Originally posted by KazetNagorrathere either is one, or there isn't one. I think it's pretty obvious there is a correlation, but the apparent reluctance for you (and others) to admit that seems to indicate you simply don't want to admit when you are wrong.
Sure, there is some correlation, but a very rough one at best.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenAnd you would get treated by the doctor that leads the world in cancer research if you were to contract cancer?
I have a pretty ordinary insurance plan and after a $250 annual deductible any medical treatments i get are 90% covered. I would pay the other 10%.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenWhat? I am not "wrong" - having good health care research does not equate good health care.
there either is one, or there isn't one. I think it's pretty obvious there is a correlation, but the apparent reluctance for you (and others) to admit that seems to indicate you simply don't want to admit when you are wrong.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenOn your "ordinary insurance plan" where "after a $250 annual deductible any medical treatments [you] get are 90% covered [and you] would pay the other 10%"? Under this plan, you can get treated by the doctor that leads the world in cancer research if you were to contract cancer?
I can go to whatever doctor i want.
Originally posted by FMFyes, that's what "any doctor i want" means.
On your "ordinary insurance plan" where "after a $250 annual deductible any medical treatments [you] get are 90% covered [and you] would pay the other 10%"? Under this plan, you can get treated by the doctor that leads the world in cancer research if you were to contract cancer?
Originally posted by FMFWhile the absolute best in the field probably don't take any insurance (since they can charge whatever they want and their clients will pay whatever they want), a system that can produce the best of the best can probably also produce better doctors on a lower level that will take insurance.
On your "ordinary insurance plan" where "after a $250 annual deductible any medical treatments [you] get are 90% covered [and you] would pay the other 10%"? Under this plan, you can get treated by the doctor that leads the world in cancer research if you were to contract cancer?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNo I cannot. I have not researched it. I said it probably, not that I know it's true.
Can you support this claim?
Ordinary U.S. GPs are better than G.P.'s elsewhere in the world?
Also, that is a much broader statement than what I meant. I meant specifically with regard to cancer treatment which was the subject of the discussion., not all GPs. Not every GP is qualified to treat cancer patients (most, of course, are not).
If I go to the best local hospital that treats cancer patients and see the best doctor there that will take my insurance, I think that I'm more likely to get a good one by virtue of the fact that the system whence he came is capable of producing the best of the best.
I can't prove it. But I think it's common sense.
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFhttp://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/03/shortage-of-pri.html
Can you support this claim?
Ordinary U.S. GPs are better than G.P.'s elsewhere in the world?
right now in the US, there is a shortage of primary-care physicians
One of the major problems discussed in the article is that current system puts pressure on primary-care physicians to squeeze in as many patients as possible, while essentially penalizing those who spend more time with each patient discussing various issues relating to the patient's treatments and general health.
The current system also provides much more reimbursement for those who do medical procedures (usually a specialist) than it does for those who have mere discussions with their patient (usually a primary-care physician).
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76I don't think it is common sense. It doesn't withstand even a moment's scrutiny. It sounds more like a sports fan's earnest conviction.
I can't prove it. But I think it's common sense.
The U.S. is reputed to have most of the best universities in the world - and yet further down the education system - the parts that serve the ordinary people - high schools, compare very unfavourably with other parts of the developed world. Having the 'best at the top' seemingly has no effect on the system they sit atop of.
And yet you blithely assert that "a system that can produce the best of the best can probably also produce better doctors on a lower level" and in the place of any kind of evidence, you present it as "common sense"?
This is patriotism passed off as analysis.