3 ms·

Headline doesn't match article: Saltz's beef is with the US spending too much on the very sick, which is getting in the way of truly universal health care cover

by bcoates 11y ago

Headline doesn't match article: Saltz's beef is with the US spending too much on the very sick, which is getting in the way of truly universal health care coverage for the generally healthy. He wants the US government to use its market power to discourage the progress of ever more expensive treatments until we solve the problem of getting everyone access to affordable health care.

kefka 11y ago
We all have "access", as in I can potentially drive a car down to the upper end cancer facility in Indianapolis or the Mayo clinic in Chicago. "Is it affordable?" is a whole different question. And simply put; No.
- jfoutz 11y ago
  Access usually means obtain. For example, if i hand a person a calculus book, have i given them access to knowledge of calculus? If they can read, yes. If i hand another copy to a blind person, have i given them access to the knowledge of calculus? Not really, no. If my intention is access to knowledge of calculus, i need to take extra steps. Maybe a brail version, maybe just read to them. I think you might be fuzzy because of login prompts. Technically you're using computer resources. clearly i have access to the machine in some way. Similarly, i have access to the Mayo clinic. I can walk in and talk to people. But, with the computer i can't get to the good parts, i can't open files. Also, with the hospital, i can't get to the good parts, i can't get healthcare without extra stuff. This isn't a slight against the clinic, I know they do charitable work. I think they charge so much, in part, to offset the costs to those who can't pay.
  - kefka 11y ago
    However, access can be compared to areas that which do not have it. For example, if I was in northern India and get injured, I do not have access to emergency room care. Nor do I have access to a hospital. I may have access to a local doctor, but (s)he may have very limited tools and even less amount of drugs to work with. If I am injured in this country, I do have a reasonable access to emergent care. But the costs are exorbitant to the point that many people default on those bills. And then I would also go to the argument that there is no informed consent on the bills for treatments. We, as a public, are supposed to go in for a problem and choose the appropriate solution with no regard for cost. Our solution is that we then get the "bill we deserve". There is no breakdown for "issue X is average cost Y". In choosing what treatments can potentially cause harm, we have the idea of informed consent. We cannot make a choice, medically speaking, unless we know both the pros and cons of said argument. This somehow, does not transfer over to harms of money and reduction on standard of life. That's criminal. (And yes, I chose the Mayo clinic because they are a top of the line medical center. And they charge for it as well, when the client can bear it or has good insurance. I also know they do a great deal of charity work.)
- baldfat 11y ago
  The vast majority of people are Okay with Doctors making as much as they do and anyone in Medical field has a higher average income. Most people have no problem keeping the minimum wage low also.
jobu 11y ago
From reading his NYT opinion piece, it sounds like he just wants the cost of a drug to be part of the treatment discussion - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/a-hospital-says-no-to-an-11000-a-month-cancer-drug.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/a-hospital-says-no... It's difficult for most people to make rational decisions about cost and effectiveness when they're looking at a terminal cancer diagnosis. Doctors should be helping patients understand both the monetary costs of these drugs and the often nasty side-effects when telling them it has a X% higher survival rate.

by bcoates 11y ago

kefka 11y ago

We all have "access", as in I can potentially drive a car down to the upper end cancer facility in Indianapolis or the Mayo clinic in Chicago. "Is it affordable?" is a whole different question. And simply put; No.

jfoutz 11y ago
Access usually means obtain. For example, if i hand a person a calculus book, have i given them access to knowledge of calculus? If they can read, yes. If i hand another copy to a blind person, have i given them access to the knowledge of calculus? Not really, no. If my intention is access to knowledge of calculus, i need to take extra steps. Maybe a brail version, maybe just read to them. I think you might be fuzzy because of login prompts. Technically you're using computer resources. clearly i have access to the machine in some way. Similarly, i have access to the Mayo clinic. I can walk in and talk to people. But, with the computer i can't get to the good parts, i can't open files. Also, with the hospital, i can't get to the good parts, i can't get healthcare without extra stuff. This isn't a slight against the clinic, I know they do charitable work. I think they charge so much, in part, to offset the costs to those who can't pay.
- kefka 11y ago
  However, access can be compared to areas that which do not have it. For example, if I was in northern India and get injured, I do not have access to emergency room care. Nor do I have access to a hospital. I may have access to a local doctor, but (s)he may have very limited tools and even less amount of drugs to work with. If I am injured in this country, I do have a reasonable access to emergent care. But the costs are exorbitant to the point that many people default on those bills. And then I would also go to the argument that there is no informed consent on the bills for treatments. We, as a public, are supposed to go in for a problem and choose the appropriate solution with no regard for cost. Our solution is that we then get the "bill we deserve". There is no breakdown for "issue X is average cost Y". In choosing what treatments can potentially cause harm, we have the idea of informed consent. We cannot make a choice, medically speaking, unless we know both the pros and cons of said argument. This somehow, does not transfer over to harms of money and reduction on standard of life. That's criminal. (And yes, I chose the Mayo clinic because they are a top of the line medical center. And they charge for it as well, when the client can bear it or has good insurance. I also know they do a great deal of charity work.)
baldfat 11y ago
The vast majority of people are Okay with Doctors making as much as they do and anyone in Medical field has a higher average income. Most people have no problem keeping the minimum wage low also.

jobu 11y ago

From reading his NYT opinion piece, it sounds like he just wants the cost of a drug to be part of the treatment discussion - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/a-hospital-says-no-to-an-11000-a-month-cancer-drug.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/a-hospital-says-no... It's difficult for most people to make rational decisions about cost and effectiveness when they're looking at a terminal cancer diagnosis. Doctors should be helping patients understand both the monetary costs of these drugs and the often nasty side-effects when telling them it has a X% higher survival rate.