be a conflict. I think you misunderstood my post. If there is only a single interest, no matter what that interest might be, there can be no conflict of interests. You asked me if a single interest constituted a conflict of interests. It cannot. QuoteIt seems that care under the American system is less prone to putting something else ahead of the patients' best interests - as defined by the patients. That is what autonomy is all about, isn't it? The shareholders' interests are placed ahead of the patients' interests in the current system in the US. If the patients truly had autonomy, they could get whatever treatment they desired, without interference from insurance companies, or even their doctors' better judgement. That certainly is not the situation in the US. Patients do not have autonomy, and there exists conflicts of interest, conflicts in which the patients all too often lose.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #168 March 9, 2009 QuoteThe shareholders' interests are placed ahead of the patients' interests in the current system in the US. If the patients truly had autonomy, they could get whatever treatment they desired, without interference from insurance companies, or even their doctors' better judgement. That certainly is not the situation in the US. Patients do not have autonomy, and there exists conflicts of interest, conflicts in which the patients all too often lose. You obviously have not yet read post #165. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #169 March 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteI guess that is where you and I differ. When I'm given "choice" I find little conflict with my "interests.". On the other hand, when I am given no choice, I find there to be a conflict. I think you misunderstood my post. If there is only a single interest, no matter what that interest might be, there can be no conflict of interests. You asked me if a single interest constituted a conflict of interests. It cannot. QuoteIt seems that care under the American system is less prone to putting something else ahead of the patients' best interests - as defined by the patients. That is what autonomy is all about, isn't it? The shareholders' interests are placed ahead of the patients' interests in the current system in the US. If the patients truly had autonomy, they could get whatever treatment they desired, without interference from insurance companies, or even their doctors' better judgement. That certainly is not the situation in the US. Patients do not have autonomy, and there exists conflicts of interest, conflicts in which the patients all too often lose. Until about 5 years ago our company used CIGNA for health insurance. They were absolutely awful. Our family never had a claim correctly handled, and every single error was to CIGNA's benefit. They dragged their feet over any requested procedure that was expensive. Then we got a new VP for Human Resources who has a handicapped child. Within 6 months we dropped CIGNA and got Blue Cross. If you get insurance through your employer, you have zero say in what you get.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #170 March 9, 2009 QuoteYou obviously have not yet read post #165. I did, actually. It just does offer anything but an anecdotal example, and not a great one, at that.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #171 March 9, 2009 QuoteUntil about 5 years ago our company used CIGNA for health insurance. They were absolutely awful. Our family never had a claim correctly handled, and every single error was to CIGNA's benefit. They dragged their feet over any requested procedure that was expensive. Then we got a new VP for Human Resources who has a handicapped child. Within 6 months we dropped CIGNA and got Blue Cross. If you get insurance through your employer, you have zero say in what you get. Now, imagine if you had to deal with CIGNA with absolutely NO chance of changing. Because even though you claim that you had "zero say" - obviously someone in the company did have influence to change it. But if it's all government provided. That's it. Hope and pray that it is what you want. Cuz I'm scared it won't be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #172 March 9, 2009 QuoteYou obviously have not yet read post #165. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did, actually. It just does offer anything but an anecdotal example, and not a great one, at that. Why, because it does not make your point? I gave you a personal true example that defies everything you are claiming. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #173 March 9, 2009 QuoteStandard protocol for proofs is that the person making the claim has to provide the proof. You claim it's culture - YOU prove it. Since I find myself surprisingly give-a-shitless about your views of "standard protocol", I *was* just going to tell you to GIYF (In your case, that's "Google It Yourself, Fucker" as opposed to "Google Is Your Friend"). However, since I'm feeling generous, here's what the American Heart Association has to say about it - I'm presuming that source is sufficiently elitist to satisfy your discerning taste? QuoteWhat are the major risk factors that can't be changed? Increasing age Male sex (gender) Heredity (including Race) What are the major risk factors you can modify, treat or control by changing your lifestyle or taking medicine? Tobacco smoke High blood cholesterol High blood pressure Physical inactivity Obesity and overweight Diabetes mellitus Hmm... looks like quite a lot of cultural and lifestyle choices to me. QuoteI suppose you think there are no obese people and no smokers in western Europe. No, I don't recall making that claim - nice red herring, though. I await your rebuttal of the the AMA's data.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #174 March 9, 2009 QuoteNow, imagine if you had to deal with CIGNA with absolutely NO chance of changing. Because even though you claim that you had "zero say" - obviously someone in the company did have influence to change it. But if it's all government provided. That's it. Hope and pray that it is what you want. Cuz I'm scared it won't be. Except, if it were government provided, voters would have the ability to make changes if necessary. That's nothing like "NO chance of changing."Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #175 March 9, 2009 QuoteI gave you a personal true example that defies everything you are claiming. If you believe that, you better go back and read what I've claimed.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
