PDA

View Full Version : When Politicians Claim we have the Greatest Healthcare System in the world do......


Logical
07-22-2007, 08:48 PM
....you believe it?

Serious question?

I define the greatest system as one that covers all people with the best possible care in an ideal world. Of course no country can meet that standard but the greatest would come the closest.

Mr. Kotter
07-22-2007, 08:52 PM
You well know, it...depends on how you define "greatest."

Bowser
07-22-2007, 08:55 PM
I don't think I can vote in this poll.

IF you have insurance or IF you can afford medical treatment here, then yes, we probably have as good a healthcare system as there is.

wazu
07-22-2007, 08:55 PM
I don't have any complaints, but then again I work for a living.

banyon
07-22-2007, 08:56 PM
You well know, it...depends on how you define "greatest."

Access to all ? No.

Preventative care? No

Best results in terms of life expectancy/infant mortality? No

Availability of specialists if you have a lot of spare money lying around? Among the best for sure.

Logical
07-22-2007, 09:03 PM
Access to all ? No.

Preventative care? No

Best results in terms of life expectancy/infant mortality? No

Availability of specialists if you have a lot of spare money lying around? Among the best for sure.

We also might have what is considered outstanding care when you talk leading edge, but that does not make up for the rest IMO.

trndobrd
07-22-2007, 09:13 PM
If I had to be seriously ill or injured, I would prefer to do so in the U.S. After living in a number of countries and spending some quality time in various hospitals around the world, I have to say the U.S. has the best that've seen. The standard of care provided at U.S. treatment facilities is second to none.

Access to that healthcare system and efficiency is a different story. The U.S. has free healthcare for everyone, it is just very inefficiently provided at emergency rooms instead of clinics. Other countries have a tiered system, which works well. In Belgium doctors (probably more the equivalent of our PAs) still make house calls for reasonable cost, which is an overall cost savings for the consumer.

BucEyedPea
07-22-2007, 10:40 PM
Infant mortality rates are skwed due to the drug, in particular crack babies issue. It's not our system.

I said yes with a caveat. That is as far as high tech procedures are needed and are supplied we do. I'm not a big fan of allopathic medicine. It's more disease care as opposed to health care. And a lot of illness is also caused by it....iatrogenic illnesses created by doctors.

I actually prefer some of the low tech care that European's use...but only for the things it's good for.

Ugly Duck
07-22-2007, 10:59 PM
No way.... I work in the health care system & I'll tell ya wut I see. I see hordes of folks that either cannot or will not pay for heath insurance using the emergency room for all their health care. The hospitals have to treat them, have no way to collect, and increase the fees for the ones who do pay to make up the difference. I hear folks decrying the notion of "socialized health care" but we already kinda have it. Everybody gets treated, but the middle class foots the bill for those that don't have or won't get health insurance. Might as well spread the pain out to everyone instead of dumping the load onto the backs of middle class folks.

Logical
07-22-2007, 11:01 PM
Infant mortality rates are skwed due to the drug, in particular crack babies issue. It's not our system.

I said yes with a caveat. That is as far as high tech procedures are needed and are supplied we do. I'm not a big fan of allopathic medicine. It's more disease care as opposed to health care. And a lot of illness is also caused by it....iatrogenic illnesses created by doctors.

I actually prefer some of the low tech care that European's use...but only for the things it's good for.

Where on earth do you come up with words like iatrogenic, I mean I have a huge vocabulary and I have never even sniffed at such a word. Credit for the fact you used it properly.

BucEyedPea
07-22-2007, 11:13 PM
Oh yeah! I made it up alright or am possibly using wrong...says the almightly Logical who loves getting personal. Must be like that guy accusing Adept of not knowing what a Luddite was.

I happen to be into health wogical...and I read a fair amount of material on it including nutrition and nutritional therapy. I take a child's fever down with Vitamin C.

If one does, "iatrogenic" is not an uncommon term, especially when one is seeking alternatives to allopathic medicine. In fact it's more commonly used in those areas. I've known the word since age 20.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3886

Definition of Iatrogenic

Iatrogenic: Due to the action of a physician or a therapy the doctor prescibed. An iatrogenic disease may be inadvertently caused by a physician or surgeon or by a medical or surgical treatment or a diagnostic procedure. Puerperal fever (childbirth fever) was an iatrogenic infection; it was carried from one woman to another by the doctor before the days of antisepsis. If in the course of a procedure, an artery is nicked and bleeds, that is an iatrogenic accident.

The word "iatrogenic" comes from the Greek roots "iatros" meaning "the healer or physician" + "gennan" meaning "as a product of" = due to the doctor.

Logical
07-22-2007, 11:24 PM
Clearly you did not read my post correctly I gave you credit for using the word properly.

Where on earth do you come up with words like iatrogenic, I mean I have a huge vocabulary and I have never even sniffed at such a word. Credit for the fact you used it properly.

BucEyedPea
07-22-2007, 11:28 PM
Well within the context of what you wrote, you seemed to not know yet if I had used it properly or not...so that last part about credit came across as conditional only or pending my posting the definition. In fact, my next post was going to ask for that credit.

I want a star on my forehead now. :)

Logical
07-22-2007, 11:34 PM
Well within the context of what you wrote, you seemed to not know yet if I had used it properly or not...so that last part about credit came across as conditional only or pending my posting the definition. In fact, my next post was going to ask for that credit.

I want a star on my forehead now. :)Are you trying to save face with this post? If so fine, just admit you misunderstood and I will give you the star.

BucEyedPea
07-22-2007, 11:37 PM
Are you trying to save face with this post?
Not at all. That totally blows my mind you think that.
I simply took it as having to prove I used it correctly first for confirmation.
But you don't have to believe me. It's not really important.

If so fine, just admit you misunderstood and I will give you the star.
No I won't. :harumph:

...and I still want the star.

Logical
07-22-2007, 11:42 PM
Not at all. That totally blows my mind you think that.
I simply took it as having to prove I used it correctly first for confirmation.
But you don't have to believe me. It's not really important.


No I won't. :harumph:

...and I still want the star.

Well I will admit you are making me laugh. I am sorry you read it wrong. Heh I had to look the word up in the dictionary but I did it before I posted. I am smart enough not to accuse someone of using a word wrong unless I know they are wrong. Again I give you credit for properly using that strange word. Hell allopathic was pretty strange but I had at least heard of it before.

penchief
07-22-2007, 11:56 PM
I don't have any complaints, but then again I work for a living.

I know plenty of people who work hard for a living and have no health care.

BucEyedPea
07-22-2007, 11:59 PM
Well I will admit you are making me laugh. I am sorry you read it wrong. Heh I had to look the word up in the dictionary but I did it before I posted. I am smart enough not to accuse someone of using a word wrong unless I know they are wrong. Again I give you credit for properly using that strange word. Hell allopathic was pretty strange but I had at least heard of it before.
Smartass! How am I supposed to know that? You really are a :evil: !!!
Anyhow, it just wasn't clear was all.

I only learned about allopathic when I got into homepathics. Is that a strange word to you too? My guess is that most who think western medicine is a god, don't come across such distinctions in healthcare as opposed to disease management.

I won't even mention Ayurvedic.

Logical
07-23-2007, 12:02 AM
Smartass! How am I supposed to know that? You really are a :evil: !!!
Anyhow, it just wasn't clear was all.

I only learned about allopathic when I got into homepathics. Is that a strange word to you too? My guess is that most who think western medicine is a god, don't come across such distinctions in healthcare as opposed to disease management.

I won't even mention Ayurvedic.

Oh my, so you are into holistic Indian medicine?

Pitt Gorilla
07-23-2007, 12:03 AM
Well within the context of what you wrote, you seemed to not know yet if I had used it properly or not...so that last part about credit came across as conditional only or pending my posting the definition. In fact, my next post was going to ask for that credit.

I want a star on my forehead now. :)He said "Credit for the fact you used it properly" not "Credit for the fact IF you used it properly."

BucEyedPea
07-23-2007, 12:10 AM
He said "Credit for the fact you used it properly" not "Credit for the fact IF you used it properly."
I know what it said.
That line as a stand alone statement does say that.
It was not used as a stand alone statement.

It didn't make sense to me in its context since he didn't seem to know what it meant. So it was a CONTRADICTORY statement and illogical.

It wasn't the grammar or choice of words it was the illogic that threw me off. In order to make some sense of the illogic or contradiction, I figured he just didn't type it or say it right. I didn't know he had looked it up. If I had I would have taken it as intended.

And I had wondered, at one point, even took several takes, if he knew I used it properly or not due to him crediting me, AFTER just claiming he never even sniffed the word before.

I think it could be taken both ways to be honest...but after his explanation I can see how it was meant differently by him.

BucEyedPea
07-23-2007, 12:12 AM
Oh my, so you are into holistic Indian medicine?
Not a whole lot, but some. That and homeopathics, nutritionals and Chinese...including accupressure and reflexology.

I use a lot of this complementary to western for a holistic approach.
If I need a steering wheel removed obviously I wouldn't use these.


But I remember these Chinese herbal pills my chiro/internal med doc gave me
for use once a month. She called them Happy Pills...and boy they sure worked.
No more PMS.

a1na2
07-23-2007, 08:21 PM
I know plenty of people who work hard for a living and have no health care.

I know a few that work for a living, own several rental houses and refuses to buy health insurance. Sponging on society.

Health care is actually available to all, but at a price. The poor cannot afford health care, many of them have applied for and received medical cards and get free care via your tax dollars. Some do not believe in health care nor in doctors. Some use their money for other things, food, homes, and in the more deprived lifestyles drugs which leaves nothing for health care.

IMO there are plenty that could have health care insurance but opt out. I have no compassion for those that choose not to have insurance.

wazu
07-23-2007, 08:56 PM
I know a few that work for a living, own several rental houses and refuses to buy health insurance. Sponging on society.

Health care is actually available to all, but at a price. The poor cannot afford health care, many of them have applied for and received medical cards and get free care via your tax dollars. Some do not believe in health care nor in doctors. Some use their money for other things, food, homes, and in the more deprived lifestyles drugs which leaves nothing for health care.

IMO there are plenty that could have health care insurance but opt out. I have no compassion for those that choose not to have insurance.

This is pretty much how I feel. My brother used to work at Starbucks just so he'd have insurance. Then he found a better paying job at a bar that also provided insurance. See a pattern? Nobody was going to bail him out, so he found a way to provide for himself. Pretty simple, really.

banyon
07-23-2007, 08:59 PM
You guys act like insurance coverage is guaranteed if you have paid your premiums. Hope nothing serious ever happens to you.

Adept Havelock
07-23-2007, 09:34 PM
You guys act like insurance coverage is guaranteed if you have paid your premiums. Hope nothing serious ever happens to you.


Yep, there is no way we will ever be denied a treatment we need just keep the insurance company's costs down. Even if it costs 1/2 of what we've paid in premiums already.

:hmmm:

:doh!:

:banghead:

Logical
07-23-2007, 10:02 PM
This is pretty much how I feel. My brother used to work at Starbucks just so he'd have insurance. Then he found a better paying job at a bar that also provided insurance. See a pattern? Nobody was going to bail him out, so he found a way to provide for himself. Pretty simple, really.Not so simple depending on the state you live in. A ton of employers out here in CA don't provide health insurance and my understanding is that it is the same in several large east coast states.

Mr. Kotter
07-23-2007, 10:26 PM
Not so simple depending on the state you live in. A ton of employers out here in CA don't provide health insurance and my understanding is that it is the same in several large east coast states.

Then tell your state governments to get off their duffs and do something about THEIR problem. As Adam said, pretty simple really.

Logical
07-23-2007, 10:32 PM
Then tell your state governments to get off their duffs and do something about THEIR problem. As Adam said, pretty simple really.

Actually CA legislature is trying to pass a comprehensive health care package for all citizens. I believe if they do we would be the first state with such a package. Now how good it will be remains to be seen if it can even be passed.

wazu
07-23-2007, 10:42 PM
Not so simple depending on the state you live in. A ton of employers out here in CA don't provide health insurance and my understanding is that it is the same in several large east coast states.

That may be right, but in this particular situation my brother actually lives and works in CA.

banyon
07-23-2007, 11:01 PM
That may be right, but in this particular situation my brother actually lives and works in CA.

That's good for your brother then, because his employer will be able to save a lot of money on their health care and may be able to pay higher salaries than their competitors in states without comprehensive health care.

It's a microcosm of what's been going on for a decade between GM and Toyota with their older and sick workers.

patteeu
07-24-2007, 07:18 AM
You guys act like insurance coverage is guaranteed if you have paid your premiums. Hope nothing serious ever happens to you.

I wonder how often it is that an American insurance company refuses to cover a procedure/medication/treatment that would have been covered by most of the major socialized systems in the world (e.g. Canada's, Britain's, etc.)? I don't know the answer to this, I'm just curious.

Mecca
07-24-2007, 10:17 AM
I wonder how often it is that an American insurance company refuses to cover a procedure/medication/treatment that would have been covered by most of the major socialized systems in the world (e.g. Canada's, Britain's, etc.)? I don't know the answer to this, I'm just curious.

Probably more than you'd think.......

When you start needing major things done that cost a lot of money where the insurance company is no longer making money on you, you become a liability.

patteeu
07-24-2007, 12:55 PM
Probably more than you'd think.......

When you start needing major things done that cost a lot of money where the insurance company is no longer making money on you, you become a liability.

You become a liability at that point for any third party payer whether it's an insurance company or the government. Something tells me that the government run healthcare systems in the world aren't bending over backward to fund experimental treatments.

irishjayhawk
07-24-2007, 01:01 PM
If insurance companies would stop playing politics with patients, I would probably vote yes.

By this, I mean that restricting certain doctors, pharmacies, medicines, brands etc.

Paying for insurance shouldn't be paying for restrictions and for most, denial.

patteeu
07-24-2007, 01:17 PM
If insurance companies would stop playing politics with patients, I would probably vote yes.

By this, I mean that restricting certain doctors, pharmacies, medicines, brands etc.

Paying for insurance shouldn't be paying for restrictions and for most, denial.

No one, not even the extremely wealthy, could afford insurance if it came without any restrictions. Unlimited insurance would cost an unlimited amount of money.

Direckshun
07-24-2007, 04:34 PM
Do you just specialize at creating lousy polls?

Logical
07-24-2007, 09:27 PM
Do you just specialize at creating lousy polls?Do you specialize in criticizing them without being specific?

WilliamTheIrish
07-25-2007, 07:54 PM
No way.... I work in the health care system & I'll tell ya wut I see. I see hordes of folks that either cannot or will not pay for heath insurance using the emergency room for all their health care. The hospitals have to treat them, have no way to collect, and increase the fees for the ones who do pay to make up the difference. I hear folks decrying the notion of "socialized health care" but we already kinda have it. Everybody gets treated, but the middle class foots the bill for those that don't have or won't get health insurance. Might as well spread the pain out to everyone instead of dumping the load onto the backs of middle class folks.

Completely agree. However, how do you spread the pain out? The burden will still fall on the middle class.

And to answer the question: Yes.

WilliamTheIrish
07-25-2007, 08:29 PM
Actually CA legislature is trying to pass a comprehensive health care package for all citizens. I believe if they do we would be the first state with such a package. Now how good it will be remains to be seen if it can even be passed.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010374
====================================================



When Louis Brandeis praised the 50 states as "laboratories of democracy," he didn't claim that every policy experiment would work. So we hope the eyes of America will turn to Wisconsin, and the effort by Madison Democrats to make that "progressive" state a Petri dish for government-run health care.

This exercise is especially instructive, because it reveals where the "single-payer," universal coverage folks end up. Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate have dropped the Washington pretense of incremental health-care reform and moved directly to passing a plan to insure every resident under the age of 65 in the state. And, wow, is "free" health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.

Employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages. Wisconsin businesses would have to compete with out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined.

This employment tax is on top of the $1 billion grab bag of other levies that Democratic Governor Jim Doyle proposed and the tax-happy Senate has also approved, including a $1.25 a pack increase in the cigarette tax, a 10% hike in the corporate tax, and new fees on cars, trucks, hospitals, real estate transactions, oil companies and dry cleaners. In all, the tax burden in the Badger State could rise to 20% of family income, which is slightly more than the average federal tax burden. "At least federal taxes pay for an Army and Navy," quips R.J. Pirlot of the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce business lobby.

As if that's not enough, the health plan includes a tax escalator clause allowing an additional 1.5 percentage point payroll tax to finance higher outlays in the future. This could bring the payroll tax to 16%. One reason to expect costs to soar is that the state may become a mecca for the unemployed, uninsured and sick from all over North America. The legislation doesn't require that you have a job in Wisconsin to qualify, merely that you live in the state for at least 12 months. Cheesehead nation could expect to attract health-care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes.

Proponents use the familiar argument for national health care that this will save money (about $1.8 billion a year) through efficiency gains by eliminating the administrative costs of private insurance. And unions and some big businesses with rich union health plans are only too happy to dump these liabilities onto the government.
But those costs won't vanish; they'll merely shift to all taxpayers and businesses. Small employers that can't afford to provide insurance would see their employment costs rise by thousands of dollars per worker, while those that now provide a basic health insurance plan would have to pay $400 to $500 a year more per employee.

The plan is also openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs. Private companies are making modest progress in sweating out health-care inflation by making patients more cost-conscious through increased copayments, health savings accounts, and incentives for wellness. The Wisconsin program moves in the opposite direction: It reduces out-of-pocket copayments, bars money-saving HSA plans, and increases the number of mandated medical services covered under the plan.

So where will savings come from? Where they always do in any government plan: Rationing via price controls and, as costs rise, waiting periods and coverage restrictions. This is Michael Moore's medical dream state.

The last line of defense against this plan are the Republicans who run the Wisconsin House. So far they've been unified and they recently voted the Senate plan down. Democrats are now planning to take their ideas to the voters in legislative races next year, and that's a debate Wisconsinites should look forward to. At least Wisconsin Democrats are admitting how much it will cost Americans to pay for government-run health care. Would that Washington Democrats were as forthright.

WilliamTheIrish
07-25-2007, 09:52 PM
Banyon, we've found you a new home state. :)

banyon
07-25-2007, 10:43 PM
Banyon, we've found you a new home state. :)

I read your article but it does not say what Wisconsin residents currently pay for coverage through private plans/emergency rooms/out of pocket, so there is no frame of reference to compare with the huge *gasp* $15 bil. price tag.

It also says that savings will come through denial of coverage and restrictions, but if you'd seen Sicko (or ever tried to file a serious health claim) then you'd know that's what the private insurers are doing now about as aggressively as it could possibly be done.

Bravo to Wisconsin for seriously attempting to address this issue which Congress has been too indolent to address since HRC's failure in 1993.

WilliamTheIrish
07-26-2007, 07:04 PM
I read your article but it does not say what Wisconsin residents currently pay for coverage through private plans/emergency rooms/out of pocket, so there is no frame of reference to compare with the huge *gasp* $15 bil. price tag.

It also says that savings will come through denial of coverage and restrictions, but if you'd seen Sicko (or ever tried to file a serious health claim) then you'd know that's what the private insurers are doing now about as aggressively as it could possibly be done.

Bravo to Wisconsin for seriously attempting to address this issue which Congress has been too indolent to address since HRC's failure in 1993.

I hear you on the frame of reference part. It's like reading this statement:then you'd know that'S (denying major claims) what the private insurers are doing now about as aggressively as it could possibly be done.

Perhaps you could give me some statistics on what % of major claims are denied? 3%? 5%? 25%? And what exactly are these "major claims" that are being denied?

I do get something of a kick out of your trenchant *gasp* at the price tag afforded the Wisconsin plan. It'll be expensive as hell. And, as all government programs, it will become more expensive. When it breaks the bank, the only realistic solution will be to limit and deny.

America is headed the way of social medicine. It's just not moving at the pace you wish. And I have no problem with you wanting it. I just wish you weren't dragging me into it with you.

PS: I'll see SICKO as soon as it's out on DVD or on PPV.

a1na2
07-26-2007, 09:03 PM
How many here have visited hospitals outside the U.S. for care?

I had an emergency room visit to a hospital in Truro, Nova Scotia a few years ago. The cost was pennies compared to hospitals in the U.S. but then I didn't get to see a doctor as there was a heavy snow storm going at the time. The facility was nice but not clean. The interns that cared for me were young and didn't seem well trained for emergency procedures.

IMO the care was less than what we get in the U.S. at any hospital.

Silock
07-26-2007, 09:19 PM
I voted yes. I made it personal, though. I pay out of pocket for healthcare, and that care has always been outstanding.

I agree about the statistics being skewed. We have a lot of social issues in this country that don't translate well to the healthcare system. Look at all the obese people we have in this country; of course our life expectancy is going to be lower when the leading cause of death is something that, for most people, can be prevented. Yes, many people with hypertension and other heart issues can be born with a problem, or just inherit it, but you can't help but think that if this country wasn't full of a bunch of fatasses, they wouldn't be keeling over at age 45 with heart attacks.

That's something that medicine can't account for. They can't make you live a responsible life. They can only treat you for what you present to them.

banyon
07-26-2007, 09:31 PM
How many here have visited hospitals outside the U.S. for care?

I had an emergency room visit to a hospital in Truro, Nova Scotia a few years ago. The cost was pennies compared to hospitals in the U.S. but then I didn't get to see a doctor as there was a heavy snow storm going at the time. The facility was nice but not clean. The interns that cared for me were young and didn't seem well trained for emergency procedures.

IMO the care was less than what we get in the U.S. at any hospital.

:spock: You base your opinion of Canadian health care on the fact that you couldn't get a doctor in a snowstorm?

Adept Havelock
07-26-2007, 09:36 PM
:spock: You base your opinion of Canadian health care on the fact that you couldn't get a doctor in a snowstorm?

I ordered a pizza in Denver during a heavy snow storm. It took hours to get there.

I ordered a pizza when I was in Jamaica as well, it got there much quicker. And it was delivered by a topless woman. Well, I was at Hedonism II...

Clearly Jamican pizza delivery companies have the superior system.




(Not that Canada doesn't have it's shortcomings....)

WilliamTheIrish
07-26-2007, 09:41 PM
But was the pizza clean?

a1na2
07-26-2007, 09:48 PM
:spock: You base your opinion of Canadian health care on the fact that you couldn't get a doctor in a snowstorm?

No, I based my opinion on the condition of the hospital and the quality of people that worked there.

How many hospitals outside of the U.S. have you visited as a patient?

I may have only been to one, but at least I have something to gage our system against. As far a the doctors inability to get to the hospital goes, I made the trip from the same town that he was in at the time. It seems like he should have been able to get there. I was released and drove the 35 miles back to the motel.

banyon
07-26-2007, 09:50 PM
No, I based my opinion on the condition of the hospital and the quality of people that worked there.

How many hospitals outside of the U.S. have you visited as a patient?

I may have only been to one, but at least I have something to gage our system against. As far a the doctors inability to get to the hospital goes, I made the trip from the same town that he was in at the time. It seems like he should have been able to get there. I was released and drove the 35 miles back to the motel.

I've been to one, like you. I found the Irish to be amiable, although they did charge me like 16 Euro for the visit. It would've been free if I had been from a country that offers their citizens universal health care when traveling, but since I was from here, they had to charge me.

I don't base any opinion of the Irish health care system on my isolated incidient of how they treated my sprained ankle.

banyon
07-26-2007, 10:00 PM
I hear you on the frame of reference part. It's like reading this statement:

Perhaps you could give me some statistics on what % of major claims are denied? 3%? 5%? 25%? And what exactly are these "major claims" that are being denied?

Of course I don't know those percentages,do you think that the major insurance companies would release those figures?

I do get something of a kick out of your trenchant *gasp* at the price tag afforded the Wisconsin plan. It'll be expensive as hell. And, as all government programs, it will become more expensive. When it breaks the bank, the only realistic solution will be to limit and deny.

America is headed the way of social medicine. It's just not moving at the pace you wish. And I have no problem with you wanting it. I just wish you weren't dragging me into it with you.

PS: I'll see SICKO as soon as it's out on DVD or on PPV.

I appreciate the repartee. Whatever Wisconsin's number is, the most important number is that we spend roughly twice as much on health care to cover far fewer people. And we also deny many with coverage (whatever the number). So as long as we are paying more for less, I will be supporting the universal approach.

a1na2
07-27-2007, 12:54 PM
I've been to one, like you. I found the Irish to be amiable, although they did charge me like 16 Euro for the visit. It would've been free if I had been from a country that offers their citizens universal health care when traveling, but since I was from here, they had to charge me.

I don't base any opinion of the Irish health care system on my isolated incidient of how they treated my sprained ankle.

I base my opinion and comments on a surgical necessity and the lack of availability of a doctor at what seemed to be a very large hospital. I had an obstruction that had to be removed. Before you asked if I judged based on his unavailability due to a snowstorm, even if it had been bad enough for him to not risk travel why was there not other doctors that could give treatment. The hospital was equipped with the proper equipment for the procedure.

Even at that, I had to make the trip the next morning and he was still not able to travel from the same town and distance I had to travel to return to the hospital. The next day another doctor was available but I don't know the circumstances of where the second doctor was the night before. This had been, up to that time, a recurring problem. Thank God I found the right doctor upon my return to the U.S. to get what treatment I needed to preclude this happening again.

Don't get me wrong, I don't judge the whole realm of foreign hospitals on this one incident, but I do have the experience of this one occasion. That hospital did not measure up to those I went to in the U.S., even those in small towns, population 2900 and up.

I would resist going to a hospital, if possible, should I need minor treatment while abroad in the future. I'd prefer to wait until there was a comfort factor related to treatment.