PDA

View Full Version : Brita...Are you in the public or private system?


Sei'taer
06-30-2009, 12:32 PM
I've been hearing this in the news today (I'm off work with a f'ed up knee...twisted it yesterday). I'm curious exactly how this works. I'll reference the part I am talking about with bold text.



Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care Business (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-health-care-business/)
Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.

Click here latest details on LIVESHOTS: Canada: Private Clinic Controversy

"Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.

As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model.

But the Canadian system is not without its problems. Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment.

"No question, it was worth the money," said Crossman, who paid several hundred dollars and waited just a few days.

Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters.

Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.

But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment.

"I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that's beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice," says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.

Yet advocates looking to preserve fairness claim that private clinics undermine the very foundation of the country's healthcare system.

"Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services," said Natalie Mehra, member of the Ontario Health Coalition.

Canada spends $3,600 per capita on health care -- almost half of what is spent in the U.S. And while some in Washington look to its northern neighbor for ideas, the Canadian system is still changing.

"One can understand that this is evolving and a mix of private and public seems to be favorable in some context. On the other hand, we need to be really careful that we're not treating health care the way we treat a value meal at McDonalds," Dr. Michael Orsini from the University of Ottawa told FOX News.

Provincial governments now face the difficult job of finding a balance in meeting the country's health care needs -- reducing wait times and maintaining fair access without redefining the universal ideals at the core of Canada's health care system.


What's considered unreasonable and who makes that call?

Also, I found this (http://communities.canada.com/calgaryherald/blogs/soundoff/archive/2009/06/27/380888.aspx) on another site:

Opposition critics are raising concerns about a new Calgary medical clinic promising "unlimited care" and preventive medicine for an annual fee, arguing it's one of several private facilities in the city that are eroding the public health system.

If you read the comments, the people for the most part seem to hate the system. I know its a sound off blog and a lot of the people there are simply trying to inflame the debate, but a there are also a lot of reasonable replies to the question.

I, personally, am against a system like this, but I want to know if you are seeing a breakdown like these stories are talking about? Is your system really this bad?

I'd like to hear from other people who have universal or socialized healthcare. Do you have to wait a long time for services or is it just that way in populated areas? What parts do you have to pay out of pocket? Prescriptions and things like that or do you pay for some of the services also? Would you go to a neighboring country to get healthcare if you saw there was going to be a long wait for an mri on your hip? Or do you have private facilities you can use and pay for them out of pocket? Who appears to have the best system in your part of the world?

Ishara
06-30-2009, 12:50 PM
I'll answer in more dpeth later - have to read the whole article - but both Brita and I are in public health care. very different parts of it - but public, nonetheless.

Davian93
06-30-2009, 12:50 PM
I use the VA as my primary healthcare provider (its Socialized Public Medicine) and I will say this. They are good at basic stuff (physicals, routine testing, prescriptions) but they suck suck suck at ever seeing a specialist. I used them to get a cyst removed and it took over 4 months to see a Specialist and then another 6 weeks to get a surgery appointment after that 5 min "Oh look a cyst, lets remove it" Specialist appointment. I got bumped from my first surgery appointment because another vet had to have emergency skin cancer surgery so the prioritization list kinda sucks at times. Still, I'm at the top priority for most things so I can't imagine what it would be like for a minorly disabled Vet or for one in a big city area where the VA hospitals are overwhelmed by patients and a lack of funding.

Still, I didn't pay a penny so it could be a lot worse.

EDIT: Had I used my private health coverage from my job (BlueCross/BlueShield) I probably would have had it taken out in under a week from start to finish but I would have had to pay probably 3 copays to do so.

Sei'taer
06-30-2009, 12:54 PM
I'll answer in more dpeth later - have to read the whole article - but both Brita and I are in public health care. very different parts of it - but public, nonetheless.

I forgot you were in it too. I asked Brita because she is in an area where wait times are critical (if she is still doing cancer stuff).

Brita
06-30-2009, 01:20 PM
Yes, I am. The envelope is constantly being pushed as far as opening private healthcare clinics. Certainly Canadians will pay for it, and where there is money to be made there will be people pushing the limits of our legislation.

I work in public health care, and in oncology wait times are our obsession. Our public funding is based, in part, on how we do with wait times, we are scrutinized monthly and the standard we meet (or don't meet) are published on a public website to hold us accountavble to the public.

In my area, there are a few ways patients can get better treatment if they are wiling to pay:

1. An anti-cancer drug is approved by Health Canada, but has not been granted public funding through the province. People can access this drug if they are willing to pay for it. Some private insurance will also cover these costs if a patient has bought extended insurance.

2. PET Scan tests are not payed for publicly (yet) but can be accessed if a person is willing to pay for it (about $1500).

3. And, as always, patients with money can travel down to the US (i.e. MAYO Clinic) and receive treatment/tests that aren't available here.

That is just in my area alone. I am sure in each specialty field there are similar ways to skirt the barriers with some money in hand. It is a very difficult philisophical and defining issue for our country. We pride ourselves on equal and universal access for all our citizens, and yet lately more and more private avenues have opened up. On the other hand, seeing the delays due to red tape and funding I can see the need that has driven some provinces to open the door a crack. The problem is, once the entrepreuneurs saw the crack they promptly began pushing the door open further.

Ishara
06-30-2009, 02:13 PM
I work in the corporate side of public health care - and yes, wait times are the number one issue in terms of bang for your (non) buck. So much so that the province created a list of ten high priority areas of health care where your wait times are practically legislated they're so strict. They include knee replacements and I think, glaucoma among other things.

In a more general sense, while we don't pay for specialists, we also have to wait quite some time to get to see them. For instance, I have an appointment with a chronic pain doctor. I made the request for the appt in April 2009 and do not have an appt until September 2009. Things you pay for (like physio) you can go in same day.

It's hard. I haven't ever had a need for emergency care (knock on wood) and so no, I would never go to a private clinic. But I know they're there. We have a friend who paid about $300 for an fancy schmancy ultrasound in colour, for example.

Sei'taer
06-30-2009, 02:29 PM
See, I tore something in my knee yesterday. I called my doctor and he saw me immediately. He sent me home with a brace and orders for keeping it elevated and taking an anti-inflammatory. He said it appears that something is torn due to the movement of the joint. Today his office called and I have an appointment with an orthopedic Dr. tomorrow morning. I can't even imagine having to wait a few weeks or months to get in to see someone about a possible torn ligament.

The main thing I was curious about was what is considered a reasonable wait time. To me, it's a few days, maybe a week at the longest but I don't remember ever having to wait that long for any type of sickness or injury. That's usually just for a check-up type appointment.

Ishara
06-30-2009, 02:53 PM
Okay, but the things I was talking about aren't emergencies. So the wait times are longer. A specialist you're likely to wait longer for by the very nature of their practice. A "fresh" injury and you can get in quite reasonably here, imo.

Brita
06-30-2009, 04:10 PM
Yes, I agree. Acute injuries or illnesses are treated promptly here, which is exactly why more chronic problems have a wait list. The specialist's have time blocked for acute referrals, and will bump other, chronic patients if they have to. It's all about proper triaging.

Sei'taer
06-30-2009, 04:32 PM
The woman in the article is waiting a year for an MRI. I'm waiting a day. You are waiting 5 months for a chronic pain appointment, my wife went to her Dr. fir chronic pain and went to a specialist the next day and was diagnosed with Crohns Disease and was put in the hospital because she hung out hoping it would go away for 2 months and the swelling was so bad her small intestine nearly ruptured. Either y'all are tougher than we are or you're trained that things are supposed to be that way.

Give me immediate healthcare over "free" any day...imnho. I am not looking forward to this kind of healthcare.

Mort
06-30-2009, 04:41 PM
Same here, they need to prioritize. So any injury sustained recently and that you can't live with without lots of pain, like a torn ligament or other stuff, you can often get to see a docter right away or at most a few days.

Anything that's isn't acute, it can take a few months to see a specialist, but I don't know what the normal waiting period is.

Like I have a friend who suffers from something unknown that makes him tired and his muscles get very weak off and on. He had to wait a few weeks to see a specialist I think. It hindered him somewhat but it's far from life threatening or a constant suffer.

JSUCamel
06-30-2009, 05:16 PM
I am not looking forward to this kind of healthcare.

I'm still confused about why you think we're getting Canadian healthcare or why you think it's going to be mandatory to be on the national plan.

ShadowbaneX
06-30-2009, 05:29 PM
there's pros and cons either way. In some areas, yes, right now there are pros for private health care and there are cons for the public. You'll see and hear horror stories like those mentioned in such articles, but those exist in every system.

You might be opposed to the system ST, but it does alot of good for alot of people. Some do get missed, but those are the horror stories, not the norm. I'd like to draw a parallel to auto insurance. I'm told that back before I was a driver auto insurance was a public industry, regulated and maintained by the provincial government, much like our health care system is. Then some people came along and started singing the praises of private auto insurance and how it'd solve everything. How competition will drive the price down, etc, etc. And so we changed.

Now, rather then reducing the price of auto insurance the private system actually made it more expensive and for seemingly no benefit. There are those out there that will say that a private system is the best thing, etc and we should do away with the public health care and switch and it will be better for everyone, and they're full of it.

It's not a black and white answer. It's not is private health care better then public. Too simple. Both have their strong points and their weaknesses.

Sei'taer
06-30-2009, 06:35 PM
I know there is good and bad in each. I wish healthcare was like auto insurance. I think that would be the best way to run the system.

Camel, you keep asking that question. If you read the bill Obama is putting together it talks about eventually shutting down the private system because the private system will not be able to compete against a system that won't even try make a profit (of course I'm paraphrasing and when I have time I'll link that quote from the WH website).

Anyway, I just want an idea of what I'm going to get when I lose my healthcare from my gov't job and go on "free" gov't healthcare. I also need to know what to look for in a private healthcare. Looks kike I'll have to buy something to cover prescriptions because thats definitely not covered.

Bryan Blaire
06-30-2009, 07:07 PM
I realize that there are different levels of "chronic pain", but I'm wondering how that is decided to not be a critical issue? Is it because it can be managed by prescribing pain medication? Is getting people off pain medication not considered critical? How do you guarantee proper triaging?

(Yes, I am asking for elucidation, not trying to attack your system)

JSUCamel
06-30-2009, 07:20 PM
\Camel, you keep asking that question. If you read the bill Obama is putting together it talks about eventually shutting down the private system because the private system will not be able to compete against a system that won't even try make a profit (of course I'm paraphrasing and when I have time I'll link that quote from the WH website).

And people like you keep saying that he's said this, but these links are mysteriously never forthcoming.

Brita
06-30-2009, 08:42 PM
I realize that there are different levels of "chronic pain", but I'm wondering how that is decided to not be a critical issue? Is it because it can be managed by prescribing pain medication? Is getting people off pain medication not considered critical? How do you guarantee proper triaging?


It's not that chronic pain isn't a critical issue, but it is not acute. In other words, immediately life threatening situations are deemed more acute and move up the priority ladder.

Weaning a patient off of pain medication and treating a narcotic overdose will be placed differently on the triage list. The first situation can be dealt with next week, the second needs attention immediately or the patient will die.

Usually, physicians rotate so that there is a physician available at all times to treat the urgent cases. When the other physicians aren't on this duty, they attend to their less urgent cases. However, it is an intricate dance. It isn't only physician time, but equipment use, bed space, procedure suites etc. that must all be available to meet the various needs.

But I'm not sure why our system seems to get bogged down so quickly compared to the US system...less tests being ordered? More physcians and equipment? Both?

Sei'taer
06-30-2009, 08:47 PM
And people like you keep saying that he's said this, but these links are mysteriously never forthcoming.

Transforming and Modernizing America’s Health Care System (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fy2010_key_healthcare/)
To build on these steps, the Budget sets aside a reserve fund of more than $630 billion over 10 years that will be dedicated towards financing reforms to our health care system. The President recognizes that while a very large amount of money and a major commitment, $630 billion is not sufficient to fully fund comprehensive reform. But this is a first crucial step in that effort, and he is committed to working with the Congress to find additional resources to devote to health care reform. The Administration will explore all serious ideas that, in a fiscally responsible manner, achieve the common goals of constraining costs, expanding access, and improving quality.

To achieve these goals and finance reform, the President looks forward to working with the Congress over the coming year, and as he does, the President will adhere to the following set of eight principles:

Guarantee Choice. The plan should provide Americans a choice of health plans and physicians. People will be allowed to keep their own doctor and their employer-based health plan.
Make Health Coverage Affordable. The plan must reduce waste and fraud, high administrative costs, unnecessary tests and services, and other inefficiencies that drive up costs with no added health benefits.
Protect Families’ Financial Health. The plan must reduce the growing premiums and other costs American citizens and businesses pay for health care. People must be protected from bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness.
Invest in Prevention and Wellness. The plan must invest in public health measures proven to reduce cost drivers in our system—such as obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and smoking—as well as guarantee access to proven preventive treatments.
Provide Portability of Coverage. People should not be locked into their job just to secure health coverage, and no American should be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.
Aim for Universality. The plan must put the United States on a clear path to cover all Americans.
Improve Patient Safety and Quality Care. The plan must ensure the implementation of proven patient safety measures and provide incentives for changes in the delivery system to reduce unnecessary variability in patient care. It must support the widespread use of health information technology with rigorous privacy protections and the development of data on the effectiveness of medical interventions to improve the quality of care delivered.
Maintain Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability. The plan must pay for itself by reducing the level of cost growth, improving productivity, and dedicating additional sources of revenue.

That's the way I read it. A clear path to cover all Americans. If you are on a path to cover everyone you have to get the weeds out of the way. Tomato and potato...probably doesn't mean the same thing to all of us.

JSUCamel
06-30-2009, 10:04 PM
That's the way I read it. A clear path to cover all Americans. If you are on a path to cover everyone you have to get the weeds out of the way. Tomato and potato...probably doesn't mean the same thing to all of us.

Heh, I disagree with your interpretation. I don't think it means that it's going to be mandatory, I think that it means it would be AVAILABLE to cover all Americans.

Until I see the words "mandatory" or "all Americans must use this system" or something similar, you're not gonna swayme with your fear-mongering.

Sei'taer
06-30-2009, 10:08 PM
Heh, I disagree with your interpretation. I don't think it means that it's going to be mandatory, I think that it means it would be AVAILABLE to cover all Americans.

Until I see the words "mandatory" or "all Americans must use this system" or something similar, you're not gonna swayme with your fear-mongering.


Like I said, tomato, potato.

Frenzy
07-01-2009, 01:22 AM
did you screw up your knew at work or on your own?

JSUCamel
07-01-2009, 01:37 AM
Incidentally, I would also like to point out another quote from the same article that kind of contradicts your tomato. Potato. Whatever it is:

To achieve these goals and finance reform, the President looks forward to working with the Congress over the coming year, and as he does, the President will adhere to the following set of eight principles:

Guarantee Choice. The plan should provide Americans a choice of health plans and physicians. People will be allowed to keep their own doctor and their employer-based health plan.

Make Health Coverage Affordable. The plan must reduce waste and fraud, high administrative costs, unnecessary tests and services, and other inefficiencies that drive up costs with no added health benefits.

Mandatory! No more private, employer-based health plan! You'll have to go to the doctor the government chooses for you! SOCIALISM! AHHHH!

Neilbert
07-01-2009, 10:05 AM
Potatoes and tomatoes aren't even both vegetables. :confused:

Sei'taer
07-01-2009, 04:59 PM
Mandatory! No more private, employer-based health plan! You'll have to go to the doctor the government chooses for you! SOCIALISM! AHHHH!

I should have said something about apples, then I could make some smarmy retort about Will Hunting.

did you screw up your knew at work or on your own?

I fell while I was in a drain manhole at work and my knee popped as I fell. I got a ride to my regular Dr. and he popped it back into place and sent me home with orders to ice and take an anti-inflammatory and get ready to go to an orthopedic Dr. Yesterday it swelled up and I laid around all day with ice on it and had it elevated. Today I had to come to work to have a meeting with a P.O.S. engineer who is working for a bank in a foreclosure and he will lie like a dog to get things to go his way, so I had to be here to be ready for any crap he pulled. Tomorrow afternoon I am going to the ortho (I had to reschedule for this engineer asshole) to find out exactly how bad it's screwed up. Hopefully everything is just strained really bad and I didn't tear anything else. Incidentally this is the same knee I tore the meniscus in many years ago....feels like this time it is on the inside, the medicorsublahblah ligament.

Right now it hurts like a bitch and I am just ready to go home and drink a beer.

Mort
07-01-2009, 05:36 PM
I hear mixing alcohol, even a little, with anti-inflammatory may cause some side effects... probably depends on which kind of meds you get though. Mixing ibuprofen or paracetamole may even have some risks. Try and stay clear of mixing it.

John Snow
07-01-2009, 05:40 PM
I hear mixing alcohol, even a little, with anti-inflammatory may cause some side effects... probably depends on which kind of meds you get though. Mixing ibuprofen or paracetamole may even have some risks. Try and stay clear of mixing it.

It's the paracetamol, what we call in the States acetaminophen or Tylenol, that will destroy your liver given half a chance. Don't ever, ever take tylenol for a hangover headache. Very narrow range between a therapeutic dose and a toxic dose.

Davian93
07-01-2009, 06:42 PM
It's the paracetamol, what we call in the States acetaminophen or Tylenol, that will destroy your liver given half a chance. Don't ever, ever take tylenol for a hangover headache. Very narrow range between a therapeutic dose and a toxic dose.

Snow, what's a bad daily dose of acetaminophen over a long period of time?

Bryan Blaire
07-01-2009, 06:55 PM
I dunno, but if they tell me that 800 mg of ibuprofen is too much at some point, I'm suin' me the Army's balls off. :D

Sei'taer
07-01-2009, 06:57 PM
So if I take 2 or 3 loratab and about 6 beers or however many it takes for me to throw up and pass out and I'll be fine tomorrow right?

I hear it's a very therapeutic to take pain pills and drink til you can vomit out half your body weight on the bathroom floor.

Davian93
07-01-2009, 07:08 PM
I dunno, but if they tell me that 800 mg of ibuprofen is too much at some point, I'm suin' me the Army's balls off. :D

LOL...yeah, me too.

JSUCamel
07-01-2009, 08:09 PM
IIRC, ibuprofen is absorbed in the stomach while acetaminophen (Tylenol) is absorbed through the liver. As I understand it (and i'm no expert), it should be okay to take that much ibuprofen, provided you're not taking it every day.

Davian93
07-01-2009, 08:12 PM
IIRC, ibuprofen is absorbed in the stomach while acetaminophen (Tylenol) is absorbed through the liver. As I understand it (and i'm no expert), it should be okay to take that much ibuprofen, provided you're not taking it every day.

Without alcohol involved, how bad would around 1,000-1,200 mg a day of acetaminophen be long term...say if it were used for chronic pain management?

JSUCamel
07-01-2009, 09:58 PM
Beats me. I do know that as long as you stay under the recommended maximum dosage and away from alcohol, you should be okay.

Ishara
07-02-2009, 12:01 AM
I take Naproxen daily (pretty high doses too) for that chronic pain thing I was talking about earlier, and my my friends always give me shit when we go out for drinks after work.

And no, while it can be debilitating, it's certainly not what I'd call acute. And I'm taking my own steps to address it as well as pursuing the medical options like pain management. I do physio now weekly and work out 4-5 times a week, which has made a huge difference in both strengthening the joint and keeping it flexible.

And Brita, I sometimes think that the system gets bogged down because of the fact that people don't have to pay for things. How often are we getting referrals to MRIs and CAT scans when one would do the trick? Not sure...

Frenzy
07-02-2009, 12:46 AM
Camel: Why would employers carry the expense of medical insurance if the government will do it?

Sei'taer: A manhole? seriously? and you've been doing this for how long? (you've always said you hated stormwater. now you have a good reason. :p )

i had to go to a workman's comp doctor once and only once. And it was, by far, the stupidest and most creepy thing i had to do. We were in an allegedly sick building, and lots of people were getting respiratory infections. i got pneumonia while 7 months pregnant and had to burn up 3 weeks of sick leave i'd been banking up to use for maternity leave. So i started the entire process pissed off. i filed my claim, and i had to go see the City's doctor. Who worked in a sleazy strip mall, in another county, and i went 2 months after i got better. The report came back and said i didn't have pneumonia, and my claim was denied. and i invented a few new swearwords.

i am SO glad the idiot who couldn't see the flaw in that logic stream got laid off. i can wish that she was fired, but i took what i could get.

Neilbert
07-02-2009, 12:49 AM
Camel: Why would employers carry the expense of medical insurance if the government will do it?

Offering a health plan superior to the government option would entice a higher quality of employee.

Ishara
07-02-2009, 08:03 AM
It's certainly a means of attraction and rentention. Most employers in Ontario with staff numbers over 10 have good health insurance plans to cover off all things that aren't covered under the provincial plan. Stuff like physiotherapy, vision and dental, chiro etc.

Sei'taer
07-02-2009, 09:03 AM
Sei'taer: A manhole? seriously? and you've been doing this for how long? (you've always said you hated stormwater. now you have a good reason. :p )

i had to go to a workman's comp doctor once and only once. And it was, by far, the stupidest and most creepy thing i had to do. We were in an allegedly sick building, and lots of people were getting respiratory infections. i got pneumonia while 7 months pregnant and had to burn up 3 weeks of sick leave i'd been banking up to use for maternity leave. So i started the entire process pissed off. i filed my claim, and i had to go see the City's doctor. Who worked in a sleazy strip mall, in another county, and i went 2 months after i got better. The report came back and said i didn't have pneumonia, and my claim was denied. and i invented a few new swearwords.

i am SO glad the idiot who couldn't see the flaw in that logic stream got laid off. i can wish that she was fired, but i took what i could get.

Edit: I've been doing this particular job for 12 years, but I've been climbing manholes since I was big enough to start crawling up in headwalls to see where the cave went. I had to be winched out of it and they kept banging me into the the sides. I think when I get back to work I am going to try to change the size of our manholes, or at least the size of the rim and cover.

Luckily, my regular doctor is also the city doctor so I got to see him under workmans comp. He gave me a choice of three ortho docs to go see and kind of helped me pick out the right one, lol. His name is Nasir Haque...It's pronounced "Huck" so I call him Dr. Finn. Remember a few years back when I had that big nasty MRSA thing on my foot? He's the one that helped me petition for immediate removal, telling the doc that was going to do it that I would be able to handle it with a local only (I didn't want to have to go a whole day without food and in the pain I was in too...you gotta be kidding me...). So we did the surgery right there in my hospital room and it hurt like a BIIIIIIIIITCH until the local kicked in.

Neilbert
07-02-2009, 10:27 AM
Stuff like physiotherapy, vision and dental, chiro etc.

Is preventative dental care covered under your Govt plan? To me it seems like one of the things that absolutely should be.

Brita
07-02-2009, 11:48 AM
Is preventative dental care covered under your Govt plan? To me it seems like one of the things that absolutely should be.

No, it isn't. And it is a shame. Same with routine eye exams.

Ishara
07-02-2009, 12:10 PM
Those two things (along with physio and chiro) were removed, oh, 10 years ago now Brita? They are still covered for minors, but not for adults.

Brita
07-02-2009, 12:14 PM
Those two things (along with physio and chiro) were removed, oh, 10 years ago now Brita? They are still covered for minors, but not for adults.

Yep, about that. What a shame. Chiro maybe not so much, but physio, dental and eye should definitely be covered for everyone.

Ishara
07-02-2009, 12:19 PM
I agree! What a routine eye exam could find could save us a ton of taxpayer doallars for say, glaucoma surgeries which could lead to say, heart disorders (aren't the two somehow linked?). But we're not syaing the system is perfect, just that it serves the general needs of the many.

John Snow
07-02-2009, 12:25 PM
Beats me. I do know that as long as you stay under the recommended maximum dosage and away from alcohol, you should be okay.

*goes to look it up on wikipedia*

Looks like chronic doses greater than 2,000 mg/day raise your risk of GI bleeds.....but the pain relief from ibuprofen is better.....Hmmm, here's a problem: "Like NSAIDs and unlike opioid analgesics, paracetamol has not been found to cause euphoria or alter mood in any way"
Dang!
They mention the increased risk of asthma in children given tylenol, findings which may have been confounded by indication....
Ahhhh, here's a pointer to the paracetamol toxicity article:
Hmmm - "The toxic dose of paracetamol is highly variable. In adults, single doses above 10 grams or 200 mg/kg of bodyweight, whichever is lower, have a reasonable likelihood of causing toxicity." You can apparently get a rise in liver enzymes from doses of 1 gm 4/day over a period of a coupla days, but it is "unlikely" liver failure would result from this dose.

So there you have it, from a pretty damn good source - I have a strong pro-wikipedia bias, especially for things medical. Some other things, like whether Queen Min of Korea was a good ruler or not, often get into bloody debates, depending on whether one is Korean or Japanese. Fortunately, the debates are right there on the discussion page.

/begin rant
Ahem. Anyway, the whole tylenol-aspirin-naproxen-ibuprofen thing irritates me to a large degree. Rather than a handful of those pills to stop some pain, a simple single 10 or 20 mg tablet of morphine sulfate will stop tons more pain, and the side effects are much better understood and frankly less hazardous than our usual collection of "safe" OTC pain killers. See this -
http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index.php?mode2=detail&origin=ibids_references&therow=200794
/end rant

edit: got the morphine dose wrong, added a nice reference
:D

Davian93
07-02-2009, 12:40 PM
Percocet is actually a very good pain management tool but the problem is they mix it with acetaminophen with a 5 mg/325 mg ratio. Thus, you get a ton of acetaminophen for very little reason. There is no real difference in the pain relief from a 5 mg oxycodone and a larger mixed pill...other than less stomach issues from the former one. At least in my experience as that's what I usually end up getting when I aggravate my back every couple months.

Frenzy
07-07-2009, 12:43 AM
Offering a health plan superior to the government option would entice a higher quality of employee.
They why don't employers offer health benefits to people eligible for MediCare?