|
|
Post by bobathon on Nov 27, 2018 20:31:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by minx on Nov 28, 2018 9:53:31 GMT -5
This is kind of bullshit.
The rate of maternal (and infant mortality) isn't from unnecessary c-sections, but from lack of prenatal and postnatal care, especially among poor women.
When you don't have money, or easy access to a qualified doctor, it's easy for complications to go untreated or unnoticed until it's too late.
Too many women (especially younger women) show up at the ER when they're in labor having never seen a doctor at all.
And too many women work in jobs that won't allow any time off after birth, so women are back on the job right away (or if they do allow time off, it's unpaid, so pretty much the same as not allowing any time at all).
While providing affordable insurance is part of the answer, insurance won't help if the nearest doctor is an hour away and you don't have reliable transportation, or a way to take off work.
Don't get me wrong - I want universal health care, but the more I read, the more I realize that it's not going to be the be-all-and-end-all. Universal health care isn't worth crap if you can't access health care in the first place. Since it takes years to train a health care provider, perhaps we need to start focusing on that now, so that if the day ever comes that we do get UHC, everyone will be able to use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Nov 28, 2018 11:21:20 GMT -5
That story shows one thing. That states still have too much influence on health care and the only answer to the problem is a nationalised program. People are going to fall through the cracks in any system, but when you have a significantly higher chance of dying while giving birth in one state over the next, that needs to be fixed like right afuckingway.
Obviously I have limited knowledge of both systems but I don't think you need to take everyone by the hand from cradle to grave like the UK's NHS system, or have 20 surgeons in every delivery room, cabbis and nannies on standby (and the government payroll). Canada's seems a lot more in line with what we should realistically expect from our health care delivery system.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Nov 28, 2018 12:10:00 GMT -5
Yeah, I see a number of problems. Like not applying the lessons we learn. Like the crap coverage for pregnancies. It's a huge scam, and PPACA was at least a step in the right direction. And of course the "administration" is fucking that six ways to Sunday. I don't expect UHC to solve all our problems, but we sure have plenty of unnecessary deaths due to inadequate care - we can work on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by minx on Nov 28, 2018 13:23:13 GMT -5
Canada's system is pretty decent IMO. One of my co-workers has a partner who has pancreatic cancer. He was immediately enrolled in an immunotherapy program and started treatment 2 weeks after he was diagnosed. (which is what the oncologist recommended). His cost? $0.00
My brother was diagnosed with stage 1 lung cancer. Was enrolled in a similar program in AZ. Has good health insurance. His cost? When I asked, his reply was "You really don't want to know." He works for a good company, and they stepped up and offered to pay part of the bill.
Being treated for a serious disease or illness should not be dependent on how much money you can afford to shell out. And as John well knows, a medical crisis can take you from financially stable to the poorhouse in less than 60 days. It's not right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Nov 28, 2018 14:05:13 GMT -5
I was just reading last night about how someone is trying to have a work requirement to go along with the Virginia Medicaid expansion. That once again exemplifies the complete ignorance on the part of certain elements in our political system. Especially given that the two primary groups of people in need of this coverage are unable to work or already do.
|
|
|
|
Post by minx on Nov 28, 2018 14:51:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Nov 28, 2018 16:54:53 GMT -5
Feature. Not a bug.
|
|
