Letter: Overseas emergency

Monika Ludwig, Naples

Overseas emergency

Recently, during a stay in Germany, I had the need to consult physicians due to a severe reaction to Ibuprofen, and again due to severe back pain.

The first one accepted me immediately, and after a thorough examination, charged me Euro 30.00, or less that $40.

The second, an emergency on-call physician, charged me Euro 20.00, approximately $25 for a consultation, a cortisone injection and some sample pain medication.

Both visits were as a private patient, courteous, prompt and effective.

I can't even imagine what the same would have cost me here in the U.S. and the hassle I would have had to go through.

So much for "socialized" medicine.

Those who attack "Obamacare" and the president's attempts to bring our health care system under control and make us more competitive in the global market have no clue what they are talking about, and are largely driven by belief in mindless partisan drivel.

By the way, Germany's economy is booming, despite or perhaps because of such "socialism."

© 2012 Naples Daily News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 43

colinkelly2 writes:

Isn't it nice to get a free ride on someone else's money? In this case, you, Monika, an American citizen (You are one, aren't you. Non-citizens really shouldn't criticize American procedures), with a 29% overall tax rate, are benefiting from the Germans who pay for your low medical costs with their 52% overall rate.
Wouldn't it be nice if American critics like Wrong thinker sometimes presented a fact like this, instead of just using invective?

Ironbutterfly writes:

Socialism is a Trojan horse, beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Arushure writes:

Colin again proves himself the most ignorant person around.

>Wouldn't it be nice if [Colin] sometimes presented a fact ?

In fact, Germans are not paying 52% taxes for health. Their health care is mostly based on premiums paid by employers & employees, not taxes.

The fees cited are comparable to those in France, where a standard office visit costs 23 euros. That's what you'd pay as a tourist as well, and NO other money, subsidized by French citizens, would be added that amount.

Colin's skull is far too thick to understand that countries whose per capita health budgets are half those in the US manage that because they are better run.

pmz writes:

To Colin, truth is a burdonsom load to be cast aside in the pursuit of more for him, less for everyone else.

Heraclitus writes:

Monika... that mirrors my experience in Tuam, Ireland with an abcessed tooth, except that I never paid a cent... even for the prescription for Ponstan, which worked well and quickly, and an antibiotic, which worked equally well and quickly.

whalling writes:

Our nation is broke, an economic crisis is coming, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studied Obamacare and recently issued a report that says Obamacare will add a trillion dollars to our national debt. Obamacare is nonsense.

Sane_in_Florida (Inactive) writes:

in response to pmz:

To Colin, truth is a burdonsom load to be cast aside in the pursuit of more for him, less for everyone else.

Conservatism is built on the premise of scarcity of resources - that is where the fear-based strategies and the mindset of greed are derived. Of course they claim it's all about 'freedom' and 'free markets'. Living in Naples though, we know they say one thing and do the exact opposite.

whalling writes:

Anyone who would believe that Germany's health care is better than America's is dead wrong, especially if the belief is based on a $25 visit to a German doctor. Anyone that would believe that Angela Merkel is more fiscally responsible than Obama, is dead right. Germany leads Europe because it is financially strong and Merkel is a key to their success. America is failing financially and heading to an economic crisis and becoming weaker in the world because of our enormous debt, due to Obama's leadership. Obama either does not see the economic crisis or does see it and chooses to ignore it. In either case he is totally fiscally irresponsible. He has no budget. He has no plan. He has no ideas. He is an empty suit in the fiscal arena.

whalling writes:

As we near the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, let's put the decision in some context of recent utterances. Not long ago, Obama attempted to bully and sully the reputation of the Supreme Court by his statements that it would be unprecedented for the Court to overturn law passed by a strong majority of Congress. Unprecedented, NO, the Court has overturned such decisions many times. Strong majority, NO, remember how Obama bribed Senator Nelson from Nebraska for the last needed Senate vote and tricked Bart Stupak from Michigan for the last needed House vote. Obama assured the nation that Obamacare would reduce our deficits. Well, recently the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said Obamacare would add a trillion dollars to our national debt. Then today, the Wall Street Journal discloses that the pharmaceutical industry was blackmailed by Obama into supporting Obamacare with millions. What will the Supreme Court decide???

Arushure writes:

> Congressional Budget Office studied Obamacare and recently issued a report that says Obamacare will add a trillion dollars to our national debt.

Give Whalling credit. He is consistent in his dumbness. You can tell him over and over that the CBO report said just the opposite, but like a robot, he keeps coming back with the same tripe.

Oh, somebody's going to point out that more recent robots are able to learn.

Heraclitus writes:

in response to whalling:

Anyone who would believe that Germany's health care is better than America's is dead wrong, especially if the belief is based on a $25 visit to a German doctor. Anyone that would believe that Angela Merkel is more fiscally responsible than Obama, is dead right. Germany leads Europe because it is financially strong and Merkel is a key to their success. America is failing financially and heading to an economic crisis and becoming weaker in the world because of our enormous debt, due to Obama's leadership. Obama either does not see the economic crisis or does see it and chooses to ignore it. In either case he is totally fiscally irresponsible. He has no budget. He has no plan. He has no ideas. He is an empty suit in the fiscal arena.

From the CIA... we're 50th on the list.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicati...

Germany is 28th

anticorp writes:

in response to Arushure:

Colin again proves himself the most ignorant person around.

>Wouldn't it be nice if [Colin] sometimes presented a fact ?

In fact, Germans are not paying 52% taxes for health. Their health care is mostly based on premiums paid by employers & employees, not taxes.

The fees cited are comparable to those in France, where a standard office visit costs 23 euros. That's what you'd pay as a tourist as well, and NO other money, subsidized by French citizens, would be added that amount.

Colin's skull is far too thick to understand that countries whose per capita health budgets are half those in the US manage that because they are better run.

They are better run, as well as missing the leg weights of the profiteers(at least 30%).

colinkelly2 writes:

"Premiums" that the government mandates that employers and employees pay are taxes. If you are a citizen, just try not paying them and see what happens to you.
Tourists benefit because they get to use a system paid for by the citizens without having to pay the tax.
And if you read what I wrote, instead of just making up your own version to support your ad hominim attack, you'd see that I didn't say the Germans pay 52% for health care, but rather that their health care system is paid for out of a total tax rate of 52%, which is almost double the 29% rate US citizens pay.

colinkelly2 writes:

And by the way, Arushure, do you know of anyone who has had a diagnosis of cancer? How long did they have to wait after their diagnosis for treatment to begin?
In Germany, with their superior health care system, the average wait time after a diagnosis of breast cancer before beginning treatment is 15 days. Would you want your wife or your mother to have to wait 15 days before beginning the treatment that might save her life? I didn't think so.
And by the way, the wait time in Canada, for lung cancer treatment, is 84 days. Also a superior system.

miamia writes:

WOW...what an education about health care when in Europe from our posters above.

Though not much of a foreign traveler, I've been thinking of a trip to Italy and figured I'd have to obtain a special "Health Insurance" policy.

If doctors in Italy charge as fairly as in Germany and are also good doctors, maybe I'll just skip the insurance policy and take a little extra cash. Am fairly healthy for my age so think I can take a chance!

Tell me what you know...please & thanks too!

miamia writes:

Several years ago I was chastized by a poster (Nina Mold) for being so naive as to think the medical insurance I carry here at home would take care of me abroad also.

I have since met and come to know this woman and I trust her opinion so probably will contact her again. She is from England so maybe things are different there?

Arushure writes:

Miamia,

For peace of mind, get the insurance!

There's a difference between a doctor's appointment, such as the letter described, and a more serious illness or accident that could require more care or hospitalization.

US law ONLY requires ERs to stabilize patients unable to pay. I've found in Europe they usually treat first in urgent cases and then deal with finances, but you want to be sure.

The English situation changed many years ago. It used to be even visitors could walk into NHS and be treated, but people began going to the UK specifically for treatment. Now, you will still be treated for an emergency, but not voluntary treatment.

Look up Health Care Abroad as an example of insurance. It has a reasonable premium per day. On the other hand, people in Europe can buy travel health insurance that is FAR cheaper and covers FAR more, even for travel to high-cost USA. Once again we are scre wed.

Your US insurance MAY cover emergencies abroad, Read the policy. Regular Medicare does NOT cover a penny. Again, national insurance in Europe will cover care in any of the 27 EU countries and some emergency rate outside that zone. Compare that to the US situation where you can go 25 miles from home and be "out of area."

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to whalling:

Our nation is broke, an economic crisis is coming, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studied Obamacare and recently issued a report that says Obamacare will add a trillion dollars to our national debt. Obamacare is nonsense.

"Our nation is broke..."- whalling
Define, "broke?"
"An economic crisis is coming..."- whalling
DO tell us! We're can't wait to see you describe it!!!

Pretty disgusting you insult our President of
the United States, Barack Obama, with a ridiculous half truth like that.
Why don't you mention revenue?
Why don't you mention savings in perscriptions?
Why don't you mention small business tax credits?
Why don't you mention pre-exising condition insurance plans?

Healthcare nationwide can now focus on...
1.Reduced Reimbursements
2.Compliance Expansion
3.Quality Improvement Initiatives
4.Payment Reform
5.Coverage Expansion
6.ICD-10 Transition

Your incomplete wailing of unproven dogma is rather like reading a Mad Magazine of the tea party. Good thing the Tea party is almost a pimple on the arse of history...

Canuck writes:

in response to colinkelly2:

And by the way, Arushure, do you know of anyone who has had a diagnosis of cancer? How long did they have to wait after their diagnosis for treatment to begin?
In Germany, with their superior health care system, the average wait time after a diagnosis of breast cancer before beginning treatment is 15 days. Would you want your wife or your mother to have to wait 15 days before beginning the treatment that might save her life? I didn't think so.
And by the way, the wait time in Canada, for lung cancer treatment, is 84 days. Also a superior system.

I for one would certainly like to see your source for "the wait time in Canada, for lung cancer treatment, is 84 days"!

That is not the experience we are seeing in this country.........while lung cancer is very difficult to diagnose.....once determined treatment is very quick once a program designed for that person is established.

At present time the average seems to be 15 days for radiation treatments.

Please provide your source...I am quite interested!

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to colinkelly2:

And by the way, Arushure, do you know of anyone who has had a diagnosis of cancer? How long did they have to wait after their diagnosis for treatment to begin?
In Germany, with their superior health care system, the average wait time after a diagnosis of breast cancer before beginning treatment is 15 days. Would you want your wife or your mother to have to wait 15 days before beginning the treatment that might save her life? I didn't think so.
And by the way, the wait time in Canada, for lung cancer treatment, is 84 days. Also a superior system.

More halftruths from the rightwing neocon extremists. Your information is only, possibly, numerically true.
There are many different types of cancer. Treatment is determined by tests made to find the type of cancer, the kind of cancercells to be treated, the source, etcetera. There are more than 200 different types of cancer. You can develop cancer in any body organ. There are over 60 different organs in the body where a cancer can develope.

Go spread you information in Europe or Canada.
Hee? Some people don't have the proper insurance and get NO treatment for cancer. It's called a misdiagnosis.
The tumour in their head is treated with some ibuprophen an a $300 ER bill.

miamia writes:

in response to Arushure:

Miamia,

For peace of mind, get the insurance!

There's a difference between a doctor's appointment, such as the letter described, and a more serious illness or accident that could require more care or hospitalization.

US law ONLY requires ERs to stabilize patients unable to pay. I've found in Europe they usually treat first in urgent cases and then deal with finances, but you want to be sure.

The English situation changed many years ago. It used to be even visitors could walk into NHS and be treated, but people began going to the UK specifically for treatment. Now, you will still be treated for an emergency, but not voluntary treatment.

Look up Health Care Abroad as an example of insurance. It has a reasonable premium per day. On the other hand, people in Europe can buy travel health insurance that is FAR cheaper and covers FAR more, even for travel to high-cost USA. Once again we are scre wed.

Your US insurance MAY cover emergencies abroad, Read the policy. Regular Medicare does NOT cover a penny. Again, national insurance in Europe will cover care in any of the 27 EU countries and some emergency rate outside that zone. Compare that to the US situation where you can go 25 miles from home and be "out of area."

Thanks so much; your input is very helpful.

anicou writes:

in response to whalling:

Anyone who would believe that Germany's health care is better than America's is dead wrong, especially if the belief is based on a $25 visit to a German doctor. Anyone that would believe that Angela Merkel is more fiscally responsible than Obama, is dead right. Germany leads Europe because it is financially strong and Merkel is a key to their success. America is failing financially and heading to an economic crisis and becoming weaker in the world because of our enormous debt, due to Obama's leadership. Obama either does not see the economic crisis or does see it and chooses to ignore it. In either case he is totally fiscally irresponsible. He has no budget. He has no plan. He has no ideas. He is an empty suit in the fiscal arena.

Great post! We can't compare Obama's incompetence with Angela Merkel who has a strong head on her shoulders.
Hillary Clinton would have been more competent as being the President than the loser we have now.

Arushure writes:

in response to colinkelly2:

"Premiums" that the government mandates that employers and employees pay are taxes. If you are a citizen, just try not paying them and see what happens to you.
Tourists benefit because they get to use a system paid for by the citizens without having to pay the tax.
And if you read what I wrote, instead of just making up your own version to support your ad hominim attack, you'd see that I didn't say the Germans pay 52% for health care, but rather that their health care system is paid for out of a total tax rate of 52%, which is almost double the 29% rate US citizens pay.

The reason you deserve ad hominem treatment is not your (faulty) intelligence, which you can't help, but your endless displays of ignorance (which CAN be rectified by seeking real information), lies and bad faith.

You are simply quite dense, like Whalling, and will repeat endlessly the same thing. Tourists do NOT benefit from tax-paid subsidies; they simply pay the real price the doctor receives.

You wrote: "the Germans who pay for your low medical costs with their 52% overall rate" and compare that with 29% for Americans.

A prime example of both ignorance and bad faith. You don't compare at all what is paid for health care; your figures are irrelevant and only meant to deceive. In the end, Germans pay far less for care than Americans. Period.

As for the tax rates you cite, they are absolutely false.

pmz writes:

in response to Arushure:

The reason you deserve ad hominem treatment is not your (faulty) intelligence, which you can't help, but your endless displays of ignorance (which CAN be rectified by seeking real information), lies and bad faith.

You are simply quite dense, like Whalling, and will repeat endlessly the same thing. Tourists do NOT benefit from tax-paid subsidies; they simply pay the real price the doctor receives.

You wrote: "the Germans who pay for your low medical costs with their 52% overall rate" and compare that with 29% for Americans.

A prime example of both ignorance and bad faith. You don't compare at all what is paid for health care; your figures are irrelevant and only meant to deceive. In the end, Germans pay far less for care than Americans. Period.

As for the tax rates you cite, they are absolutely false.

Neo-republicanism stands for wealth redistribution up. Also for health redistribution up. As long as those who don't need to work are healthy, they simply don't care about wealth producers, workers. Those whose health care our global competitiveness depends on.

More for me, less for you. Their mantra. The cause of their immense failures at governance.

Arushure writes:

Jude,

Interesting and useful ideas. I disagree on one, though: "tighten the laws regarding medical malpractice lawsuits and put caps on liabilities. That should reduce medical malpractice insurance costs significantly."

1) Insurance premiums are set by what the market will bear and are unrelated to claims paid. Total premiums can be several times (!) total payout.

2) Only a very small percentage of malpractice events result in litigation.

3) The "frivolous" lawsuit accusations are mostly nonsense. There are three controls/factors: a. Lawyers working for contingency fees take cases they expect to win; b. judges can severely punish lawyers who waste the court's time with frivolous cases; c. perhaps most important, many (most) cases are FILED simply because it's often the only way to get health providers to release records for examination.

4) Jury awards have little to do with amounts actually paid. Awards are reduced by trial judges, on appeal and by negotiations.

5) Capping liability proposals usually confuse compensatory with punitive damages. It's nearly impossible in most states to get punitive damages. All you can sue for are real damages. The only variable is how to set an objective value on the pain and suffering.

6)The number of people killed or maimed by malpractice each year is huge. There needs to be a disincentive.

Nina6520 writes:

in response to anicou:

Great post! We can't compare Obama's incompetence with Angela Merkel who has a strong head on her shoulders.
Hillary Clinton would have been more competent as being the President than the loser we have now.

Wow, anicou, I'm surprised. At least president Obama TRIED to improve health care for Americans - something no administration I can recall has even attempted. At the very least, insurance companies can no longer deny cover due to a pre-existing condition. Bin Laden was dispensed with on his watch. The troops were withdrawn from Iraq. The economy is starting to recover and Obama has added his voice to the support of equality for all.

You want to halt his progress in November? Be very careful what you wish for.

Nina6520 writes:

in response to miamia:

Several years ago I was chastized by a poster (Nina Mold) for being so naive as to think the medical insurance I carry here at home would take care of me abroad also.

I have since met and come to know this woman and I trust her opinion so probably will contact her again. She is from England so maybe things are different there?

Hi miamia, Arushure is absolutely right - always take out health insurance when traveling abroad. Most European countries are like England in that they have NHS (National Health Service) but one usually has to prove one is a resident (has lived there for at least 6 months) to benefit. Non-residents will always receive quality care, but there will usually be a fee. A doctor's visit and prescription won't break the bank, but anything more serious could get expensive.

Bon voyage!

Nina6520 writes:

in response to Arushure:

The reason you deserve ad hominem treatment is not your (faulty) intelligence, which you can't help, but your endless displays of ignorance (which CAN be rectified by seeking real information), lies and bad faith.

You are simply quite dense, like Whalling, and will repeat endlessly the same thing. Tourists do NOT benefit from tax-paid subsidies; they simply pay the real price the doctor receives.

You wrote: "the Germans who pay for your low medical costs with their 52% overall rate" and compare that with 29% for Americans.

A prime example of both ignorance and bad faith. You don't compare at all what is paid for health care; your figures are irrelevant and only meant to deceive. In the end, Germans pay far less for care than Americans. Period.

As for the tax rates you cite, they are absolutely false.

Arushure,

You have taken over from my dear old friend Eddie Filer as the voice of reason on this forum. He posted as Rationalman for years, then decided he didn't care if everyone knew the views were his, and posted as himself until he gave up in frustration at the sheer stupidity of some posters.

We've lost Eddie, but we have you, thank goodness. Long may you share your knowledge and common sense with us.

Arushure writes:

> At the very least, insurance companies can no longer deny cover due to a pre-existing condition

So far, only for children. It doesn't generalize until 2014, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't rule against it.

There HAS to be a mandate if pre-existing conditions are to be covered. The problem was making that a mandate that serves PRIVATE insurers. The public option would have solved that.

Thanks for your kind comments. It beats me why people have become so masochistic and so engaged in a race to the bottom.

colinkelly2 writes:

For Canuck, the source of my comments about the health care in Canada is the Canadian Broadcasting Company's most recent statistics.
And to all you ad hominem attackers above, my statistics are accurate and objective. Your comments are just invective. The only ones here without facts to support them are you.

colinkelly2 writes:

And by the way, I do know people who have been treated for cancer. Two of them are me and my wife. My waiting time for treatment for a malignant melanoma was one day. That was 26 years ago, so I guess it was a cure. Her waiting time for treatment for lung cancer was two days. The wait times for treatment in Canada and Germany are from the statistic of those country's governments.
And, as two statistics of many, in Canada, the death rate from colon cancer is 42% In the US, it's 31%. The 5 year survival rate from prostate cancer after diagnosis is 100% in the US. In the UK it's 77%. Wait times for treatment make a difference. Regardless of whether the people in those countries like their systems or not.

colinkelly2 writes:

How about that. Facts, and not s single ad hominem attack.

pmz writes:

in response to colinkelly2:

And by the way, I do know people who have been treated for cancer. Two of them are me and my wife. My waiting time for treatment for a malignant melanoma was one day. That was 26 years ago, so I guess it was a cure. Her waiting time for treatment for lung cancer was two days. The wait times for treatment in Canada and Germany are from the statistic of those country's governments.
And, as two statistics of many, in Canada, the death rate from colon cancer is 42% In the US, it's 31%. The 5 year survival rate from prostate cancer after diagnosis is 100% in the US. In the UK it's 77%. Wait times for treatment make a difference. Regardless of whether the people in those countries like their systems or not.

What do you think that the outcome would have been without health insurance?

Canuck writes:

in response to colinkelly2:

And by the way, I do know people who have been treated for cancer. Two of them are me and my wife. My waiting time for treatment for a malignant melanoma was one day. That was 26 years ago, so I guess it was a cure. Her waiting time for treatment for lung cancer was two days. The wait times for treatment in Canada and Germany are from the statistic of those country's governments.
And, as two statistics of many, in Canada, the death rate from colon cancer is 42% In the US, it's 31%. The 5 year survival rate from prostate cancer after diagnosis is 100% in the US. In the UK it's 77%. Wait times for treatment make a difference. Regardless of whether the people in those countries like their systems or not.

Sorry...i have searched and searched and cannot find one web site to back up any of your claims about Canada and cancer.

Maybe you have a different internet and can provide the sites to back up your claims.

Thank you

Arushure writes:

Canuck,

Colin is right about the better colon cancer survival statistics in the US, but in the same way that even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Nothing he says relates colon cancer survival to any "waiting times." He just made that up.

The main explanation is that one of the few things the US does better than most countries is support preventive screening for colon cancer, which is just about the ONLY cancer that can be PREVENTED (as opposed to early detection).

The second fact is that colon cancer is very slow growing. Yes, you want to treat quickly when it is discovered, but it does not have rapid onset.

The third thing is that we're screwing up our good colon cancer preventive strategy (can't let a good practice take hold, after all). The free screenings offered since January 2011 are only free if nothing is found. If polyps are found, the screening is redefined and billed! You're put to sleep for a free screening and wake up to a bill. It is simply crazy.

Canuck writes:

in response to Arushure:

Canuck,

Colin is right about the better colon cancer survival statistics in the US, but in the same way that even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Nothing he says relates colon cancer survival to any "waiting times." He just made that up.

The main explanation is that one of the few things the US does better than most countries is support preventive screening for colon cancer, which is just about the ONLY cancer that can be PREVENTED (as opposed to early detection).

The second fact is that colon cancer is very slow growing. Yes, you want to treat quickly when it is discovered, but it does not have rapid onset.

The third thing is that we're screwing up our good colon cancer preventive strategy (can't let a good practice take hold, after all). The free screenings offered since January 2011 are only free if nothing is found. If polyps are found, the screening is redefined and billed! You're put to sleep for a free screening and wake up to a bill. It is simply crazy.

It has been my belief by reading reports of the Canadian Cancer Society that our cancer survival rates were very similiar........as we share medical technology and also cancer research.

I was able to find this......

"But survival rates also differ within the United States, between insured and uninsured populations. The American Cancer Society found that the five-year survival rates for colorectal cancer averaged 63 percent for the privately insured but 49 percent for the uninsured. According to the Lancet study, five-year relative survival rates for colorectal cancer were 59.1 percent in the U.S. and 45.3 percent in Europe. Breast cancer survival rates among the uninsured were also similar to Europe – 85 percent survival for those with private insurance, 75 percent for the uninsured, close to the European average. Rates for people on Medicaid were similar to the uninsured.

So universal insurance is as bad as no insurance, right? Not so fast. For one thing, survival rates in Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba were all comparable to or higher than U.S. survival rates on all types of cancer that the Lancet study examined, except for prostate cancer. Those countries all have some form of government-provided health care coverage. Prostate cancer often doesn’t require treatment, so the aggressive screening common in the U.S. turns up both early cases and cases that would never need intervention. This leads to an inflated survival rate in the U.S., where asymptomatic patients are more likely to be diagnosed."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/canc...

Heraclitus writes:

in response to colinkelly2:

And by the way, I do know people who have been treated for cancer. Two of them are me and my wife. My waiting time for treatment for a malignant melanoma was one day. That was 26 years ago, so I guess it was a cure. Her waiting time for treatment for lung cancer was two days. The wait times for treatment in Canada and Germany are from the statistic of those country's governments.
And, as two statistics of many, in Canada, the death rate from colon cancer is 42% In the US, it's 31%. The 5 year survival rate from prostate cancer after diagnosis is 100% in the US. In the UK it's 77%. Wait times for treatment make a difference. Regardless of whether the people in those countries like their systems or not.

I try never to post a stat without posting a link to the website where it came from, unless I do the math in the post.

Just sayin'

Heraclitus writes:

in response to Writethinker:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

"Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparis...

Scroll down to Health Care Outcomes

Arushure writes:

If you look at the number of new colon cancer cases and the number who die of colon cancer in a given year, the death ratio was 37% in the US in 2008 and expected to be 40% in Canada in 2012.

The US ratio should decrease in 2012 because of more screening.

This approach suffers because the deaths result from conditions of prevention and treatment access that may have changed since the original diagnosis.

In theory, European stats should be better because almost everybody has access to care, but so much depends on the STAGE at which the cancer is discovered. Survival at 5 yrs varies from well over 90% at stage 1 to 5% at Stage 4. Thus the relevance to screening.

I don't know about Germany, but France is focused on fecal occult screening, and generalization of even that is recent and incomplete. Fecal occult will detect some pre-cancerous situation and certainly saves lives, but won't prevent as well as colonoscopy.

I made no comment about other types of cancer. Breast screening is more common in both the US and Europe and may explain similarities despite differences in health insurance.

The difference in the US between insured and uninsured is a scandal beyond Colin's comprehension or concern.

colinkelly2 writes:

What you don't know, Write thinker, is that I haven't responded to every request immediately because I have a life other than being hunched over my compuer keyboard. And what you don't understand is that the truth, such as it may be found, is found in the facts of a matter, limited though they may be, not in opinion rolled out to support political desires. And never in invective.

Beachbaby writes:

in response to colinkelly2:

What you don't know, Write thinker, is that I haven't responded to every request immediately because I have a life other than being hunched over my compuer keyboard. And what you don't understand is that the truth, such as it may be found, is found in the facts of a matter, limited though they may be, not in opinion rolled out to support political desires. And never in invective.

"And never in invective." Perhaps Colon does not understand the meaning of "invective". Moreover, he or she finds the time to be the first to attack the letter writer and accuse her of being a freeloader, as well as cast suspicion on her status as a citizen. Colon: Ignorant, a hypocrite and liar to boot.

Modus operandi of Republican Tea Party members. They are so easy to spot.

colinkelly2 writes:

I know the meaning of invective. Apparantly, you don't. Invective is vituperative, abusive language, like calling someone whom you don't know, whose politics you don't know, whose sex you don't even know, ignorant, a hypocrite, and a liar.
And you also, apparantly, can't read. I didn't call the letter-writer a freeloader, and I raised the question of citizenship only to insure that we weren't reading an attack on the US by a non-citizen, which would have been an intolerant exercise of chutzpah. I hope you know the meaning of that word better than you know the meaning of invective.

Arushure writes:

Jude,

> There is a disincentive its called a "bad reputation".

I don't think I trust people, especially on the web, making judgments about a doctor's competence. I don't know their medical knowledge or the details of the circumstances they report.

> just that we cap damages.

That is saying that people should get a capped amount regardless of how badly they were damaged. Compensatory damages are supposed to "fix" what went wrong, nothing more. Nothing can justify getting less.

> Perhaps making stricter rules for licensing would help. . . . You get too many points and your medical license is revoked.

It already happens. The revokees simply go to another state.

> we desperately need reduce medical costs.

The data show that payouts constitute less than 1% of medical costs. This is not where the cost solution is.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features