The best health care in the world

[dogtowner]

Factual link?

actual link as opposed to what you provide

England gets hammered for being too like here

 

[Openmind]

actual link as opposed to what you provide

England gets hammered for being too like here

Did you read that article (or any other regarding that subject?)

How can you read that, and jump to the conclusion that European countries let their newborn to die?

This is another sign of your bad faith. SOME European (but mostly in the Eastern block) have not adopted the WHO criteria for life birth. . .However, the WHO criteria refers to very premature births (28 weeks for the WHO criteria, while many country refer to even earlier premature births of 22 weeks) and to newborn who do not meet the "standards" of life birth, either the WHO ones, or the ones that are particular to some countries.

However, all those ONLY refer to very premature birth, and newborn who cannot sustain life on their own. While it can affect to SOME extend the statistics of PERINATAL mortality, it doesn't affect the INFANT mortality significantly. And. . . by the way, BELGIUM does follow the WHO criteria.

As Wikepedia states, there are differences between perinatal mortality and child mortality:

Perinatal mortality only includes deaths between the foetal viability (22 weeks gestation) and the end of the 7th day after delivery.
Neonatal mortality only includes deaths in the first 28 days of life.
Postneonatal mortality only includes deaths after 28 days of life but before one year.
Child mortality includes deaths within the first five years after birth.

When you find an interesting article, you might actually want to READ it for comprehension, not just skim over it to find "support" for your outlandish theories!

 

[dogtowner]

Did you read that article (or any other regarding that subject?)

How can you read that, and jump to the conclusion that European countries let their newborn to die?

This is another sign of your bad faith. SOME European (but mostly in the Eastern block) have not adopted the WHO criteria for life birth. . .However, the WHO criteria refers to very premature births (28 weeks for the WHO criteria, while many country refer to even earlier premature births of 22 weeks) and to newborn who do not meet the "standards" of life birth, either the WHO ones, or the ones that are particular to some countries.

However, all those ONLY refer to very premature birth, and newborn who cannot sustain life on their own. While it can affect to SOME extend the statistics of PERINATAL mortality, it doesn't affect the INFANT mortality significantly. And. . . by the way, BELGIUM does follow the WHO criteria.

As Wikepedia states, there are differences between perinatal mortality and child mortality:



When you find an interesting article, you might actually want to READ it for comprehension, not just skim over it to find "support" for your outlandish theories!

Its mainly the moral relativism in effect that you fail to note as the source of the matter. I especially like how one can be considered stillborn after WEEKS.

 

[Openmind]

Its mainly the moral relativism in effect that you fail to note as the source of the matter. I especially like how one can be considered stillborn after WEEKS.

No dear, not in Europe. . . in USSR, in the past, yes.

Go back and do your reading!

 

[dogtowner]

No dear, not in Europe. . . in USSR, in the past, yes.

Go back and do your reading!

you debate milligrams and other minutia to explain away the desire to not spend a buck. ALL of europe does this you just don't agree. looks your niece was two ounces away from being tossed. lucky her.

 

[Openmind]

you debate milligrams and other minutia to explain away the desire to not spend a buck. ALL of europe does this you just don't agree. looks your niece was two ounces away from being tossed. lucky her.

No, she wasn't. . .because she was breathing and reacting on her own. There are standard "criterias" that matter. AND, the desire of the parents is also taken into account. My niece and her husband were willing to take the risk to have a severely disabled child to care for for the rest of their life. They had the income to support such a child, and the Belgian government had enough of safety net to facilitate raising a severely handicap child.

AND. . .the Belgian health care was WILLING TO COVER the expenses of keeping this very fragile premature baby in the hospital for AS LONG AS SHE STAYED ALIVE, without looking at the hundred of thousands of dollars it cost. And, my niece didn't have to work to support her other child, so she was able to be in the intensive care neonatal unit for 20 (sometimes she wouldn't leave the hospital for 3 or four days) hours in a row, holding the child on her chest for hours, singing to her, breathing with her, praying that she would gain strength, even when she seemed to slip away, with those tubes coming in and out of her in every direction, looking more like an alien creature than a real child.

MANY other people tried this. . .and many had to let go of their hope. BUT, the hospital in those "socialized health care" countries NEVER made them give up, never forced them to make a choice between the cost of keeping a child alive, and the ability to care for their other children.

Read the article, and stop spinning.

 

[Dr.Who]

and if they don't "dump" the patient, who pays the tab?

In the majority of cases when a person without insurance comes to the ER that person himself is billed and pays the tab over time.

At other times medicad or medicare pays the tab.

Sometimes donations are made to the hospital to pick up the tabs.

And the remainder accounts for about 2.5% of health care spending in this country.

Clearly the amount of unpaid hospital bills is pretty much a non-issue - well it should be a non-issue.

 

[PLC1]

In the majority of cases when a person without insurance comes to the ER that person himself is billed and pays the tab over time.

At other times medicad or medicare pays the tab.

Sometimes donations are made to the hospital to pick up the tabs.

And the remainder accounts for about 2.5% of health care spending in this country.

Clearly the amount of unpaid hospital bills is pretty much a non-issue - well it should be a non-issue.

I agree that it should be a non issue.

I'm not so sure it really is.

 

[Gipper]

In the majority of cases when a person without insurance comes to the ER that person himself is billed and pays the tab over time.

At other times medicad or medicare pays the tab.

Sometimes donations are made to the hospital to pick up the tabs.

And the remainder accounts for about 2.5% of health care spending in this country.

Clearly the amount of unpaid hospital bills is pretty much a non-issue - well it should be a non-issue.

Not sure you are right about that Doc.

My brother-in-law heads the collection unit of a large hospital. He claims to have a huge back log of unpaid ER visits. And that many people do not think they need to pay their medical bills....(the thinking could be Obama will pay them). Many go uncollected, but I have no idea what that number is. If this is representative of the whole, then unpaid medical bills is a bigger issue than you claim.

And, as a small landlord I always screen prospective tenants for collections. I have found a high percentage of tenants in my area have not paid their medical bills. I would guess its at least 20% and much higher for minorities.

I know this is anecdotal, but it may be an indication of reality.

 

[PLC1]

Not sure you are right about that Doc.

My brother-in-law heads the collection unit of a large hospital. He claims to have a huge back log of unpaid ER visits. And that many people do not think they need to pay their medical bills....(the thinking could be Obama will pay them). Many go uncollected, but I have no idea what that number is. If this is representative of the whole, then unpaid medical bills is a bigger issue than you claim.

And, as a small landlord I always screen prospective tenants for collections. I have found a high percentage of tenants in my area have not paid their medical bills. I would guess its at least 20% and much higher for minorities.

I know this is anecdotal, but it may be an indication of reality.

It is a pretty good indication, having come from personal experience.

People don't pay medical bills, and the hospital is going to do what? Repossess their bandages?

People have been expecting Obama to pay their medical bills ever since he was born! (yes, that was satire. I hope you didn't wonder)

 

[dogtowner]

Not sure you are right about that Doc.

My brother-in-law heads the collection unit of a large hospital. He claims to have a huge back log of unpaid ER visits. And that many people do not think they need to pay their medical bills....(the thinking could be Obama will pay them). Many go uncollected, but I have no idea what that number is. If this is representative of the whole, then unpaid medical bills is a bigger issue than you claim.

And, as a small landlord I always screen prospective tenants for collections. I have found a high percentage of tenants in my area have not paid their medical bills. I would guess its at least 20% and much higher for minorities.

I know this is anecdotal, but it may be an indication of reality.

every business has deadbeats to deal with and medical is no exception. You pursue the responsible party to the extent the law allows and what you cannot recover goes to overhead aspects of everything else they do. But without the additional overhead of a government bureaucracy.

 

[Dr.Who]

Not sure you are right about that Doc.

My brother-in-law heads the collection unit of a large hospital. He claims to have a huge back log of unpaid ER visits. And that many people do not think they need to pay their medical bills....(the thinking could be Obama will pay them). Many go uncollected, but I have no idea what that number is. If this is representative of the whole, then unpaid medical bills is a bigger issue than you claim.

And, as a small landlord I always screen prospective tenants for collections. I have found a high percentage of tenants in my area have not paid their medical bills. I would guess its at least 20% and much higher for minorities.

I know this is anecdotal, but it may be an indication of reality.

If your brother is in collections then he starts with the pile that already excludes those who have or will pay their bills - it is not representative of the whole but only of the non-payers.

Likewise there may be a correlation between people who rent and belong to whatever group would matter and not paying. Again starting with a non-random sample is unlikely to give representative results.

But stepping back and looking at the big picture on 35B in medical bills starts off as uninsured. Given how much is spent total on health care in this country that is a small number. Then medicaid and medicare pays half of that. End result - 2.5%.

 

[Dr.Who]

It is a pretty good indication, having come from personal experience.

People don't pay medical bills, and the hospital is going to do what? Repossess their bandages?

People have been expecting Obama to pay their medical bills ever since he was born! (yes, that was satire. I hope you didn't wonder)

Clearly the statistics show that your use of the word "people" is a generalization and that overall most uninsured people do in fact pay their bills. 95% of them in fact.

My experience at ER's is that when a person does not have an insurance card the first thing they do is ask for a credit card. The number of people that do not have a credit card is not large so we can understand right from the start why most bills are paid.

Of those remaining that do not have insurance or a credit card most of them must also pay their bills a little each month.

 

[Dr.Who]

every business has deadbeats to deal with and medical is no exception. You pursue the responsible party to the extent the law allows and what you cannot recover goes to overhead aspects of everything else they do. But without the additional overhead of a government bureaucracy.

That is exactly right - the hospital is not special and this is about the same for every industry.

 

[Gipper]

If your brother is in collections then he starts with the pile that already excludes those who have or will pay their bills - it is not representative of the whole but only of the non-payers.

Likewise there may be a correlation between people who rent and belong to whatever group would matter and not paying. Again starting with a non-random sample is unlikely to give representative results.

But stepping back and looking at the big picture on 35B in medical bills starts off as uninsured. Given how much is spent total on health care in this country that is a small number. Then medicaid and medicare pays half of that. End result - 2.5%.

I suppose that is correct Doc.

I wonder if bad debts are rising.