Frustration with American Medical System
-
RJOberg wrote:
WHY is a hospital ...
Money. They probably don't have a replacement, as long as the person is there, I guess someone pays for it. If another person comes along who needs "life saving machines" they will probably decide it is time. X|
V. wrote:
Money. They probably don't have a replacement, as long as the person is there, I guess someone pays for it. If another person comes along who needs "life saving machines" they will probably decide it is time
I seriously doubt that. There are basically much less self-serving reasons (plural) which hospitals and/or doctors do resist early discharges. You scenario is an unlikely and perhaps very unlikely edge case. And the most recent post by the OP would demonstrate that there are in fact individuals who are not self serving.
-
I believe this is to do with the US medical system whose sole purpose is to get as much money as possible out of the insurance industry. Having worked with US, UK and European clinical data - I can tell you that the US medical system is hugely bloated purely because of the greed of those running it. Having seen my mother die in a European hospital where, thankfully, she was left to slip away with some dignity without all the tubes and machines that you talk about - I sympathise with your difficult position:rose:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
GuyThiebaut wrote:
I believe this is to do with the US medical system whose sole purpose is to get as much money as possible out of the insurance industry.
That isn't true. Most doctors, nurses and patient support personal are, on average, mostly interested in providing patient care. And all of those are part of the medical industry. There are many other individuals such as janitors and bookkeepers whose jobs are either not impacted at all nor little but getting "as much money as possible" from insurance. But they too are part of the medical industry. There are many companies not involved directly in patient care yet providing patient products whose income is not tied directly to insurance payments but rather, like many companies, to sales. Yet they too are part of the medical industry. In general the only people specifically concerned are share holders, executive officers and other high ranking officials whose income is tied that. They form a small minority.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
I can tell you that the US medical system is hugely bloated purely because of the greed of those running it.
Then perhaps you should publish that information and\or do a whistle blower expose because the absolute proof that you suggest that you have would be of interest to many people. And it would certainly contradict the vast array of studies for many years done by many different groups with many different roles and objectives who have found a very wide array of reasons for costs.
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
I believe this is to do with the US medical system whose sole purpose is to get as much money as possible out of the insurance industry.
That isn't true. Most doctors, nurses and patient support personal are, on average, mostly interested in providing patient care. And all of those are part of the medical industry. There are many other individuals such as janitors and bookkeepers whose jobs are either not impacted at all nor little but getting "as much money as possible" from insurance. But they too are part of the medical industry. There are many companies not involved directly in patient care yet providing patient products whose income is not tied directly to insurance payments but rather, like many companies, to sales. Yet they too are part of the medical industry. In general the only people specifically concerned are share holders, executive officers and other high ranking officials whose income is tied that. They form a small minority.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
I can tell you that the US medical system is hugely bloated purely because of the greed of those running it.
Then perhaps you should publish that information and\or do a whistle blower expose because the absolute proof that you suggest that you have would be of interest to many people. And it would certainly contradict the vast array of studies for many years done by many different groups with many different roles and objectives who have found a very wide array of reasons for costs.
Much of the US medical system is funded by the medical insurance that people have. Because of this much of the clinical sector in the US see the insurance companies as an endless purse from which they can help themselves - consequently medical insurance in the US can be very high and full of exclusions. Did you read my post? - I have worked within the medical insurance industry and it is quite clear that the cost of medical interventions in the US are way higher than in the UK. It is actually quite easy to reduce medical costs in the US because there is so much over-prescription and over charging whereas in the UK it is a lot harder to save money - as the NHS, on the whole and from a clinical perspective, is excellent value for money.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
V. wrote:
Money. They probably don't have a replacement, as long as the person is there, I guess someone pays for it. If another person comes along who needs "life saving machines" they will probably decide it is time
I seriously doubt that. There are basically much less self-serving reasons (plural) which hospitals and/or doctors do resist early discharges. You scenario is an unlikely and perhaps very unlikely edge case. And the most recent post by the OP would demonstrate that there are in fact individuals who are not self serving.
Perhaps my example is a little "on the edge", but trust me when I´m saying hospitals will keep their beds occuppied and will try to keep their machines running (scanners and other examination machines) as much as possible. (That means keeping you longer then necessary, ordering expensive eximanations when not called for, etc...) Hospitals used to be institutions of care (often run by nuns or so), but nowadays they´re more and more run by managers as a real company with money as the primary driving factor.
-
Perhaps my example is a little "on the edge", but trust me when I´m saying hospitals will keep their beds occuppied and will try to keep their machines running (scanners and other examination machines) as much as possible. (That means keeping you longer then necessary, ordering expensive eximanations when not called for, etc...) Hospitals used to be institutions of care (often run by nuns or so), but nowadays they´re more and more run by managers as a real company with money as the primary driving factor.
V. wrote:
I´m saying hospitals will keep their beds occuppied and will try to keep their machines running (scanners and other examination machines) as much as possible. (That means keeping you longer then necessary, ordering expensive eximanations when not called for, etc...)
First hospitals don't order tests - doctors do. Second some of that comes from self-preservation. Because doctors need to back up their opinions with more tests to avoid the cases where malpractice come up. Third although there probably is test inflation to inflate bills that isn't to keep beds full nor does it necessarily lead to beds being full. And very much is an edge case that they would attempt to deny a patient request to leave based on that.
V. wrote:
Hospitals used to be institutions of care (often run by nuns or so)
Hospitals still are run by nuns - probably about 10% of all hospitals in the US.
V. wrote:
they´re more and more run by managers as a real company with money as the primary
All hospitals profit and non-profit must have a non-negative income flow to stay open. But REGARDLESS administrators do not administer health care - doctors do.
-
Much of the US medical system is funded by the medical insurance that people have. Because of this much of the clinical sector in the US see the insurance companies as an endless purse from which they can help themselves - consequently medical insurance in the US can be very high and full of exclusions. Did you read my post? - I have worked within the medical insurance industry and it is quite clear that the cost of medical interventions in the US are way higher than in the UK. It is actually quite easy to reduce medical costs in the US because there is so much over-prescription and over charging whereas in the UK it is a lot harder to save money - as the NHS, on the whole and from a clinical perspective, is excellent value for money.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Much of the US medical system is funded by the medical insurance that people have.
Not sure what you mean by "medical insurance" but since the vast majority of people do not pay themselves because either they are covered by some plan or they don't pay at all this point is hardly news. However private insurance pays less that %50.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Because of this much of the clinical sector in the US see the insurance companies as an endless purse
It is the ONLY purse. There is no other in the most liberal term of "insurance". Where exactly do you think that they would get their money otherwise?
GuyThiebaut wrote:
and it is quite clear that the cost of medical interventions in the US are way higher than in the UK.
You however made a conclusion from that and decided that the only possible reason was basic intent of malfeasance on the entire medical industry. And that does NOT follow. And as I already pointed out it isn't even logical because there is no direct correlation.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
It is actually quite easy to reduce medical costs in the US...
Anyone that thinks anything is "easy" in terms of very large organizational structures needs to get out more and/or do quite a bit of reading.
-
V. wrote:
I´m saying hospitals will keep their beds occuppied and will try to keep their machines running (scanners and other examination machines) as much as possible. (That means keeping you longer then necessary, ordering expensive eximanations when not called for, etc...)
First hospitals don't order tests - doctors do. Second some of that comes from self-preservation. Because doctors need to back up their opinions with more tests to avoid the cases where malpractice come up. Third although there probably is test inflation to inflate bills that isn't to keep beds full nor does it necessarily lead to beds being full. And very much is an edge case that they would attempt to deny a patient request to leave based on that.
V. wrote:
Hospitals used to be institutions of care (often run by nuns or so)
Hospitals still are run by nuns - probably about 10% of all hospitals in the US.
V. wrote:
they´re more and more run by managers as a real company with money as the primary
All hospitals profit and non-profit must have a non-negative income flow to stay open. But REGARDLESS administrators do not administer health care - doctors do.
Perhaps US hospitals are different... here it is NOT as you say...
-
Perhaps US hospitals are different... here it is NOT as you say...
V. wrote:
Perhaps US hospitals are different...
here it is NOT as you say...The OP however is in the US and it seems likely that the comments in that post were directed to the US medical system. One can be sure medical systems in other places vary quite a bit from the US and from each other.
-
V. wrote:
Perhaps US hospitals are different...
here it is NOT as you say...The OP however is in the US and it seems likely that the comments in that post were directed to the US medical system. One can be sure medical systems in other places vary quite a bit from the US and from each other.
it is not a win-lose situation, you´re perfectly entitled on your own opinion.
-
it is not a win-lose situation, you´re perfectly entitled on your own opinion.