Re: Too Much Medical "Care"


"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Vngbh.4776$tM1.2654@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xm9bh.253404$FQ1.123865@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xxWah.4352$tM1.3141@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jmOah.252313$FQ1.107293@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:GeMah.3941$sf5.563@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d4Lah.1078378$084.1049222@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"george conklin" <george@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9onah.4141$1s6.898@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8Uiah.250702$FQ1.10062@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"george conklin" <george@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Negah.4031$1s6.3321@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ekasgv$3efa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article
<zNJ9h.3105$tM1.790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
george conklin <george@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:reE9h.157273$aJ.1420@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"george conklin" <george@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Tvi9h.3109$1s6.1484@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Whydo we in the USA spend so much on medical care (up about
85%
in
6
years in cost) and show so little results for the money?
Here
is
reason:
technology put into place WITHOUT evaluations.

If that were true, other countries such as Britain would
have
the
same
problem. They're using the same sort of "technology" as we
are.
As
are
other countries with lower costs.

Very simply, it's a matter of government control of
healthcare
vs.
not.
Our society has decided that we don't want a government
owned
and
run
healthcare state so our costs are higher.


It should be malpractice to use untested technology.
Technology
is
put
into place without testing simply to increase costs.

Wrong. The use of technology, like anything else, should be
based on informed consent.

Wrong Herman. There is no informed consent without knowledge
of
outcomes FIRST.

Allow me to introduce a topic - robotic prostatectomies.

The post was not about illness, but about a normal biological
process,
childbirth. Technology was put into place which did not affect
the
out
come of the births before being evaluated. Stop changing the
topic
back
to your favoite topic.

Based on some article you read, you're making *generalized*
comments
about
technology. So am I. If you didn't want to expand the discussion
you
shouldn't have expanded the discussion. Now it's expanded. Your
brain
will
have to work harder now.

Once gain you avoid the issue of failure as long as the patient can
be
billed more money.

Demonstrating your complete ignorance. When my patients get a
hospital
acquired infection, say after a relatively routine and uncomplicated
surgery, several things happen. First, it is detrimantal to my
patient
for
possibly serious infections, days off work, etc. Second, it creates a
good
deal of work for me. Third, it hurts my average down for things like
days
of hospitalization for a specific procedure. Fourth, it can hurt a
referral
base, especially if several such problems occur.


None of this stops you from billing the patient longer days in the
hospital, more visits from you (several per day?) and all the other
experts
called in, all of whom bill. The hospital bills more too. It is a
nice
way
to 'lose' money.

A nice way to lose money?

Example: Procedure X costs $100 for a routine preop, surgery, 2 day
inpatient stay, and post op visit. If a bad infection occurs, and he's
in
the hospital for, say, an extra 8 days with 2 of those ICU stays, yes,
he'billed for more. Say $140. The cost to the hospital and care
providers
will be exponentially larger than the added $40 dollars. That would be a
huge loss of revenue.

You know neither medicine nor economics/finance.


The bill to patients for such an infection has been widely reported at
$140,000. Grow up and stop lying to us.

What's your point? The thing you either don't understand or simply refuse
to acknowledge is that while hospitals increase charges for infectious
problems, they LOSE a tremendous amount of money as a result. I don't see
what part of that is not clear.


.