Hospital Crisis and Obamacare

[wowzer]

Pam wrote:
Thing is Obamacare is for the most part, a Republican plan. They couldn't pass it and let Obama get a win. They had to act as though this plan was a product of liberal Democratic minds. As it is Obama had to make deals with pharma he didn't want to get it passed. As without them it would not have passed. So you have Republicans who want it gone simply to take away a Democratic victory, and you have pharma and as well as the insurance companies lining pockets to protect their profits. Just who is really looking out for the average American citizen?

Long term projections are guides. That's it. If congress cannot get their collective asses together and work on what's best for the country it won't matter if Obamacare stays in place.

It could be...if the republicans passed this, I'd be very upset too. I could care less which party passed it--the republicans are trying to fight it because it is politically convenient. I'm concerned about the long term consequences--which are enormous.

[August West]

search medscape 2012 survey

Are you referring to Medscape's 2012 Physician's Compensation Survey?

[Pam]

wowzer wrote:
[quote=Pam]
Thing is Obamacare is for the most part, a Republican plan. They couldn't pass it and let Obama get a win. They had to act as though this plan was a product of liberal Democratic minds. As it is Obama had to make deals with pharma he didn't want to get it passed. As without them it would not have passed. So you have Republicans who want it gone simply to take away a Democratic victory, and you have pharma and as well as the insurance companies lining pockets to protect their profits. Just who is really looking out for the average American citizen?

Long term projections are guides. That's it. If congress cannot get their collective asses together and work on what's best for the country it won't matter if Obamacare stays in place.

It could be...if the republicans passed this, I'd be very upset too. I could care less which party passed it--the republicans are trying to fight it because it is politically convenient. I'm concerned about the long term consequences--which are enormous.
I think it's a start. This country finally has a healthcare plan. No matter who presented the bill it was going to be constructed and viewed with partisan priorities. And with various hands in various pockets. Now if the adults would please get in the room and start looking at this from the standpoint of the American people.

[Lemon Drop]

Now if the adults would please get in the room and start looking at this from the standpoint of the American people.

That would be refreshing!

[Avenger]

Pam wrote:


1.6 million biopsies are done each year. 90% are benign.

How did they KNOW it is benign? That's right, they did a biopsy! Here is another example you could use. 90% of people who bought collision coverage never had an accident. Why did they bought coverage one wonders?

[Lemon Drop]

This thread needs davester or Ted king. I think it was one or maybe both of those guys who provided research in a much earlier thread showing that the claims that malpractice claims are a major cause of problems and expense in the health care system are bunk. It's a partisan talking point that caught fire and continues to be exploited by groups who want to limit physician and hospital accountability and liability for mistakes.

[Avenger]

We have a doctor in the house and you are looking for davester? Ask him about solar panels and water heaters.

[Pam]

Avenger wrote:
[quote=Pam]


1.6 million biopsies are done each year. 90% are benign.

How did they KNOW it is benign? That's right, they did a biopsy! Here is another example you could use. 90% of people who bought collision coverage never had an accident. Why did they bought coverage one wonders?
Radiologists label findings as highly suspicious, suspicious, most likely benign, benign, and no findings. Obviously the only way to be 100% is to do a surgical biopsy. That is expensive, deforms, and has it's own risks. A surgeon could also miss the cancer! Needle biopsy, which is not as simple as you may think, may or may not hit the appropriate area or return definitive results so it's not 100%. Unless there are suspicious radiological findings or a family history with lesser findings all that is needed is close follow up. If that. Unfortunately anything other than no findings start a process of needle biopsies which can lead to unnecessary surgical biopsies (same patients), and in some cases mastectomies that were not viewed as preventative.

This is why money should be spent on understanding the cause(s) and different types of cancer. Some will never kill the woman (just like prostrate), some will be very aggressive. In situ is being treated as if it were invasive or guaranteed to be invasive.

Anyone who thinks 90% is acceptable, that time, money, and stress for 1.4 million American women each year is acceptable really doesn't give a flip about women.

[mrbigstuff]

wowzer wrote:

First off, the so called, 'bad' doctors (i.e. those with many malpractice losses) are frequently taking care of high risk patients. It is ONLY the plaintiff attorneys who label these doctors as, 'bad'. I sit on my hospital's peer review board--and yes, mistakes happen--but there are almost always extenuating circumstances. Very rarely do I find a doctor who has done something truly egregious, but to answer your question, yes, I've fired those extremely rare 'bad' physicians (only 1 or 2 over a 15 year experience in administration). It's far trickier than you imagine, as there are always grievance meetings and due rights from human resources. Also, hospitals are not allowed to arbitrarily deny privileges to doctors--unless there are specific and substantiated reasons, if a physician presents the appropriate credentials and meets the standards, the hospital is obligated to grant privileges. (BTW- these rules and regulations were created by other lawyers who make the cost of doing business more expensive.)


To address the issue of legitimacy of malpractice suits, if I recall correctly (I'll try to find the reference), Harvard law school's study many years ago demonstrated that only one third of all malpractice settlements and judgements were in fact as a result of malpractice. Furthermore, of the cases of legitimate malpractice, only 40% of the patients actually ever sued. The data was based upon closed cases and peer reviewed data, and the Harvard Law team had the Harvard Medical team review the medical cases. When that study was released, it quickly became apparent to me that lawsuits mean nothing about the quality of the physician. Nothing.


What the Harvard study meant to me was that lawyers are far worse at screening out 'bad' lawsuits. If there is a profession which needs to be brought under control, it is law and judisprudence. I think that the entire law profession should be required to do a top down review of their practices and policies to ensure that only legitimate cases are brought to trial.

well, a sincere thank you if you have helped to bring about change at a fundamental level at your hospital. reform may be needed in all professions but medical care is certainly one of the professions where a patient is sometimes at the complete mercy of the medical establishment with little if any opportunity for reevaluation or second opinion.

the field of law should not be confused with the ambulance chasing attorneys. oversight by a third party is necessary but that function is currently being fulfilled by "independent contractors," i.e., the lowly slime of the law profession. the oversight has to come from.... wait for it... the government!

[Lemon Drop]

Avenger wrote:
We have a doctor in the house and you are looking for davester? Ask him about solar panels and water heaters.

The doctor's premise is based on a debunked political talking point.
So yeah, something more objective would be appreciated.