Choosing between education and health care - this country is nuts.

Fair is everyone getting what they need. I'll just be glad not to inherit debt. :lol:

By "the best", I was referring to our country's pool of available treatments contained within our borders. Barring cost and insurance companies blocking us, I bet we can find whatever treatment we need here in the U.S. It is the system that defeats us, not the care available. I think those who mentioned terrible experiences with negligence and such have experienced the breakdown in the system. There are people who become certified and licensed to do jobs, but they may not have the character to maintain a certain level of integrity nor excellence. Brings up all kinds of thoughts on where exactly the breakdown begins or ends.

 

Brooke-

Great points.

My feelings right now are colored by the experiences with my mother-in-law. She looks like she's 9.5 months pregnant, her legs are swelling with fluid. The clinic's opinion? Here, go get some metamucil and a leg brace.

After some pushing (dh and I are on it now, since her dr's office isn't doing nearly enough), she got them to agree to an ultra-sound. Nothing was found, and they left her with the impression she is 'fine'. She's not.

My dad, an RN, suggested it could be congestive heart disease or something else extremely serious. MIL has not been tested for this either.

Our fear is that something is REALLY wrong, but by the time the clinic thinks to ask for the right test, it will be too late to treat. Her clinic is sliding-scale fee, and she has no insurance. I know from other experiences that no insurance CAN mean (and does mean with this clinic) some testing is ignored/not given.

I once used that clinic- never ever ever again. Obviously they might be the exception, rather than the rule. But their trackrecord is scary and I cannot understand why they are allowed to continue practicing medicine at all. Letting poor patients die to save them money is not a way to practice medicine, kwim?

Anyway... I digress. Good care is available elsewhere. But try telling a 60-something year old woman who swears by her team that they are NOT doing what they need to do, and that she needs to go elsewhere, when she'd much rather believe them and think she's just gassy (for months on end, apparently).. :cry:

 

So sorry, Meghan. I have had several family members who refuse to see anyone but Dr. X--who is a quack. One ended up being treated for constipation for months. Finally she went to the ER and when they opened her up for a blockage, they found she had widespread, very advanced cancer. So much so that she opted for a few months of feeling well rather than undergo treatment at the age of 43. It sickens me when people don't catch things. With your dad being an RN, I'm sure you know all too well how much of a hit and miss medicine can be.

 

This topic has been much on my mind of late. We learned a few weeks ago that my mother has cancer, and she's been "enduring" Britain's National Health Service. For example, they performed a biopsy to learn about the cancer, and the results came back three weeks later. Looking at the results, the oncologist mentioned that, if it's a particular form of cancer, there's an excellent alternative treatment - but they must perform another biopsy to find this out. Why not perform the test the first time? "It's expensive, and we only perform it if the patient requests it." Of course, when someone is told they have less than six months to live, a delay of almost two months is very frustrating. Similarly, medication she's taking right now for nausea is not working. We asked why she's not being given the standard medication used in the US. "It's far too expensive. We don't use that here."

Let's get down to the brass tacks. There are two issues here:

1) Given advances in medicine and the increased cost of these treatments, it's simply not possible to give everyone the best treatment available. This means that we must filter out patients. In the US, filtering is based on ability to pay. In the UK, filtering is based on age and "productivity to society." We can argue which is better, but the fact that filtering is needed is a given.

2) Healthcare can be privately run or government run. Private companies must make a profit, so they'll try to avoid treating patients whose treatments are expensive. We've all heard about companies trying to avoid giving coverage. On the other hand, private companies must compete: This improves the quality of care and puts bad companies out of business. When the government operates a healthcare system, it becomes very bureaucratic and slow. The quality of care tends to fall, and waiting lists can become very long. On the other hand, everyone is treated fairly.

So what do we do? Filter by age, usefulness, or ability to pay? Turn to profit-hungry private companies or become just a number in a bureaucratic machine? Different countries have come to different conclusions - and sometimes the solution may be a combination of multiple approaches.

As an aside: My wife was in Britain last week to help out with my mother (our oldest son is there this week). One evening, she happened to watch the first episode of "Doc Martin", a popular series about a doctor working in a Cornish fishing village (they show earlier series of it on PBS). In all the commercial breaks, a private medical insurance company paid for an ad - clever because the series reveals plenty of the problems with Britain's NHS. What was the slogan of this company? "Because we can be bothered!" This resonates with locals because plenty believe that those working for government-run healthcare can't really be bothered.

 

Is it? It's not a given to me. Why is my life less valuable because I'm poor or old?

In farming terms, sure that applies. If my goat is a poor producer, I'm not going to spend money 'curing' her. If she's old, same scenario. But people aren't farm animals.


Of course, there's a fallacy even in my logic: I DO pay/treat my old goats. And I don't care what sort of producer they are, because they are valuable for themselves. Life is sacred, in all forms.

I'm too tired and too busy to dig up any research here, Steve, and you are too smart to argue with without it . But I think I need to back you up a step and tell you I don't think there should be a filtering system. If the research and treatments are out there, everyone should be entitled to them.

 

Excellent analysis, Cornish Steve. I suppose, however, that this leaves us with the same age-old issues: the haves and the have-nots.
But I still wonder...what do you do? Just accept your fate in life, keep struggling in vain forever, or, if you're one of the Haves, then sit back and enjoy the ride...What do you do?

 

Meghan, I think everyone cannot be entitled to the best of the best, because there simply isn't enough to go around.
And harsh as it is, a society as a whole needs the productive members more than the elderly. Not being mean at all here, my own grandmother just got denied an operation because she is too "old", they said....

 

Personal opinion? This is a great area for the Christian church to get involved - to demonstrate the love of Christ to those in need. Early hospitals, just like early schools, were founded by churches - hence St. Peter's hospital, St. Luke's hospital, and so on. Why not have affordable medical plans operated and financed by the church? While treatment would still need to be prioritized, Christian self-sacrifice and compassion could transform the situation.

You're quite right that the "have"s could just sit back and enjoy the ride - but Christians shouldn't be doing that. What a tremendous ministry opportunity is going begging while we waste countless billions on politics, for example.

 

I understand what you are saying. I just don't accept that. Because, imho, if that's what society is for, to make distinctions of 'value' on lives, to decide that some people are 'throw away' and some are gold..

I don't accept that.

 

So what if a 10-year-old girl, a 30-year-old healthy illegal immigrant, a 40-year-old diabetic businessman, a 50-year-old career criminal, a 70-year-old politician, and a 90-year-old wheelchair-bound great-grandmother all need a heart transplant - and only two hearts are available in time? What would you do? Someone will, by necessity, be "gold" and someone will be "thrown away." Should it make a difference that the 90-year-old is very wealthy whereas the illegal immigrant is very poor - or that the businessman is grossly overweight while the career criminal works out while serving a life sentence - or that the chances of success are 50% for the young girl and 90% for the politician?

 

Which one has the greater need? And who will live through the surgery (Meaning probably great grandma won't, so she's out.)? And if there's a tie, then I would favor a lottery system over sorting people.

All life is sacred.

I didn't say, btw, that I had the perfect solution. I only said I do not accept the present system which gives priority to those who are 'industrial prizes'- young, healthy, wealthy- and moves to the fringes those with other gifts to share.

As I said, I'm not researching this. But in my heart, making some people 'gold' and some 'garbage' is morally wrong. My life is every bit as sacred to me as yours is to you. Which one of us is golden, and which one trash? There's only one heart, and we both need it. Who gets it?

Bureaucrats make distinctions. I say we are all better than that. I'm not against capitalism, btw. But when it comes to healthcare, we should all benefit equally from the incredible science available.

 

All this reminds me of a news story I read recently. Not directly related, but concerns the idea of "choosing" for the greater good.
The famine in Somalia. Women walking miles in searing heat with multiple young ones. When one lays down and cannot go further, the mother has to either abandon one to save the lives of herself and the others, or stay with the fallen child, and condemn them all to death. Again, like CornishSteve's question with the heart transplant, what do you do??

It is hard to accept, very hard. But sometimes certain decisions need to be made to ensure survival. Just like in war. You know some of your soldiers are going to die. But you have to send them in anyway.

Life is like that. Thorny and difficult. But I do like the idea of churches getting involved, and maybe other organizations as well. To catch those that fall on the shallow end of the communal pool.

 

Compared to those who lived 100 years ago, we're all gold and they are all garbage. Such circumstances are simply outside of our control.

 

I know this is a retorical question, so stick with me here

The difference is that she was on her own. She had to make a decision like that.

Society is SUPPOSED to benefit the citizens. By having a network of people, situations like that should be avoidable (as a refugee, she didn't have that network).

Of course, this makes me sound a bit like a socialist, which I promise you I'm NOT. I'm only referring to healthcare in my posts here. imho, if you work for it, you earned it and it's yours. I think healthcare (and education) are separate issues.

 

Socialism is not the evil thing it is made out to be. Well, parts of it, at least. What is wrong with helping the less fortunate? I guess the religious figures of times past were all socialists, then, telling us to love and share with the poor and destitute!

Universal healthcare (supposedly), came up during this president's term. It was shot down as a socialist this and that...Not touting it or anything, it had enough flaws, but most people were against the fact that we'd have to pay higher taxes, and the increased control government would have.

But we cannot have it both ways. Either we have affordable taxes and choices in healthcare, albeit expensive, or we have high taxes and unviersal (but lower quality) healthcare.

I think our system right now maybe isnt as flawed as we think it is. Those who can afford it pick and choose private insurance companies, which in turn improves quality of care. For those who can't afford it, we have a social system (medicare, etc). Maybe we should spend a few million on weeding out all the people who don't belong in the system, so that resources could free up for the truly deserving.
I'm sure it would be worth it! Kick all the bums out of welfare programs! And there are many!

 

Hopefully my multiquotes work here!

LOVE your post!

I don't pretend to know as much about socialism as I probably ought. In my head, the word conjures up these weird images from a sci-fi movie of everyone living in a green utopia, with no cars. Everything shared for all.. weird smiling faces. In retrospect, kind of like that scene in The Time Machine- you know the people who are just waiting for the underground people to eat them (the older version)? And I can't help thinking.. I don't WANT that utopia! Mine would be my own 100acres, with my decrepit farmhouse smack in the middle. I used to joke that when I was old I'd be insane, and live in a swamp with my 60 cats. These days I don't joke about it.. because the ASPCA would take my cats and someone would force me into a home. Anyway...

This is an old question here. We have relatives who we tried to help. It's a very long story, but in the end we had decide how to help them- we wanted to help the kids, not the adults. Because it is the KIDS who were paying the price. How do you stop enabling the able while still watching out for those who can't watch out for themselves?

There are no easy answers.

 

Hmm...Yeah, I hadn't thought abt the poor children who suffer because of bum parents. Gosh, there really is no answer, is there?

I loved your mention of that Utopia with no cars and weird smiling faces. Saw it in a documentary recently. It's hideous, and it's name is North Korea!

 

No, sweetie, you GET the emergency care when you need it, and the hospital notifies the insurance company within 24 hours of you being admitted. If it's something that's elective, it only takes a couple of days to get the pre-approval.

 

My experience with "socialized" medicine has been very positive. I'm not an expert on how things are in the US, as I was a child when we left, but here's what my family tells me...

My mother, a single parent living hand-to-mouth, often says the chance that landed us in Canada saved her life. If she'd been living without insurance in the US, the tumour they removed from her side would have metastasized and killed her long before she would have sought treatment.

My mother-in-law (spent her whole life working a series of retail jobs) recently had both knees replaced. She tells me she's thankful she's not American, or she'd have likely had to sell her home to afford treatment.

When my son fainted, they checked his heart out. When the readings came back a little wonky, he was into the Heart Institute within 24 hours, getting a full work-up. (Nothing to worry about, fortunately!)

Over all, we've had prompt, effective treatment when we need it. The things we've had to wait for, are all things that we can wait for, without harm. The doctors are conscientious and competent and I've got no complaints with this system.

I'm sure there must be horror stories - every country has them. We just haven't experienced them here.

 

I have to say that when DH had his accident (January 18, 2000, at 8:00 am), he received top-notch care at a teaching hospital (in Shreveport) that is part of Louisiana's former charity system. Because it's a teaching hospital, they had state-of-the-art equipment and procedures and whatever he needed. Was it perfect? no, he still got a MRSA while in ICU. Somebody touched their nose and then touched him. Because of the MRSA he sometimes went without eating (when I wasn't there - I had to go back to work after he was out of ICU, and he was there 11 and a half weeks before going to rehab for another 3 1/2 weeks) because the food service people were afraid to come into his room (because of the warning sign on the door) and left his food in the hallway, or stepped in and placed his tray on the bedtable, but out of his reach. There were whole TEAMS of doctors around him all the time, from medical students to the med school teachers and all stages of interns, residents... And I ended up paying very little, because I was employed by the school system and had (and still have) the same insurance that all teachers and administrators (cooks and janitors and busdrivers have a different plan) and state employees have (if they choose). Because it was a state hospital and state insurance, somehow they worked it out between them, and I got tons of notices that said "This is NOT a Bill!" but very few actual bills, and those I did get were greatly reduced. I don't remember applying for anything. The hospital wrote off tons of fees. Doctors donated tons off of their fees - and he had trauma specialists, ER specialists, orthopedic specialists, general surgeons, plastic surgeons, nuclear medicine, OT and PT specialists... and ALL levels of nurses from CNA, LPN, RN, PA, whatever kinds there are. And every one of them treated him as though he was special.

He had had a "disagreement over territory" with an 18-wheeler dump truck loaded with sand. The car he and our buddy were in (he was driving our buddy to the VA hospital for an appointment) was strewn for 100 yards in both directions along the highway. They were able to get our buddy out and ambulance him to the hospital, but it took them about 45 minutes to cut DH out and they med-evac'ed him to the hospital. (I think I had to pay the med-evac bill... eventually.) His left arm was almost amputated through the bicep with only the tricep muscle and skin holding it on - they reattached it, but about two inches shorter, but it functions today. His left knee/lower thighbone was shattered into about 25 pieces - they reassembled what was left and he can walk on it today (after a fashion - with a 3 1/2 inch lift on his shoe). His pelvis had an open-book fracture which they rodded and plated back together. Those were the major things. Then there were the minor things - his forehead/scalp was laid open, and his left eyelid was almost severed. You wouldn't even notice the scars. The eyeball was never touched, praise God! He has a messed up thumbnail, not quite sure how that happened, but the thumb still works. And he was picking pieces of rust and metal, paint chips, and glass out of his skin for years after, as it came to the surface. NO brain trauma, NO significant internal injuries - God was certainly with him the whole time.

I have absolutely no complaints about the medical care that was/is available to us.