Yes, hospitals do lie in reporting

[TU Curmudgeon]

Please take a moment to explain the increase in excess mortality.

View attachment 67321499

The latest version of the currently operative, officially sanctioned, "Team Trump" approved, Mar-A-Lago issued, truth-of-the-day response to that so-called "chart" is

"Because they are lying, just like every other so-called "country" in the world is lying about their so-called "COVID-19 infections" and their so-called "COVID-19 deaths" and their so-called "COVID-19 vaccinations" because there is no such thing as COVID-19 (due to the fact that it completely disappeared a couple of weeks after Mr. Trump said it would) and those lies are all a part of the intergalactic conspiracy to steal the 2020 US Presidential Election and evrewunknoz that if someone puts a bullet in the brain of someone who has Cancer then that person would then die of Cancer and NOT from being shot."​

Please pay more attention in class. Thank you.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Your opinion is not supported by the facts.

The situation in the UK appears to be improving

(More charts and graphs at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19)​

 

[Ethel2]

I respectfully disagree. Obamacare is not a good start. It took an expensive healthcare system and only made it significantly more expensive. The first mistake was the individual and employer mandates. Those effectively gave the providers a captive customer base and left them no incentive to offer competitive rates. And then on top of that, the one size fits all approach just added more expense. By one size fits all, I am talking about the government mandating how much health insurance you must purchase or how much the provider must offer. A health insurance policy should be tailored to one's needs. Obamacare mandated much more coverage then I would have needed. I was happy with the existing policy I had, which Obamacare canceled. And while to a point, all insurance is shared risk. Obamacare took that to an insane level. For instance a healthy 30 year old should not have to pay outrageous rates to support some obese 50 year old chain smoking couch potato. And for insurance to work, we do not need everyone insured, we simply need a competitive insurance market. Obamacare does not offer that.

Shared risk is expensive and unpalatable for those who are young and relatively healthy, no doubt about it. However, if as a society we want to make sure that the sick members also get the care they need its a necessary evil. Those who use less medical care are going to have to support those who use more if we decide as a society that we are going to provide care to everyone. Therefore there must be sufficient resources to make it work, and unfortunately that means that some people will use more and some will use less; some people will overpay and some will underpay relative to the resources they use. I don't see another way....but I am certainly open to suggestion for alternatives that might work as long as it makes financial sense for everyone.

 

[year2late]

I don't buy the suggestion that there are not enough doctors. In some areas it may require a bit of travel. There are plenty in my area as well as 5 hospitals for a population of less then 200,000. And I live in the deep south.



That simple stool test as well as overall routine bloodwork is available to everyone as are regular GPs. Those who truly cannot afford health insurance do have other options such as Medicaid and free clinics. Ill repeat one family example. I had two aunts who both around the same time developed breast cancer. One well to do and one on Medicaid which is insurance for the poor. They both went to the same cancer clinic and hospital, and they often went together. They were both treated at the same level. Nothing was rationed.

There are plenty of underserved areas. My MIL was 50 miles away from here primary and 200 miles away from her oncologist.

I worked in a large teaching hospital (1000 beds at the time) in a town of about 40,000. We actually got alot of our patients from substantially LARGER cities. You cannot use the size of your city and the number of hospitals to make such judgements about what is actually available. many rural areas are amazingly underserved. Using remote medicine and physician extenders is not unusual. Many well populated cities just don't have enough - especially to treat the poor .

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes EIGHT MONTH OLD numbers. Pal. What are the numbers TODAY? Any idea?

(More charts and graphs at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19)​

 

[JasperL]

Let’s make this simple. The mortality rate last year ( in the U.K.) was no higher than most years before 2010 ( in fact they are up to a third lower than the 1990s) they are a bit higher than recent years though. That would imply that although thousands of people have died with Covid ( and around 10% of them from Covid alone) ,many of those thousands with would have died in any case because it wasn’t necessarily Covid that killed them...cancer, heart disease , Alzheimer’s etc were going to kill them whether they got Covid or not.

The numbers are not political , the numbers do not ****ing lie.

Why is 2010 relevant. It's clear the death rate was dropping since 2010, which is good for the population, good for the healthcare system, and you took huge steps backwards and reversed those trends, plus. How is that evidence COVID isn't serious? Are you indifferent to reversing a decade of declining death rates? Why would you shrug that off?

And you're not telling us anything with your posts. Yes, lots of old people would die of something else. So you don't care that COVID shaved off a year or two or three, who knows? They were old, so who cares? I don't know what point you're making.

Finally, that "with" versus "of" then citing "COVID alone" is just a useless statistic that tells us nothing. People can live DECADES with diabetes, heart disease, obesity, lung problems. So what that COVID alone didn't kill them, but that it exacerbated those underlying conditions? They're still DEAD and COVID is why. So you're using statistics dishonestly to make a point you really can't make using legitimate data and it's not persuasive - it's hackery.

 

[JasperL]

I’m looking at the U.K. numbers . Those numbers are from a government organisation called the Office for National Statistics...they are almost certainly the most honest and accurate numbers you can get. When those numbers show mortality rates only slightly higher than the last ten years and lower than all previous years...it means the ****ing pandemic is primarily killing people that are already dying , or since Covid is a notifiable disease ( ie , must be put on the death certificate following a positive test within 28 days of death) it will appear on the death certificates whether or not it killed the person.

The numbers are being ****ing pumped and it’s ****ing obvious to anyone with a ****ing brain.

They might be ****ing obvious to you, but they're not ****ing obvious to anyone else because you're not making a coherent ****ing point by cherry picking death rates from a ****ing decade ago and shrugging off reversing a decade of declining death rates.

The question is how many died from COVID this year that wouldn't have otherwise died? In the U.S. I cited the number - over 500,000, with immense efforts to slow the spread. I'm sure the UK is somewhat similar, but in the absence of that data, you don't get to just handwave bullshit into the conversation and pretend it's evidence. It's not.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Its way beyond my pay grade to figure out how to fix Obamacare. Its very complex. I think that plan was a decent start, but it never got amended. We have a broken system here-way too expensive and a system that denies easy affordable access to care for those who don't have money. For it to work everyone would have to be insured, meaning that healthy people would be subsidizing those who are not as healthy. Unfortunate as it is, there are sick people who need more medical care than others, and someone is going to have to pay for it-or we could let them die I guess. Civilized societies do not treat their infirm citizens that way.

Indeed, "healthy people would be subsidizing those who are not as healthy".

Mind you, if you have fire insurance then "people whose houses have not caught fire are subsidizing those whose houses have caught fire". That is the very nature of "pooled risk insurance".

In the US, like in every other country, any 90 year old diabetic with lung cancer who can afford to pay 100% of the costs involved can get a heart transplant, as can any 20 year old otherwise in prime physical condition who can afford to pay 100% of the costs involved. <SARC>This is what is known as "equality"</SARC>.

 

[MAGAnificent]

There are plenty of underserved areas. My MIL was 50 miles away from here primary and 200 miles away from her oncologist.

I worked in a large teaching hospital (1000 beds at the time) in a town of about 40,000. We actually got alot of our patients from substantially LARGER cities. You cannot use the size of your city and the number of hospitals to make such judgements about what is actually available. many rural areas are amazingly underserved. Using remote medicine and physician extenders is not unusual. Many well populated cities just don't have enough - especially to treat the poor .

Obviously there are remote areas, where you have to travel for hospital care. I have at times lived in remote areas as well. However there were always GPs nearby and a hospital within a reasonable travel distance. At one point, I lived in a remote area in Kansas. For specialized care, I traveled to Denver, Colorado.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Shared risk is expensive and unpalatable for those who are young and relatively healthy, no doubt about it. However, if as a society we want to make sure that the sick members also get the care they need its a necessary evil. Those who use less medical care are going to have to support those who use more if we decide as a society that we are going to provide care to everyone. Therefore there must be sufficient resources to make it work, and unfortunately that means that some people will use more and some will use less; some people will overpay and some will underpay relative to the resources they use. I don't see another way....but I am certainly open to suggestion for alternatives that might work as long as it makes financial sense for everyone.

No matter how you frame it, charging healthy adults exorbitant rates to cover obese couch potatoes is just not right nor does it work. There are other ways to cover those who need more without turning the US into a collective.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So now we go from "gauze" to an ace wrap. (what they wrap ankles with)

And a splint with an ace wrap IS supportive. The splint is the support and the ace wrap is to secure. The reason they do that is to allow swelling to go down before they put a cast on. If you put a cast on immediately after - once the swelling goes down the cast can be too loose - and not give support. Most ers that discharge patients give instructions and explain treatment and follow up.

And now you say she was told to follow up. You do know that follow ups in an ER are not usual . So they gave her an MD that was not taking patients. AND? If you were unable to get a timely appointment with someone else, they would have helped.

Again....I call BS on your claim they were billing insurance she did not have. They have to get your permission to bill.
If you are telling the truth....and they are trying to commit fraud...there should be felony charges and headlines upcoming. Hospitals committing such fraud is a big deal and it does make the news. Nobody is saying they should not be prosecuted. You just try to make up crap to meet your own paranoid conspiracy agenda.

Frankly, it sounds like you are making up stuff so you can threaten the hospital in order to get your money back.

And if you actually did look into those covid payments - which group of patients qualifies and how much extra that care costs to deliver...you would be surprised .
If DRG (diagnostic related groups) that essentially pays a "lump sum" for a patient with "usual pneumonia with mechanical ventilation" was applied to the COvid patient requiring mechanical ventilation".....the hospitals would be operating on a huge loss. The covid patients staying on the vent for a month or two or three LONGER than a normal pneumonia patient?

DRGs in general cut any profit margins for hospitals dealing with medicare patient very fine. In addition there are major penalties for discharging patients too soon. If they get readmitted with the same issue they can have their payments cut further.

You are absolutely clueless on this issue.

I, too, have some doubts about the veracity of the story.

If such a patient presented themselves in a Canadian hospital, and the X-Rays showed such a frank fracture as described, that patient would NOT have been discharged. The patient would have been (very likely) treated as described PLUS would have been given pain medication and supplied with cold packs to reduce the swelling, AND told to wait until the next day for a cast to be applied. The treatment described does NOT meet "minimum acceptable standards" in Canada and I seriously doubt that it would do so in the much more litigation prone United States of America.

Overall, I'd have to rate the story "Three Pinocchios" IF I were required to rate it at all, which, since I'm not, I won't.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No matter how you frame it, charging healthy adults exorbitant rates to cover obese couch potatoes is just not right nor does it work. There are other ways to cover those who need more without turning the US into a collective.

My current healthcare insurance provides

1. NO "annual" caps;
2. NO "lifetime" caps;
3. NO "per condition" caps;
4. NO "per incident" caps;
5. 100% of all surgical (and associated) cost coverage;
6. 100% of all hospital (and associated) cost coverage;
7. 100% of all prescribed diagnostic testing coverage;
8. NO "prior condition" exclusions;
9. NO "specified condition" exclusions;
10. NO possibility of termination;
11. NO "co-pay";
12. COMPLETE freedom to choose medical practitioners;
13. a MAXIMUM $2,500 per year medication costs;
14. 100% coverage of necessary prosthetics;
    and
15. 100% coverage of all rehabilitation expenses.

I am over 75; have smoked since I was 17; avoid exercise; drink beer, wine, and hard liquor; play with explosive materials for a hobby; eat lots of grilled red meat and carbs, don't pay any attention to my 'fat intake', have no compunction about eating foods that have a high sugar content, and just barely meet BMI requirements for USMC Basic Training graduation.

What to you think my healthcare insurance premiums to obtain the identical coverage where you are would be?

Can you guess what my monthly healthcare insurance premiums are?

Spoiler: Answer

Not one thin dime.

 

[Ethel2]

No matter how you frame it, charging healthy adults exorbitant rates to cover obese couch potatoes is just not right nor does it work. There are other ways to cover those who need more without turning the US into a collective.

What do you suggest?
What if its not an obese couch potato but a woman of limited financial means who has been diagnosed with breast cancer?

 

[Ethel2]

My current healthcare insurance provides

1. NO "annual" caps;
2. NO "lifetime" caps;
3. NO "per condition" caps;
4. NO "per incident" caps;
5. 100% of all surgical (and associated) cost coverage;
6. 100% of all hospital (and associated) cost coverage;
7. 100% of all prescribed diagnostic testing coverage;
8. NO "prior condition" exclusions;
9. NO "specified condition" exclusions;
10. NO possibility of termination;
11. NO "co-pay";
12. COMPLETE freedom to choose medical practitioners;
13. a MAXIMUM $2,500 per year medication costs;
14. 100% coverage of necessary prosthetics;
    and
15. 100% coverage of all rehabilitation expenses.

I am over 75; have smoked since I was 17; avoid exercise; drink beer, wine, and hard liquor; play with explosive materials for a hobby; eat lots of grilled red meat and carbs, don't pay any attention to my 'fat intake', have no compunction about eating foods that have a high sugar content, and just barely meet BMI requirements for USMC Basic Training graduation.

What to you think my healthcare insurance premiums to obtain the identical coverage where you are would be?

Can you guess what my monthly healthcare insurance premiums are?

Spoiler: Answer

Not one thin dime.

I have to admit I like the Canadian model.

 

[JasperL]

Its true that you may not get the care in the time frame you want. Sometimes its too long. Our system is broken for sure. People go to the ER for primary care or for trivial conditions because they know they won't be turned away. Obamacare was/is a good start but it needs a lot of modifications to work. We are NEVER going to have a system that provides all the care people feel they need instantly. That would be prohibitively expensive.

I'm surprised a physician is shrugging off the huge hurdles the uninsured have to getting ANY care, much less "instantly." And in the time frame people "want" also trivializes the access issues. We deal with them daily with our people and it's not about convenience but getting care, period. As you say, they can go to the ER, then they have to buy drugs for any problem. Well, that's fine in many cases because our charity has people who know how to get that done. Those we get in don't have a clue, if they're not on Medicaid or the VA.

And mental health is worse in every way...

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But then your taxes are much higher and your healthcare is rationed.

When you say "taxes" do you mean "taxes ONLY" or do you mean "taxes PLUS additional expense involved in providing healthcare insurance"?

If you mean the former, you are correct.

If you mean the latter, you are incorrect.

 

[MAGAnificent]

My current healthcare insurance provides

1. NO "annual" caps;
2. NO "lifetime" caps;
3. NO "per condition" caps;
4. NO "per incident" caps;
5. 100% of all surgical (and associated) cost coverage;
6. 100% of all hospital (and associated) cost coverage;
7. 100% of all prescribed diagnostic testing coverage;
8. NO "prior condition" exclusions;
9. NO "specified condition" exclusions;
10. NO possibility of termination;
11. NO "co-pay";
12. COMPLETE freedom to choose medical practitioners;
13. a MAXIMUM $2,500 per year medication costs;
14. 100% coverage of necessary prosthetics;
    and
15. 100% coverage of all rehabilitation expenses.

I am over 75; have smoked since I was 17; avoid exercise; drink beer, wine, and hard liquor; play with explosive materials for a hobby; eat lots of grilled red meat and carbs, don't pay any attention to my 'fat intake', have no compunction about eating foods that have a high sugar content, and just barely meet BMI requirements for USMC Basic Training graduation.

What to you think my healthcare insurance premiums to obtain the identical coverage where you are would be?

Can you guess what my monthly healthcare insurance premiums are?

Spoiler: Answer

Not one thin dime.

I am not paying any premiums and have very small copayments. It's called VA Healthcare.

 

[joko104]

There are plenty of underserved areas. My MIL was 50 miles away from here primary and 200 miles away from her oncologist.

I worked in a large teaching hospital (1000 beds at the time) in a town of about 40,000. We actually got alot of our patients from substantially LARGER cities. You cannot use the size of your city and the number of hospitals to make such judgements about what is actually available. many rural areas are amazingly underserved. Using remote medicine and physician extenders is not unusual. Many well populated cities just don't have enough - especially to treat the poor .

No politician ever discusses healthcare when talking about healthcare. They only bicker over money.

The greatest healthcare issue is not money. It's lack of qualified personnel

An old union lawyer I know said in his opinion the most powerful union in the country is in the medical profession, for which every possible means is used to limit the number of doctors.

I recall when going to orientation for a private science and technology university, which also offered pre-med. Of the many hundreds of students at that new student orientation, the speaker asked those in pre-med to raise their hands. About 1/3rd raised their hands. The speaker than said "only 2 of you will get into medical school." He proceeded to explain that becoming an RN pays very well and they actually have a good chance of ultimately becoming an RN, while they have virtually no chance of ever becoming a doctor.

No bickering over money will change the fact that there not enough doctors. This could be solved by the government subsidizing medical schools AND allowing more limited specialized medical degrees/license. For example, after a very basic general education, the student would specialize in the heart - and more specifically doing caths and stints. Heart issues are the #1 cause of death and many (maybe most) elderly will come to face heart issues for which stints are extremely common. While being an attending doctor for stints, they could be studying to add bypass surgery - seeking that rating. By focusing on specialization, rather than everything, far more doctors would be available and would graduate quicker. The same should apply to all fields and specializations of medical care.

It shouldn't take 10 to 14 years for someone to become a specialized doctor. The USA should not be increasingly relying on importing doctors because of our own crushingly restricted medical education system. Americans shouldn't have to leave the USA to pursue becoming a doctor.

 

[MAGAnificent]

What do you suggest?

One proposal that was offered was a high risk insurance pool with taxpayer funding to incentivize insurance providers participation. Some states do that with auto insurance.

What if its not an obese couch potato but a woman of limited financial means who has been diagnosed with breast cancer?

Same thing one of my aunts with limited financial means did....take advantage of Medicaid.

 

[MAGAnificent]

When you say "taxes" do you mean "taxes ONLY" or do you mean "taxes PLUS additional expense involved in providing healthcare insurance"?

If you mean the former, you are correct.

If you mean the latter, you are incorrect.

Either way it's not free and it is rationed.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

If the mortality rate in 2020 was no higher than the mortality rate in 2009 what does that say about the impact of Covid?..I‘ll give you a clue because numbers are not your strong point obviously ....it means that many people who are being registered as Covid deaths ( the number that the media keeps putting out as Covid deaths) would have actually died last year with or without Covid. That doesn’t mean that Covid hasn’t killed thousands of people in much the same way as the 2000 flu outbreak did...but it does mean that there is a deliberate attempt to attribute deaths to Covid.

I hope you understand this because it’s very straight forward ...even a ****ing retard could understand it.

2008 U.S. mortality was 2.5 million. 2020 mortality rate was 3.1 million. Your right. It is so simple even a "retard" could understand. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...more-deadly-than-recent-years-u-s/3927190001/

 

[year2late]

Believe whatever you want to. You're going to anyway.

You do not make it easy to trust you. Too many holes in your stories. Too many conspiracy angles.

 

[year2late]

No politician ever discusses healthcare when talking about healthcare. They only bicker over money.

The greatest healthcare issue is not money. It's lack of qualified personnel

An old union lawyer I know said in his opinion the most powerful union in the country is in the medical profession, for which every possible means is used to limit the number of doctors.

I recall when going to orientation for a private science and technology university, which also offered pre-med. Of the many hundreds of students at that new student orientation, the speaker asked those in pre-med to raise their hands. About 1/3rd raised their hands. The speaker than said "only 2 of you will get into medical school." He proceeded to explain that becoming an RN pays very well and they actually have a good chance of ultimately becoming an RN, while they have virtually no chance of ever becoming a doctor.

No bickering over money will change the fact that there not enough doctors. This could be solved by the government subsidizing medical schools AND allowing more limited specialized medical degrees/license. For example, after a very basic general education, the student would specialize in the heart - and more specifically doing caths and stints. Heart issues are the #1 cause of death and many (maybe most) elderly will come to face heart issues for which stints are extremely common. While being an attending doctor for stints, they could be studying to add bypass surgery - seeking that rating. By focusing on specialization, rather than everything, far more doctors would be available and would graduate quicker. The same should apply to all fields and specializations of medical care.

It shouldn't take 10 to 14 years for someone to become a specialized doctor. The USA should not be increasingly relying on importing doctors because of our own crushingly restricted medical education system. Americans shouldn't have to leave the USA to pursue becoming a doctor.

If you are not hearing them discuss healthcare . that is because you are likely listening to sites that deal in promoting what you want to hear. Yes, they quibble over money as well? Healthcare is not cheap, And they have specifically talked to needs and especially how in the US we spend TOO MUCH for what we get. No bang for the buck. They have discussed this repeatedly.

 

[joko104]

If you are not hearing them discuss healthcare . that is because you are likely listening to sites that deal in promoting what you want to hear. Yes, they quibble over money as well? Healthcare is not cheap, And they have specifically talked to needs and especially how in the US we spend TOO MUCH for what we get. No bang for the buck. They have discussed this repeatedly.

Reading only what you want to hear again, are you?

 

[joko104]

You do not make it easy to trust you. Too many holes in your stories. Too many conspiracy angles.

Trusting anyone on an anonymous forum is foolish. I don't trust you either. Too much posting only self-interest and self-defense stories. I understand your apparent view that you and everyone else in the medical profession are perfect omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent gods who wouldn't do one thing wrong or fill one form inaccurately even for a billion dollars because you are perfection itself.

Do you send letters petitioning for the release of Charles Cullen because it is absolute fact that no nurse would ever engage in anything but perfect behavior and certainly would never lie or harm anyone? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cullen

...OR we could continue to discuss the topic rather than each other.

PS, your explanation for not immediately installing a cast makes sense. I have no problem acknowledging reality - something you and most can't it seems.

Fact: They did 3 x-rays. Showed both arm bones broken in the middle, but not out of place. They asked her level of pain. She said "9 out of 10." She was given nothing for pain. Her arm was wrapped 1.) with gauze and 2.) a wrap to hold a single splint in place. It did not support the wrist. They gave her one referral to all. Afterwards, at the billing windows, she asked "how much do I owe?" She was told they would send her the bill(s). Never happened.
When that referral doctor's officer told her he does not accept new patients, she called the hospital. She was told to find someone on her own. "Go online."

When my wife called asking why she hasn't received a bill weeks later she was told because they filed for her with Medicare. When she expressed shock and anger of this, the billing department said they do so for everyone without insurance. When she pressed on "how much is the bill?!" she was told $9,700.

You can try to blow that off with the evasive diversion for a topic with the typical "conspiracy theory" - which means anyone who doesn't mindlessly accept anything and everything anyone in any position of authority or status tells them. Having to thinking for yourself in relation to actual reality is a "conspiracy theory" to many people, particularly Democrats it seems. Instead, reality is fantasy and slogans. If you do not recognize the growing severe problems with ER care you are not being truthful. Rather, you are just being defensive.