free our health care now

[bio-chem]

The average vascular surgeon, general and cardio thoracic surgeon works 90 or more hours a week here in my hospital, the radiologist half that, yet their salaries are comprable. Per hour worked, the radiologist is cleaning up house. When a stent placed by an interventional radiologist goes bad at midnight, they call the surgeons ( or myself if they are my patient), they ( or I ) come in at all hours of the night. It's pulling teeth to get the interventional guys to come in to clean up their mess if the mess doesnt' happen between 9 and 5. Those are just the fact from the trenches.

per hour worked, the surgeons put in far more sweat and agony than any radiologist. They also have longer years of training vs a radiolgist and have to accrue higher amounts of debt and defer repayment for a longer period of time. Of course my hours are close to 85 a week but in a system that rewards procedures vs thinking, I knew my salary would not come close to any of those specialties. Luckily my business ventures ( I own and rent commercial real estate ) more than quadruples my physician salary.

And really think about the 90 hours or more if you worked six am to six pm 7 days a week that is only 84 hours a week.

whats your point?

 

[bandaidwoman]

whats your point?

You post salaries for a surgeon and radiolgist that are comprable but have no idea the much longer hours one speciality is putting in to make the same amount of money. My point is that radiologists make more than any other specialty because the work some of the least amount of hours and rack up the same salary, and when they do dabble in surgery via interventional, they don't step up to the plate to handle the complications like the other doctors and specialists.

A radiologist makes more per hour than most surgeons ( or any specialty for that matter) so they are the highest paid doctors in the field. Which is why , radiology and not neurosurgery is the hardest fellowship to get into, follwed by dermatology, both highly paid with the least amount of work hours. (and it sure doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a dermatologist..sorry.). Why insurances pay a radiologist more for looking at a cat scan ( that a surgeon is equally adept at looking at ) than intricate complicated surgery that lasts an hour is one of the many reforms that is needed. ( In fact the AMA is looking into that). Insurances are starting to look at outsourcing radiology readings to say India since many radiologists are not coming down on their prices and sees that as a quick way to reduce medical cost. Can't blame them. So remember this, soon your private insurance carrier may be having your wife's mammogram read by someone in calcutta.......

The reason I have some problems with radiologists is that in the ICU, where I overread xrays all the time, close to 20% of the readings by radiologists, even in the academic setting are wrong.,,( the patient has a pneumothorax when the official reading was none, or the patient has fulminant ards and chf, when it was read as clear etc. ) And since most laymen don't believe this there are numerous studies that support my experience..

For instance, there are studies that show our overreads by primary docs are usually more accurate

Radiology (Position Paper) -- Policy & Advocacy -- American Academy of Family Physicians

Studies of discordance between radiologists for readings of chest x-rays have shown disagreements for 18 to 57 percent of readings.58-65 Disagreements between radiologists for a variety of radiographs have been reported to occur between 3-4.4 percent of readings.66-68 Bergus and colleagues found that 35 percent of discordant readings were ultimately determined to have been correctly interpreted by the family physician...

I don't see surgeons making mistakes 18-57% of the time, can you imagine his malpractice...

another study
JAMA -- Cranial Computed Tomography Interpretation in Acute Stroke: Physician Accuracy in Determining Eligibility for Thrombolytic Therapy, April 22, 1998, Schriger et al. 279 (16): 1293

In conclusion, it appears that while some members of each of these physician groups are capable of identifying hemorrhage with perfect or near-perfect sensitivity, the majority of those tested are not. Board certification in emergency medicine, neurology, or general radiology is an inadequate marker for such competence.

in other words, have your doc look at your xray, which is why every neurologist looks at every MRI, why a pulmonologist looks at every cat scan and cxr, ans I tell all my medical students to look at the xray, mri etc, themselves, always... and yeah, radiologists are way overpaid sorry radiologists.....

 

[min0 lee]

 

[min0 lee]

 

[maniclion]

You post salaries for a surgeon and radiolgist that are comprable but have no idea the much longer hours one speciality is putting in to make the same amount of money. My point is that radiologists make more than any other specialty because the work some of the least amount of hours and rack up the same salary, and when they do dabble in surgery via interventional, they don't step up to the plate to handle the complications like the other doctors and specialists.

A radiologist makes more per hour than most surgeons ( or any specialty for that matter) so they are the highest paid doctors in the field. Which is why , radiology and not neurosurgery is the hardest fellowship to get into, follwed by dermatology, both highly paid with the least amount of work hours. (and it sure doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a dermatologist..sorry.). Why insurances pay a radiologist more for looking at a cat scan ( that a surgeon is equally adept at looking at ) than intricate complicated surgery that lasts an hour is one of the many reforms that is needed. ( In fact the AMA is looking into that). Insurances are starting to look at outsourcing radiology readings to say India since many radiologists are not coming down on their prices and sees that as a quick way to reduce medical cost. Can't blame them. So remember this, soon your private insurance carrier may be having your wife's mammogram read by someone in calcutta.......

The reason I have some problems with radiologists is that in the ICU, where I overread xrays all the time, close to 20% of the readings by radiologists, even in the academic setting are wrong.,,( the patient has a pneumothorax when the official reading was none, or the patient has fulminant ards and chf, when it was read as clear etc. ) And since most laymen don't believe this there are numerous studies that support my experience..

For instance, there are studies that show our overreads by primary docs are usually more accurate

Radiology (Position Paper) -- Policy & Advocacy -- American Academy of Family Physicians



I don't see surgeons making mistakes 18-57% of the time, can you imagine his malpractice...

another study
JAMA -- Cranial Computed Tomography Interpretation in Acute Stroke: Physician Accuracy in Determining Eligibility for Thrombolytic Therapy, April 22, 1998, Schriger et al. 279 (16): 1293



in other words, have your doc look at your xray, which is why every neurologist looks at every MRI, why a pulmonologist looks at every cat scan and cxr, ans I tell all my medical students to look at the xray, mri etc, themselves, always... and yeah, radiologists are way overpaid sorry radiologists.....

I know exactly what you're saying. I had a bone scan in the same hospital my doctor was in, but I had to wait a week and a half for the results to finally be reported on by the radiologist and sent to my doc via the computer network only to have the radiologist say he didn't see anything yet my doc saw a difference in a facet joint and then I ask him if I should be worried about the thinner white area that was the right side of my L5/S1 disc and he said in the future it might. I asked him why the radiologist didn't see this if I can see it. He just looked at me and then said 'He was probably only looking where I had first suspected the diagnosis would be in the Sacroiliac and saw nothing." I was just stunned that he didn't even glance a few inches up and see what we were seeing, and for it to take 10 days for him to look at a tiny area of a whole picture...jeez. I f my doctor thought in such a linear fashion I might have had to go back and get a second scan so he could have the radiologist look at the next area up.....that's like having an architect draw plans for each floor of a high rise once the floor below it was completed instead of drawing up plans for the whole thing.....

If they have the whole picture why not take a quick scan of the whole thing, who knows what preventative measures could be taken from something that they find else where than just the suspected area......

 

[KelJu]

I have hated most doctors I have been to. On the other hand, my neurologist might have saved my life by taking an extra time and effort into investigating the issue.

 

[min0 lee]

Ask him for referrals. One good doctor knows another.

 

[quadluver]

If you don't want nationalized health care, sign the petition.

Online Petition

Nationalized healthcare is the only way to go. We just need to get some competent people to run it.

 

[bio-chem]

You post salaries for a surgeon and radiolgist that are comprable but have no idea the much longer hours one speciality is putting in to make the same amount of money. My point is that radiologists make more than any other specialty because the work some of the least amount of hours and rack up the same salary, and when they do dabble in surgery via interventional, they don't step up to the plate to handle the complications like the other doctors and specialists.

A radiologist makes more per hour than most surgeons ( or any specialty for that matter) so they are the highest paid doctors in the field. Which is why , radiology and not neurosurgery is the hardest fellowship to get into, follwed by dermatology, both highly paid with the least amount of work hours. (and it sure doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a dermatologist..sorry.). Why insurances pay a radiologist more for looking at a cat scan ( that a surgeon is equally adept at looking at ) than intricate complicated surgery that lasts an hour is one of the many reforms that is needed. ( In fact the AMA is looking into that). Insurances are starting to look at outsourcing radiology readings to say India since many radiologists are not coming down on their prices and sees that as a quick way to reduce medical cost. Can't blame them. So remember this, soon your private insurance carrier may be having your wife's mammogram read by someone in calcutta.......

The reason I have some problems with radiologists is that in the ICU, where I overread xrays all the time, close to 20% of the readings by radiologists, even in the academic setting are wrong.,,( the patient has a pneumothorax when the official reading was none, or the patient has fulminant ards and chf, when it was read as clear etc. ) And since most laymen don't believe this there are numerous studies that support my experience..

For instance, there are studies that show our overreads by primary docs are usually more accurate

Radiology (Position Paper) -- Policy & Advocacy -- American Academy of Family Physicians



I don't see surgeons making mistakes 18-57% of the time, can you imagine his malpractice...

another study
JAMA -- Cranial Computed Tomography Interpretation in Acute Stroke: Physician Accuracy in Determining Eligibility for Thrombolytic Therapy, April 22, 1998, Schriger et al. 279 (16): 1293



in other words, have your doc look at your xray, which is why every neurologist looks at every MRI, why a pulmonologist looks at every cat scan and cxr, ans I tell all my medical students to look at the xray, mri etc, themselves, always... and yeah, radiologists are way overpaid sorry radiologists.....

dont start your post with stupid assumptions.

just because you have a soap box against radiologists doesn't mean it benefits the conversation dealing with nationalized healthcare or not. im not sure how it relates.

 

[bio-chem]

Nationalized healthcare is the only way to go. We just need to get some competent people to run it.

 

[bandaidwoman]

dont start your post with stupid assumptions.

just because you have a soap box against radiologists doesn't mean it benefits the conversation dealing with nationalized healthcare or not. im not sure how it relates.

I don't see where I have made assumptions, just facts, along with being chief of medicine at two hospitals I am privey to all that juicy information.

Radiologists have the most to gain by keeping the status quo. The overcomenpensated specialties do. They pander to the wingnuts by stating it takes months to get an MRI in canada but fail to point out that private insurers in this country will outright not pay for an MRI. They are 100 % compensated because all the doctors make sure the insurance will pay for the mri or cat scan. If the insurance denies it, the patient just doesn't get their MRI. I am pointing out the rationing of MRIs in this country can be just as bad, but the radiologists don't see it because they have never had to beg an insurance to get one, we do..

Asking a radiologist about the state of denial of health insuranace for getting mris is a fallacious data harvesting. They have never had to deal with it, on the other hand, ask every family doc, internist, general surgeon that orders the test. They will tell you rationing by private insurance is rampant.

Just letting you know why the radiologists as a whole are adverse to national health insurnace. the irony, medicare, national health insrurance for the elderly has never denied a MRI I have ordered.... in other words, their fears are unfounded.

 

[min0 lee]

dont start your post with stupid assumptions.

just because you have a soap box against radiologists doesn't mean it benefits the conversation dealing with nationalized healthcare or not. im not sure how it relates.

It's called first hand experience.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Anyway cliff notes summary





Under any system, any consumer good in demand is going to be rationed, whether by the government or by market forces.

would you rather get shortchanged by the profit motive, or shortchanged in an effort to provide a level of healthcare for everyone of your fellow citizens?

in both situations, of course, you'll have the option of supplementing basic coverage with more expensive private coverage. so what'll it be? healthcare for all, or profits for a few?

That is the primary question, to hell with all the other back and forth...

 

[maniclion]

Anyway cliff notes summary





Under any system, any consumer good in demand is going to be rationed, whether by the government or by market forces.

would you rather get shortchanged by the profit motive, or shortchanged in an effort to provide a level of healthcare for everyone of your fellow citizens?

in both situations, of course, you'll have the option of supplementing basic coverage with more expensive private coverage. so what'll it be? healthcare for all, or profits for a few?

That is the primary question, to hell with all the other back and forth...

Under nationalized I thought the Hospitals would get a Budget and they could make the decision of how to ration everything. I would rather have the institution who realizes the importance of certain medical procedures deciding than them having to see each procedure as a gamble because the Insurance company may or may not pay for it........

 

[bandaidwoman]

No, what you are talking about is socialized medicine, medicare, a national health insurance for the elderly does not "give" a hospital x amount of dollars to ration for the year. It will eventually ration by not allowing say $30,000 dollar defibrillators to be put in a 95 year old......



This is how private insurance "rations"



Health Insurance Insider: 'They Dump the Sick'

Retired Health Insurance Executive Blows the Whistle on His Former Industry

Frustrated Americans have long complained that their insurance companies valued the all-mighty buck over their health care. Today, a retired insurance executive confirmed their suspicions, arguing that the industry that once employed him regularly rips off its policyholders
.
"[T]hey confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors," former Cigna senior executive Wendell Potter said during a hearing on health insurance today before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Potter, who has more than 20 years of experience working in public relations for insurance companies Cigna and Humana, said companies routinely drop seriously ill policyholders so they can meet "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

"They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment," Potter said. "…(D)umping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom line."

snip

ABC News - ABC News

As a business owner the real benefit in a national health insurance
provides huge economic benefits in terms of relieving the burden on employers, which promotes competitiveness. ( that is why I don't understand why small to medium business owners are against national health, providing health insurance is one of our biggest overheads). Also promoting entrepreneurship since people aren't chained to their jobs due to fear of losing their health care

 

[ZECH]

1)Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.

And this is the number one problem. You think healthcare is expensive now??? Wait until you have to pay for every non working person in the US, every illegal immigrant and every other person who does not pay on their own to have health coverage. Your cost will at least quadruple. Then the problems come with waits and denial. With 300+million people in this country, there are simply not enough doctors to cover everything.
Like Albob said, The US government will completely ruin this.........you expect them to run a business? They can't even keep their own affairs in order. If it is ever passed, our quality of life is over.

 

[Chubby]

1)Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.

And this is the number one problem. You think healthcare is expensive now??? Wait until you have to pay for every non working person in the US, every illegal immigrant and every other person who does not pay on their own to have health coverage. Your cost will at least quadruple. Then the problems come with waits and denial. With 300+million people in this country, there are simply not enough doctors to cover everything.
Like Albob said, The US government will completely ruin this.........you expect them to run a business? They can't even keep their own affairs in order. If it is ever passed, our quality of life is over.

Well.. it looks like we are all screwed. There are robbers on both sides: on one side, these greedy corporations who take away every profit they make as bonus for themselves. On the other side, unemployed fake poors who are determined to live in welfare money.

 

[bandaidwoman]

As for illegals, we can do what costa rica does ( has universal health insurance only for citizens and foreigners pay a small monthly fee to join ). Right now the illegals get free treatment under the EMTLA laws, and we all indirectly pay for it with higher premiums and the hospital jacks up the price of every service to recover the cost of treating the uninsured. ( the ten dollar asprins).

wake up, we already are paying for the uninsured.

USATODAY.com - Study: Uninsured add $900 to premium cost for families

The problem affects everyone, most say, because the insured subsidize the cost of care given the uninsured. Most economists agree that some amount of subsidizing occurs, but the question has been how much.

The study, prepared by Ken Thorpe, a professor at ...

 

[tucker01]

same as here, with out my OHIP card, fees are charged.

 

[Arnold]

1)Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.

And this is the number one problem. You think healthcare is expensive now??? Wait until you have to pay for every non working person in the US, every illegal immigrant and every other person who does not pay on their own to have health coverage. Your cost will at least quadruple. Then the problems come with waits and denial. With 300+million people in this country, there are simply not enough doctors to cover everything.
Like Albob said, The US government will completely ruin this.........you expect them to run a business? They can't even keep their own affairs in order. If it is ever passed, our quality of life is over.

but aren't we already paying for all of the uninsured?

 

[bandaidwoman]

but aren't we already paying for all of the uninsured?

yes,as an employer who purchases health insurance for my employees, a resounding yes...( according to humana part of my huge increase in premiums included covering the uninsured.)

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs

Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by the end of 2008.

Why on earth should employers continue to provide health insurance? It suppresses your wages , it contributes to my sky rocketing overhead, If I wasn't in the business I'd ax this as a benefit and I would cut my overhead by a huge amount.

 

[ALBOB]

but aren't we already paying for all of the uninsured?

So, instead of seeing this as a problem that needs to be fixed, you're suggesting we embrace it as the norm and make it BIGGER???

 

[busyLivin]

Interesting take I heard last night on O'Reilly.

YouTube Video

 

[ZECH]

but aren't we already paying for all of the uninsured?

Sure we are. But from what I've heard Obama wanting for everyone, I think it will get worse.

 

[Dale Mabry]

So, instead of seeing this as a problem that needs to be fixed, you're suggesting we embrace it as the norm and make it BIGGER???

Isn't that exactly what you are saying about the current health care system? I think we can all agree that our current system is fucked, 60% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills and 75% of those people are insured.

 

[min0 lee]

1)Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.

And this is the number one problem. You think healthcare is expensive now??? Wait until you have to pay for every non working person in the US, every illegal immigrant and every other person who does not pay on their own to have health coverage.

We already do that now, it pissed me off when immigrants and people on welfare have better coverage or an easier time getting one than I did.

 

[min0 lee]

As for illegals, we can do what costa rica does ( has universal health insurance only for citizens and foreigners pay a small monthly fee to join ). Right now the illegals get free treatment under the EMTLA laws, and we all indirectly pay for it with higher premiums and the hospital jacks up the price of every service to recover the cost of treating the uninsured. ( the ten dollar asprins).

wake up, we already are paying for the uninsured.

USATODAY.com - Study: Uninsured add $900 to premium cost for families

This.

 

[Arnold]

So, instead of seeing this as a problem that needs to be fixed, you're suggesting we embrace it as the norm and make it BIGGER???

it seems to work in Canada, and the way it is here now is NOT working, the average worker's medical benefits SUCK, and as stated above employers are paying out the ass, so I guess the way I look at it is it can't get any worse when most of us that pay a high premium for health coverage yet still have to pay everything out of pocket.

 

[clemson357]

so this nationalized health care reform, would this mean I no longer have to pay out the ass for my insurance and prescriptions and maybe I will actually be able to use it?

our current health insurance sucks, we pay $200/month (family coverage) and have a $2400 annual deductible, so unless one of has surgery we pay 100% for everything all year, i.e. doctor visits, prescriptions, etc.

What you are really saying is you want someone else to pay for your expenses.

What a fucking novel concept. Whats yours is mine, right? If you get a publicly funded dermatology appointment, why can't I have a publicly funded motorcycle. Lets all just dip our hands into the public treasury.

 

[clemson357]

it seems to work in Canada, and the way it is here now is NOT working, the average worker's medical benefits SUCK, and as stated above employers are paying out the ass, so I guess the way I look at it is it can't get any worse when most of us that pay a high premium for health coverage yet still have to pay everything out of pocket.

80% of Americans are happy with the quality of health care they receive.

Trust me, it can get much, much, much fucking worse.