No insurance no treatment?

steddyeddy

I lived in America for few years and I dont need to mention that sometimes having no insurance in America is a death sentence. One of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in America is long term illness. I was lucky enough to have health insurance over there but many weren't lucky enough to have it. Is it wrong that a doctor could refuse treatment to those who need it because of insurance?

Vorsprung

They can't refuse you life saving emergency medical treatment.

But, if in the course of that treatment they discovered you had something like cancer, or other chronic illness that might linger until you die, they would not be obliged to give you long term treatment.

I think!

Ryder

Vorsprung wrote: »

They can't refuse you life saving emergency medical treatment.

But, if in the course of that treatment they discovered you had something like cancer, or other chronic illness that might linger until you die, they would not be obliged to give you long term treatment.

I think!

emergencies need to be treated. They will however pursue you to your last cent for the money owed. I have insurance and brought mh daughter to a pediatrician for a checkup (they are first port of call rather than family practitioner). I had a 30 dollar co-pay....insurance got billed 220 dollars. Its funny then to see people posting about being over charged for a 40/50 euro GP visit

his_dudeness

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is it wrong that a doctor could refuse treatment to those who need it because of insurance?

Everybody is entitled to be paid for the work that they do, unless they voluntarily forgo payment through pro-bono or charity work.

If one is unable to pay for a good/service, why should they expect it to be provided?

However, the medical profession is (possibly) unique in its inherent altruism via the hippocratic oath, meaning that we should "first do no harm", then worry about our own pockets.

I do wonder how the constant doctor-bashing in the media etc will affect a doctors own perception of the oath; the more that my potential career progression is muddied and the potential takehome pay reduced, the more i think "whats in it for me" instead of the "patient first" approach that I started with.

Squeaky the Squirrel

his_dudeness wrote: »

Everybody is entitled to be paid for the work that they do, unless they voluntarily forgo payment through pro-bono or charity work.

If one is unable to pay for a good/service, why should they expect it to be provided?

However, the medical profession is (possibly) unique in its inherent altruism via the hippocratic oath, meaning that we should "first do no harm", then worry about our own pockets.

I do wonder how the constant doctor-bashing in the media etc will affect a doctors own perception of the oath; the more that my potential career progression is muddied and the potential takehome pay reduced, the more i think "whats in it for me" instead of the "patient first" approach that I started with.

Most uppity rotten post of the day award.

Everybody is entitled to be paid for the work that they do, unless they voluntarily forgo payment through pro-bono or charity work.

If one is unable to pay for a good/service, why should they expect it to be provided?

:rolleyes:

Squeaky the Squirrel

Ryder wrote: »

emergencies need to be treated.

Unless it's changed, they only need to make you "stable" and then off with you.

steddyeddy

his_dudeness wrote: »

Everybody is entitled to be paid for the work that they do, unless they voluntarily forgo payment through pro-bono or charity work.

If one is unable to pay for a good/service, why should they expect it to be provided?

However, the medical profession is (possibly) unique in its inherent altruism via the hippocratic oath, meaning that we should "first do no harm", then worry about our own pockets.

I do wonder how the constant doctor-bashing in the media etc will affect a doctors own perception of the oath; the more that my potential career progression is muddied and the potential takehome pay reduced, the more i think "whats in it for me" instead of the "patient first" approach that I started with.

I'm in the health sciences and I my aim is to work on curing diseases. That's the major reason why I'm in this and to be honest I would look down on any medic who was only in the game "for the money".

his_dudeness

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm in the health sciences and I my aim is to work on curing diseases. That's the major reason why I'm in this and to be honest I would look down on any medic who was only in the game "for the money".

Eh, there are plenty of doctors all around the country every day working locum shifts at exorbitant rates purely "for the money", either waiting for training posts or paying off loans or while doing research.

his_dudeness

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

Most uppity rotten post of the day award.

Which part do you have issue with?

Do you expect teachers to teach without being paid, or nurses nurse, or the Gardai to do their job?

steddyeddy

his_dudeness wrote: »

Eh, there are plenty of doctors all around the country every day working locum shifts at exorbitant rates purely "for the money", either waiting for training posts or paying off loans or while doing research.

In this country we dont refuse treatment to the same level they do in America. I would hope the primary reason people become a medic is that they desire to treat illnesses.

his_dudeness

steddyeddy wrote: »

In this country we dont refuse treatment to the same level they do in America. I would hope the primary reason people become a medic is that they desire to treat illnesses.

No, thankfully we don't. I do like knowing that I can order imaging and tests and prescribe drugs, without having to worry about the cost. But how long will that last. The Department of Health/HSE is so over budget that eventually decisions regarding cost will have to factor in to the decisions we make at the bedside, and it won't be just picking a cheaper drug over a more expensive one. PET scans, MRIs, Laser therapies, immunomodulators, chemo therapeutic agents, all expensive modern modalities that we use regularly.

SleepDoc

steddyeddy wrote: »

In this country we dont refuse treatment to the same level they do in America. I would hope the primary reason people become a medic is that they desire to treat illnesses.

Oh for goodness sake, people study medicine for a variety of reasons, not necessarily altruistic.

SleepDoc

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm in the health sciences and I my aim is to work on curing diseases. That's the major reason why I'm in this and to be honest I would look down on any medic who was only in the game "for the money".

The Florence Nightengale award nominations closed at midnight, December 31 1908.

Xeyn

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

Unless it's changed, they only need to make you "stable" and then off with you.

It's only off to a public hospital, not out the door to die.

American health system is beyond brutal.

Doctors become doctors for a variety of reasons much like most professions.

Flier

It's quite funny how some people seem to think doctors shouldn't care about getting paid, and be in medicine for altruistic reasons. I can only assume people who have that opinion haven't spent 6 years in med school and then run the gauntlet of internship and (so called) training posts in the highly competitive system. Debts to pay and families to look after like everyone else. Doctors deserve to get paid (very well) for their work, and it's the government's job to provide healthcare for the people. If a government doesn't think the people are worth it, don't blame the doctors.

OMD

his_dudeness wrote: »

No, thankfully we don't. I do like knowing that I can order imaging and tests and prescribe drugs, without having to worry about the cost. .

But you should always consider the cost. This country is full of people ordering unnecessary tests and giving unnecessary treatment. Be aware of the costs.

Ryder

OMD wrote: »

But you should always consider the cost. This country is full of people ordering unnecessary tests and giving unnecessary treatment. Be aware of the costs.

good point. One of the reasons, maybe the biggest, that US healthcare is expensive is because it is cost driven. The more you order the more you bill the more you get paid .....higher premiums. The other part of all that simplification is defensive medicine. Every day doctors come across symptoms that are almost certainly 'nothing' buy investigate to insure against being wrong - and blamed. I think blame and litigation will need to be dealt with before we can properly address costs

steddyeddy

Flier wrote: »

It's quite funny how some people seem to think doctors shouldn't care about getting paid, and be in medicine for altruistic reasons. I can only assume people who have that opinion haven't spent 6 years in med school and then run the gauntlet of internship and (so called) training posts in the highly competitive system. Debts to pay and families to look after like everyone else. Doctors deserve to get paid (very well) for their work, and it's the government's job to provide healthcare for the people. If a government doesn't think the people are worth it, don't blame the doctors.

Well my point is not that doctors shouldn't be paid and paid well. Leaving aside altruism for second I think that the most important reason someone becomes a doctor shouldn't be because of money. Doctors should become doctors becuase they have an interest in medicine and a desire to practice it.

Of course pay should come into play but an interest to treat illness should come first. As regard who's entitled to have an opinion on the subject, I'm a biochemist involved in research. My doctorate has take close to nine years of my life and I can still promise money comes second to my desire to practice science. If anyone told me that money was their first priorty in any scientific field I would have serious doubts about them.

SleepDoc

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well my point is not that doctors shouldn't be paid and paid well. Leaving aside altruism for second I think that the most important reason someone becomes a doctor shouldn't be because of money. Doctors should become doctors becuase they have an interest in medicine and a desire to practice it.

Of course pay should come into play but an interest to treat illness should come first. As regard who's entitled to have an opinion on the subject, I'm a biochemist involved in research. My doctorate has take close to nine years of my life and I can still promise money comes second to my desire to practice science. If anyone told me that money was their first priorty in any scientific field I would have serious doubts about them.

Why?

I'd actually have reservations about the orthopaedic surgeon operating on my cruciate if I thought he was doing it for anything other than for the money.

Got any evidence that avaricious doctors are worse than mother Theresa types?