Certain medical procedures in the USA

[mawilson 2,133]

If I got off that operating table and ... ended up with a voice like Clint Eastwood (post throat cancer)

Who wouldn't want to sound like Clint Eastwood?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If I got off that operating table and ... ended up with a voice like Clint Eastwood (post throat cancer)

Who wouldn't want to sound like Clint Eastwood?

Probably no-one - before he got the cancer...

[panamania79 2]

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.

You have a good point.And how can we forget about certain "ambulance chaser" law firms who are advertising all over the place.I see it all the time.

[*julez* 124]

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.

Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like cult related activity. Do you and Joyce live in a compound, by any chance?

[Empress of Groovy 373]

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.

Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like cult related activity. Do you and Joyce live in a compound, by any chance?

MegaJoyce 2008 is coming up. For a small donation, you could see Dave "Baby" Cortez and his whistling organ.

Joyce and I don't see each other all that much. She is frustrated that I resist the triple perm, although I do admit a weakness for fondue.

[CarolynRitesh 0]

Last summer, I had the good fortune to have just returned from the US to India where I ended up in the hospital for 10 days and had two surgeries. The total cost was $5,000 and the care, room, facilities, etc. were all top notch. If I had gone through the same thing in the US, it would probably have cost about $75,000 and would have been kicked out of the hospital very early on. I am thankful that I was here when everything happened and terrified at what I am going back to in regard to health care in the US. I can understand and appreciate why India has become one of the places for 'Medical Tourism', Kazakstan on the other hand, I would rather be caught dead in than operated on... It depends on where you are in the world what the cost versus care ratio is, and the US is TOO expensive...

[Heracles 417]

Kazakstan on the other hand, I would rather be caught dead in than operated on... It depends on where you are in the world what the cost versus care ratio is, and the US is TOO expensive...

Anyone seen the movie Babel..

[DeadPoolX 9]

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

In theory, you're right. There's nothing wrong with his points. However, the problem with Moore is as you said -- he simplifies (or rather, oversimplifies) his so-called documentaries.

If Moore wants to present his side of the argument, with whatever evidence he has, that's fine. I have no argument with him for doing that. My issue is when he purposefuly neglects to mention the opposite side (or when he does, he skews it in favor of his viewpoint) and twists factual data around to fit whatever it is he's currently presenting. He's done this with every single documentary he's made and yet, the public still tends to view his work as "objective" for the most part, which it is far from.

Moore's most recent film (I believe it's called "Sicko")in which he attempts to tear down the American healthcare system and prop up the Canadian healthcare system as a "beacon of shining light" is just another example of his extremely one-sided coverage. My wife, who is Canadian, has said that Moore had a very warped viewpoint of the Canadian healthcare system. Her sister and brother-in-law told my wife, when they saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" a few years ago, that the entire movie was incredibly biased -- and they are hardly fans of the Bush Administration or the War in Iraq.

To be fair, I know Moore isn't the only celebrity who does this. Film directors, book authors, magazine editors, and a whole lot of people in the media who hold some influence over the masses like to use their clout to project what they feel is "the truth" or "reality" without ever considering more than one side to the argument. It's a shame too, since there's far too many people in the world who take at face value whatever they watch, read or hear.

[HAL 9000 96]

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

In theory, you're right. There's nothing wrong with his points. However, the problem with Moore is as you said -- he simplifies (or rather, oversimplifies) his so-called documentaries.

If Moore wants to present his side of the argument, with whatever evidence he has, that's fine. I have no argument with him for doing that. My issue is when he purposefuly neglects to mention the opposite side (or when he does, he skews it in favor of his viewpoint) and twists factual data around to fit whatever it is he's currently presenting. He's done this with every single documentary he's made and yet, the public still tends to view his work as "objective" for the most part, which it is far from.

Moore's most recent film (I believe it's called "Sicko")in which he attempts to tear down the American healthcare system and prop up the Canadian healthcare system as a "beacon of shining light" is just another example of his extremely one-sided coverage. My wife, who is Canadian, has said that Moore had a very warped viewpoint of the Canadian healthcare system. Her sister and brother-in-law told my wife, when they saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" a few years ago, that the entire movie was incredibly biased -- and they are hardly fans of the Bush Administration or the War in Iraq.

To be fair, I know Moore isn't the only celebrity who does this. Film directors, book authors, magazine editors, and a whole lot of people in the media who hold some influence over the masses like to use their clout to project what they feel is "the truth" or "reality" without ever considering more than one side to the argument. It's a shame too, since there's far too many people in the world who take at face value whatever they watch, read or hear.

It goes to show you that you need to jolt people in order to get them to start questioning the realities we allow those in power to construct for us. Hence the exaggeration from Moore, in my opinion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

In theory, you're right. There's nothing wrong with his points. However, the problem with Moore is as you said -- he simplifies (or rather, oversimplifies) his so-called documentaries.

If Moore wants to present his side of the argument, with whatever evidence he has, that's fine. I have no argument with him for doing that. My issue is when he purposefuly neglects to mention the opposite side (or when he does, he skews it in favor of his viewpoint) and twists factual data around to fit whatever it is he's currently presenting. He's done this with every single documentary he's made and yet, the public still tends to view his work as "objective" for the most part, which it is far from.

Moore's most recent film (I believe it's called "Sicko")in which he attempts to tear down the American healthcare system and prop up the Canadian healthcare system as a "beacon of shining light" is just another example of his extremely one-sided coverage. My wife, who is Canadian, has said that Moore had a very warped viewpoint of the Canadian healthcare system. Her sister and brother-in-law told my wife, when they saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" a few years ago, that the entire movie was incredibly biased -- and they are hardly fans of the Bush Administration or the War in Iraq.

To be fair, I know Moore isn't the only celebrity who does this. Film directors, book authors, magazine editors, and a whole lot of people in the media who hold some influence over the masses like to use their clout to project what they feel is "the truth" or "reality" without ever considering more than one side to the argument. It's a shame too, since there's far too many people in the world who take at face value whatever they watch, read or hear.

Moore's main beef (going back to the early 90's when I first saw him on TV Nation) has always been with corporate crime/ethics and how it affects "the common man". We saw Sicko recently - he doesn't criticise the Canadian, UK and French health systems in the negative - but he does point to general disparities in, for example, the cost of living between these countries and the US as it pertains to healthcare. He does cherrypick the people he uses in his interviews - but short of them being staged (which I don't believe is the case) he raises the point that its really only in this country, and under the US health system that you would be faced with the scenario of having to declare bankruptcy as a result of hospital bills, or having to weigh up how much you can afford to pay out of pocket to have a finger reattached; or have your child die en-route to a different hospital because the nearest one to where you live isn't covered under your plan. I think that's the point he's making. Obviously there are more and deeper issues than can be covered within a 2 hour theatrical run-time, but it does get people talking.

[Flames9_RN 358]

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?

Actually Columbia is a world leader in it!!! And very well respected!! But if something does go wrong, and ur back in the USA, your hooped. As I believe one has follow up appts over a sep period of time. But I know people that go down there on assignment, get the eye surgery done and they are happier than pigs in mud, and brag about the great service

[SnowyTater 0]

I missed the new Moore movie I've become so much more squishy over the past couple years anyway on asserting any actual views...I hate it, you hear a billion different explanations and sides to everything, don't know what to believe. I hope I grow out of it soon and just have the courage to start calling some sides complete BS, but ah well.

What's everybody think about all the medicine commercials on these days? Or how it seems like tons more money is being filtered into I guess you could say 'luxury' sort of drugs - any sort of mood disorder, restless leg syndrome, erectile dysfunction, etc. Not saying there aren't a bunch of cases where people legitly need those medicines and that good research shouldn't be going into that, but really when it gets to the point (and I think it's gotten to the point) where it seems like more people you know are ON some sort of medication or another, than not, it's gone way overboard.

I guess it'd be alright (in an immediate, small scale sense) if everyone had great insurance for them to charge whatever they wanted. the insurance companies then have to shell out tons but the pharmaceuticals and hospitals make tons, everybody makes thousands and thousands of dollars and the little guy is mostly covered so what do we care. I guess probably money and currency is all kind of fictitious these days anyway - we definately don't have the gold to back all this up do we?

Only of course I'm sure t does dire and horrible things to the economy that I wouldn't even begin to understand, to 'allow' people to make that much money, plus as far as the social system goes it sucks to have these jerks running around with 18 gazillion times more than everyone else. I agree that CEOs and definately doctors and researchers and all these people work very hard and I'm all for capitalism and profit and even exponential profit (gotta have money to make money), but yeh I bet if you look at the margins it is just terrifying, probably in comparison to other countries too Maybe not wise to socially create these "sharks" to run around thinking they can do whatever they want.

I will say I got all my wisdom teeth pulled a couple months ago - only medical thing I've ever had done. It wasn't nearly as bad a price as I thought it'd be. It was "only" like...$900 or something, in all, and we didn't have to pay a thing, insurance covered completely.

So I wonder which fields of medicine (general, ear nose and throat, OBGYN, eyes, dentists, whatever) or I guess I should say which medicines and procedures are crazily overcharged the most? I think any sort of doctor totally deserves all of his paycheck, has to be the toughest job. But yeh I wonder if there's a discrepancy between the fields?

[MrsCat 6]

So I wonder which fields of medicine (general, ear nose and throat, OBGYN, eyes, dentists, whatever) or I guess I should say which medicines and procedures are crazily overcharged the most? I think any sort of doctor totally deserves all of his paycheck, has to be the toughest job. But yeh I wonder if there's a discrepancy between the fields?

In Canada, dentists and vets have the corner stone on taking-it-up-the-assage! I had to go to the vet and dentist today. Miss Chipper (the cat) needed a tooth removed and antibiotics. That cost $1600. Apparently taking out a tooth is called "surgery".

Went to the dentist to have my tooth examined (which needs a root canal) while Miss Chips was in "surgery". $1400 for the root canal and $2500 for the impending crown. Oh and the receptionist said as I was leaving "budget a couple hundred for anything else that comes up." hahahahahaha

So fortunately I have insurance to cover most of my dental bills. But still, I don't know how people can afford to have stuff go wrong when they don't have private insurance.

[almaty 19]

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.

Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like cult related activity. Do you and Joyce live in a compound, by any chance?

MegaJoyce 2008 is coming up. For a small donation, you could see Dave "Baby" Cortez and his whistling organ.

Joyce and I don't see each other all that much. She is frustrated that I resist the triple perm, although I do admit a weakness for fondue.

Dave "Baby" Cortez and his whistling organ...sister have you ever played the whistling organ? B)

[DeadPoolX 9]

What's everybody think about all the medicine commercials on these days? Or how it seems like tons more money is being filtered into I guess you could say 'luxury' sort of drugs - any sort of mood disorder, restless leg syndrome, erectile dysfunction, etc. Not saying there aren't a bunch of cases where people legitly need those medicines and that good research shouldn't be going into that, but really when it gets to the point (and I think it's gotten to the point) where it seems like more people you know are ON some sort of medication or another, than not, it's gone way overboard.

I actually think the numerous medicine commercials are good -- at least so far as commercials are considered. I tend to hate commercials as a general rule, so I try to avoid any and all of them, regardless of what they're about. Unfortunately, I still see some.

The reason I think the medicine commercials are good is patients see these medicines, find out a basic idea of what they do and also hear some of the side effects. Obviously, not everything is told to them, but now that a patient has heard the name of the drug, he or she can easily look it up on the Internet. This way the patient can go to their physician armed with some knowledge, instead of being completely clueless.