[fiestynurse]

GraceOz states that "We have THE BEST healthcare in the world! Bar none! We're world leaders in medical research, and our health professionals are amongst the BEST trained anywhere."

However, here are the facts:

The Crisis of Our Current Healthcare System

[Gromit]

That site seems to think very highly of socialized healthcare. Sorry, but I'm not a fan.
The biggest problem (and in my opinion the main reason its so expen$ive here in the US) is on the shoulders of our legal profession -lawyers. You cannot watch TV at night without some ad trying to get you to sue. Well, that adds greatly to the cost.
My biggest problem with healthcare abroad is basically like the ones mentioned earlier by BSNtobe. I'm also wondering what recourse a dissatisfied patient has. If you have no real practical legal recourse, then you should factor that in as well. I also wish to re-iterate what was said before (what kind of regulations, and oversight do these other healthcare systems HAVE? How diligent are they? and so forth)
Mistakes will always happen -humans are prone to error. BUT how often have you read about bogus clinics in Mexico, for instance, that were making wild claims that appeal to those in need (cures for HIV or cancer being the two top ones) when in fact they did more harm than good.

[GoLytely]

Originally Posted by glb1960

I am a nurse and an India surgery pt. I had a hip resurfacing done in Coimbature, India on June 20th, this year. This procedure is avaliable in the U.S. but not covered by insurance. My cost in the U.S. would have been $85,000 and up for this procedure. I spent $5,500 plus @ $3,000 in travel to have it done in India. Everything went stellar and I would send my family members there in a heart beat. Sad, isn't it?

What about to have a baby? I'm due in June. Would you suggest it?

[indigo girl]

Originally Posted by fiestynurse

GraceOz states that "We have THE BEST healthcare in the world! Bar none! We're world leaders in medical research, and our health professionals are amongst the BEST trained anywhere."

However, here are the facts:

The Crisis of Our Current Healthcare System

Grace Oz is addressing the healthcare system in Australia. Your article appears to be about US healthcare.

[hope3456]

Originally Posted by Gromit

That site seems to think very highly of socialized healthcare. Sorry, but I'm not a fan.
The biggest problem (and in my opinion the main reason its so expen$ive here in the US) is on the shoulders of our legal profession -lawyers. You cannot watch TV at night without some ad trying to get you to sue. Well, that adds greatly to the cost.
My biggest problem with healthcare abroad is basically like the ones mentioned earlier by BSNtobe. I'm also wondering what recourse a dissatisfied patient has. If you have no real practical legal recourse, then you should factor that in as well. I also wish to re-iterate what was said before (what kind of regulations, and oversight do these other healthcare systems HAVE? How diligent are they? and so forth)
Mistakes will always happen -humans are prone to error. BUT how often have you read about bogus clinics in Mexico, for instance, that were making wild claims that appeal to those in need (cures for HIV or cancer being the two top ones) when in fact they did more harm than good.

I agree that going overseas for medical procedures is risky. The reality of the situation is that it is becoming a risk that many uninsured (working class) americans are willing to take because they simply cant afford to get the surgery here in the U.S.

Yes, something is terribly wrong with this scenario.

[Sheri257]

Here's my question: how do people really know they're getting excellent results? Just because I'm in the nursing field ... I don't think I would know unless I worked in that particular specialty with that particular doc.

I need knee surgery and, I got referred out to some ortho specialist in the U.S. But I didn't know anything about him and, I know too many people who've had complications from knee surgeries. So, what did I do?

I figured the best way to find out if this doc was any good was to ask nurses who had actually worked with him. I figured they were the only ones who would really know.

As it turns out ... this guy really wasn't that good with knees. He's a decent doc but his talents really lie elsewhere. After getting the same recommendation for another doc from five different nurses who had worked with both of them ... I switched to the guy they recommended.

Afterall ... it's nurses who are dealing with the post-op results day after day. They know.

Could I check the doc out by getting on some plane and flying to India? Hell no ... way too scary for me. This is something that could jeopardize my livelihood for the rest of my life. I'm not going to take any chances with that ...

There are good and bad docs everywhere and, certainly, India has to have their share of bad docs. But, at least in the U.S., I have a much better chance of finding out if they are bad ... and, I can also sue them if they screw up. You can't sue them in India.

As the old saying goes ... if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't.

[Sheri257]

Originally Posted by Gromit

That site seems to think very highly of socialized healthcare. Sorry, but I'm not a fan.
The biggest problem (and in my opinion the main reason its so expen$ive here in the US) is on the shoulders of our legal profession -lawyers. You cannot watch TV at night without some ad trying to get you to sue. Well, that adds greatly to the cost.
My biggest problem with healthcare abroad is basically like the ones mentioned earlier by BSNtobe. I'm also wondering what recourse a dissatisfied patient has. If you have no real practical legal recourse, then you should factor that in as well. I also wish to re-iterate what was said before (what kind of regulations, and oversight do these other healthcare systems HAVE? How diligent are they? and so forth)
Mistakes will always happen -humans are prone to error. BUT how often have you read about bogus clinics in Mexico, for instance, that were making wild claims that appeal to those in need (cures for HIV or cancer being the two top ones) when in fact they did more harm than good.

Lawsuits definitely add to the cost. But think of what would happen if patients couldn't sue.

For better or for worse ... lawsuits do keep checks and balances in the system. Imagine what the docs (or any other healthcare worker for that matter) would get away with if lawsuits weren't a factor. You can't just rely on government regulators. They don't have the financial incentive to go after the doc on your behalf like a lawyer does

And you can't sue in India. Just as a hypothetical example: If I went over to the India and they totally screwed up my knee to the point that I couldn't work ... I would lose $3 million in provable income and pension benefits for the next 20 years ... minimum.

Would I get all of that back in a lawsuit after paying the lawyers ... probably not. But I would probably get a big chunk of it. I've litigated four cases as a plaintiff so ... I'm pretty confident of that.

So ... let's say I only get $2 million after they take the standard one third of damages for lawyers fees. That's still a hellava lot better than getting nothing, which is what would happen if I did the surgery in India.

Not worth the risk, at least to me. Sorry but, I want the option of being able to sue my doctor if he screws up and takes away my livelihood.

[Gromit]

I'm not arguing against the ability to sue -but far too often the medical lawsuit (just as many others) is unreasonable or even just what most would call 'frivolous' -even though it might not meet the legal definition of the term (and therefore be allowable) -one example, a doc I know personally was on the list as one of the docs of a team -he never actually saw the patient for an ear problem -he saw the patient for an unrelated problem. The patient later sued him as well as other docs because he claimed they had caused his ear damage, resulting in deafness. The patient won his case because the (medical malpractice) insurance company found it less expensive to settle (as is the case the MAJORITY OF THE TIME) and just jack up the cost of insuring the docs (who have to either eat the increase or increase their fees). Insurance companies will generally choose not to fight unless its going to be too expensive NOT to fight, and only then when they have a good chance of winning. The problem isn't the ability of the patient to sue, the problem IS that it is far too easy to sue -and we have more than enough unscrupulous lawyers who are eager to take a stab.
Our ability to sue for redress is a large part of what helps us put a check against the system, but improperly used, it damages the system as well (which is why the call for tort reform is so loud). People sue over damn near everything -especially in the medical aspect -the scar didn't go away entirely, or they have an unreasonable expectation of outcome (though some of this can fall squarely on the shoulders of the docs -for not being thorough in their explanation, sometimes -and I know we've all seen this- a patient only hears exactly what they want to hear, no matter how its explained, and then will sign pretty much anything, claiming they have no need of further explanation (that they understand completely)). Medicine isn't like auto mechanics -though some patients seem to wish to treat it as such. All I'm saying is that the public greed (as exploited by lawyers) plays a fairly large unadmitted role in the high cost of medicine.
Docs get busted (lawsuits) for not ordering every conceivable test, then get busted for ordering too many tests when the results fail to point out the need for the extra tests.
Rock and a hard place.

[Sheri257]

Originally Posted by Gromit

I'm not arguing against the ability to sue -but far too often the medical lawsuit (just as many others) is unreasonable or even just what most would call 'frivolous' -even though it might not meet the legal definition of the term (and therefore be allowable) -one example, a doc I know personally was on the list as one of the docs of a team -he never actually saw the patient for an ear problem -he saw the patient for an unrelated problem. The patient later sued him as well as other docs because he claimed they had caused his ear damage, resulting in deafness. The patient won his case because the (medical malpractice) insurance company found it less expensive to settle (as is the case the MAJORITY OF THE TIME) and just jack up the cost of insuring the docs (who have to either eat the increase or increase their fees). Insurance companies will generally choose not to fight unless its going to be too expensive NOT to fight, and only then when they have a good chance of winning. The problem isn't the ability of the patient to sue, the problem IS that it is far too easy to sue -and we have more than enough unscrupulous lawyers who are eager to take a stab.

Since I've been a plaintiff myself, I really find it hard to believe that insurance companies just roll over and pay money to plaintiffs without any basis to the claim. Most of the time, somebody had to have screwed up somewhere for them to pay.

Look at this link of malpractice cases involving nurses, docs, etc. There's lots verdicts where the defense won. Obviously, the insurance companies didn't roll over in those cases.

Nursing medical malpractice / professional liability insurance, newsletter, articles, continuing education, and legal case study for RN, LPN, nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist

I'd be willing to bet that one of those doctors did cause the deafness in this case, even if the others didn't. And no doctor is going to admit they caused it, even if they did. You really don't know until you've actually looked at the documentation.

It may very well be that it was cheaper to settle because they would have lost big time if they went to court.

And it's NOT easy to sue. Not all lawyers will take your case. When my mother died in a hospital under what seemed to be suspicious circumstances (this was before I went to nursing school and had any medical background) we took the case to three lawyers.

She had been diagnosed and treated for pneumonia, yet died of a heart attack one day after she was discharged. As it turned out, she had 90 percent blockages in her coronary arteries for which she never received treatment.

Nevertheless, all of the lawyers told us we didn't have a case. Why? Because they were going to have to take it on contingency and pay for the costs themselves. Plaintiffs usually don't have a lot of money to pay lawyers.

The fact that the law firm usually has to take the case on contingency practically guarantees that they have to have a good case going in. Otherwise ... the law firm is taking a huge risk and could lose a lot of money.

Yes, everybody gets named in the lawsuit ... even the nurses. That's pretty standard. But a lot of them get dropped along the way as discovery progresses and they find out who ultimately was responsible.

Are there a lot of flaws with the system? Yes ... absolutely. But there are also checks and balances for those who sue also.

[glb1960]

What about to have a baby? I'm due in June. Would you suggest it?

motorcycle mama vbmenu_register("postmenu_1946335", true); , Yes, I would. The healthcare in general is very compentent. And American dollars will insure you are treated like royalty. Start internet searching for the best recommended OB's are then start emailing then phoning them until you reach a comfort level before purchasing any tickets.

Good luck and stay in touch, Gary