Certain medical procedures in the USA

[Heracles 417]

On the other hand I don't know how anyone would risk their sight to save a few $$$$.

Don't even get me started on the ease of suing someone over BS here. Litigation is a huge problem for US doctors. Thousands of liberal lawyers would be out of jobs if the laws / system was to change to reflect the reasonable tort laws of other developed nations. Interesting how we don't see Michael Moore making a documentary about that hey.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A lot of the problem is the law suit happy nature of Americans. All procedures carry risks and there will always be a certain percentage of those that go wrong. It's a lot of peoples first reaction to sue and cash in if something goes wrong. That results in massive malpractice insurance premiums for doctors. That cost must be figured into the cost. It's also the reason why some types of doctors are in short supply. Finding a OB/GYN doctor to take care of a high risk pregnancy for example is a daunting task. It also causes doctors to try to "cover their azzes" and order tests that would normally not be run in an effort to reduce their risk of something unforeseen as the cause of a condition. Another reason is the government regulations involved. The reasons for the regulations are to protect us but it also runs up the costs.

The term "frivolous" is bandied about a lot in relation to malpractice lawsuits, and some of them may be - but I think the question needs to be asked as to what constitutes an acceptable level of risk during a procedure.

When I had exploratory neck surgery - I had to sign a waiver that said I understood that doing this procedure could result in X number of potential problems - in my case it was "chipped or broken teeth, perforated esophagus, damaged vocal cords etc". Does this then mean that if one of these things were to have happened to me - for whatever reason - that I should have no right to legal recourse? Understanding the risks is one thing - but a certain amount of trust is placed in medical professionals to know what they're doing and to take the greatest care to avoid possible complications. Luckily for me I was ok and the procedure went fine except from some chipped teeth from the tubes they shoved down my throat - but how would a person know for instance that a particular complication resulted from an unforseen circumstance, or a mistake on the part of the surgical team? Should you only be able to sue if a surgeon removes the wrong kidney, or an anesthetist gives you too much or too little anaesthesia?

Also I have to say I'm not too happy with the way in which the current government has gone out of its way to squash the public's right to legal appeal - not only in relation to healthcare, but also on privacy breaches in relation to telecommunications. Reminds me a little of that TSA thing a few years ago - where airport security would insert a "calling card" in your case to say that your bags had been searched and "we're not responsible if anything's missing".

Edited March 24, 2008 by Number 6

[HAL 9000 96]

Perhaps its because Moore is not in bed as a lobbyist paying off administrations like the one currently in office in order to keep the insurance system the way it is.

Liberal lawyers... lol...

[mawilson 2,133]

On the other hand I don't know how anyone would risk their sight to save a few $$$$.

I agree. I would never ever go to Colombia for laser surgery even if it was free.....

in fact, if it was free, I'd definitely not go!

What if something goes wrong? What if you need a follow-up?

[AlHayatZween 2]

yes, i agree...

i don't think anyone here is saying that the physicians or the specialists are to blame. certainly they have their hands tied just as much as the rest of us because they have to worry about their own malpractice insurance and all the regulations they are forced to comply with just to cover their own butts. i don't even think that doctors make as much $$ as they used to what with the high costs of education and the crazy amount they pay for their own insurance coverage.

i do believe that it is the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies themselves responsible for the mounting costs to the general public. it really doesn't make sense that the same exact antibiotic purchased here is 10 times the cost of that when purchased overseas. or an ultrasound here might cost thousands of dollars, where the same procedure with comparable equipment somewhere else might be $25.... it makes my head spin....

It's true that people come to the U.S. from all over the world for specialized treatments that aren't available anywhere else. But it says something about the U.S. system that people who can afford it are treated here, no matter where they come from, while American citizens who are uninsured are not.

i agree, Big Agnes.

sure people from overseas come here sometimes for treatment that they can find elsewhere... but these are also the upper crust that can afford it. not your everyday average Francois...

[Heracles 417]

Perhaps its because Moore is not in bed as a lobbyist paying off administrations like the one currently in office in order to keep the insurance system the way it is.

Liberal lawyers... lol...

His last documentary was on health care but he failed to address how lawyers have played a HUGE part in influencing the high costs associated with the American medical industry. It is stupid to blame the insurance companies or look at free healthcare services abroad yet ignore other key points which enable such services. The English law of tort, for example, is much more stringent than the US anything goes version. How many billions have been handed out for BS medical lawsuits?? Who do you think ends up paying for that..

Edited March 24, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[DeadPoolX 9]

It's the facility (hospital) charges that make people gasp. If you look at a hospital statement, the doctor fees are likely a fraction of the total bill.

I agree. I've seen many cases where a physician or surgeon would reduce or entirely waive their fee when their patient couldn't afford it, but the hospital didn't give a damn at all. That's probably one of the greatest reasons why physicians and nurses try to get patients out of the hospital as quick as they can -- the longer a patient is in there, the greater the bill is and no matter how much health insurance covers (if it does at all), it'll still be very expensive. Of course, another very legitimate reason for getting patients out of the hospital fast is that those who remain in the hospital for extended periods of time become increasingly vulnerable to infections, which can cause numerous complications.

Oh and just so Kathryn knows, I wasn't targeting her specifically. The reason I quoted her post was because it addressed something I wanted to talk about. That's all.

On the other hand I don't know how anyone would risk their sight to save a few $$$$.

I've often wondered that myself. It's great if you can get a deal, but for some reason, I wouldn't be all too eager to visit the "discount clinic" to get any kind of surgery performed on me.

The term "frivolous" is bandied about a lot in relation to malpractice lawsuits, and some of them may be - but I think the question needs to be asked as to what constitutes an acceptable level of risk during a procedure.

It should be within the realm of "common sense," but as we all know, those two words mean very little today. Basically, if a physician gives you a medication that effectively treats or cures your condition, but you get a relatively minor rash from it, you probably shouldn't sue. That would be considered "frivolous." The medication did it the job and even though you got a rash, it didn't do anything harmful to you; next time, tell your doctor about it and get a different medication, should you need something like that again. However, if a surgeon botches an operation or leaves a tool inside of you, then you have a good reason to commence with a lawsuit. All in all, most of these things seem fairly straightfoward.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

One thing that is great here, I must admit, is how cheap OTC meds are. You can get a big bottle of Kirkland (Costco's store brand) ibuprofen liqui-gels for something like $12. Some medications, such as Prilosec and Zyrtec, were top-tier prescription drugs less than a decade ago. Now you can get the same thing (at Costco anyway) without a prescription for about 1/10 the cost.

Can you tell I worship at the Costco altar?

[*julez* 124]

One thing that is great here, I must admit, is how cheap OTC meds are. You can get a big bottle of Kirkland (Costco's store brand) ibuprofen liqui-gels for something like $12. Some medications, such as Prilosec and Zyrtec, were top-tier prescription drugs less than a decade ago. Now you can get the same thing (at Costco anyway) without a prescription for about 1/10 the cost.

Can you tell I worship at the Costco altar?

Does Joyce know you have forsaken her hair helmet for Costco?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The term "frivolous" is bandied about a lot in relation to malpractice lawsuits, and some of them may be - but I think the question needs to be asked as to what constitutes an acceptable level of risk during a procedure.

It should be within the realm of "common sense," but as we all know, those two words mean very little today. Basically, if a physician gives you a medication that effectively treats or cures your condition, but you get a relatively minor rash from it, you probably shouldn't sue. That would be considered "frivolous." The medication did it the job and even though you got a rash, it didn't do anything harmful to you; next time, tell your doctor about it and get a different medication, should you need something like that again. However, if a surgeon botches an operation or leaves a tool inside of you, then you have a good reason to commence with a lawsuit. All in all, most of these things seem fairly straightfoward.

I agree - but I don't think its always very clear. To use my example - I got off that operating table and within a week went down with a serious chest infection from a perforated esophagus, or ended up with a voice like Clint Eastwood (post throat cancer) - I might have been aware of the risk that this might happen via the aforementioned disclaimer, but there's a pretty wide latitude as to how those complications might have come about.

Should the health industry be protected from such things? I not sure its all that clear cut.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

One thing that is great here, I must admit, is how cheap OTC meds are. You can get a big bottle of Kirkland (Costco's store brand) ibuprofen liqui-gels for something like $12. Some medications, such as Prilosec and Zyrtec, were top-tier prescription drugs less than a decade ago. Now you can get the same thing (at Costco anyway) without a prescription for about 1/10 the cost.

Can you tell I worship at the Costco altar?

Does Joyce know you have forsaken her hair helmet for Costco?

Actually, Costco worship is a component of Joyce helmet worship. She gets one of her helmet paste components (I won't divulge which one, of course) from Costco at a substantial discount.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Missed out an important modifier

I agree - but I don't think its always very clear. To use my example - If I got off that operating table and within a week went down with a serious chest infection from a perforated esophagus, or ended up with a voice like Clint Eastwood (post throat cancer) - I might have been aware of the risk that this might happen via the aforementioned disclaimer, but there's a pretty wide latitude as to how those complications might have come about.

Should the health industry be protected from such things? I not sure its all that clear cut.

[HAL 9000 96]

On the other hand I don't know how anyone would risk their sight to save a few $$$$.

I agree. I would never ever go to Colombia for laser surgery even if it was free.....

in fact, if it was free, I'd definitely not go!

What if something goes wrong? What if you need a follow-up?

The places I've checked out actually offer BETTER care than in the US, including follow up, for 1/4 of the US Price, with US trained physicians, at well-stocked Hospitals that are not teeming with ambulance chasers.

With that particular procedure I think it best to wait for more long term effects from how the cornea reshapes and how the lens responds.

[HAL 9000 96]

Perhaps its because Moore is not in bed as a lobbyist paying off administrations like the one currently in office in order to keep the insurance system the way it is.

Liberal lawyers... lol...

His last documentary was on health care but he failed to address how lawyers have played a HUGE part in influencing the high costs associated with the American medical industry. It is stupid to blame the insurance companies or look at free healthcare services abroad yet ignore other key points which enable such services. The English law of tort, for example, is much more stringent than the US anything goes version. How many billions have been handed out for BS medical lawsuits?? Who do you think ends up paying for that..

Yes... it is all a matter of semantics is it not?

Perhaps its the lawyers representing the big insurance companies and their profits that should alarm anyone with a clear understanding of how much money these bozos rake in with the liberal blessing of our current government.

As for the documentary... well, maybe you can write Moore about that particular issue. And perhaps think about the domestic case instead of liberalizing your mind to the tune of foreign nations' health care systems that have no effect on our industry-driven care system where the patient is never in first place. Maybe that's what the documentary was all about, but if lawyers pick your fancy then there are other documentaries by Moore that address those kinds of animals. Then all you have to do is add 1+1 and make conclusions of your own.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Moore is a polemicist. He simplifies his reportage to make general points. Nothing wrong with his points.