Doctors are refusing to operate on smokers. Here’s why the trend will grow

a reply to: seasonal

This is my opinion only, but others whom with I have spoken in healthcare share it, and I have adopted a little of it from others to, so I cannot claim that I came up with it ... but about insurance:

I think high medical costs and insurance are the same animal. High costs create a need for insurance, and guaranteed payment (and in some cases overpayment!) for certain procedures create an incentive to increase costs for procedures. If you know you will get paid, you can charge more without fear of denial, and if a claim is denied, a patient with insurance usually has an income that you can go after if the insurance does not pay.

If we didn't have insurance like it is, probably costs would be lower, but costs are so high that the average person needs insurance, which feeds the beast.

Brilliant, if you are in the insurance or paid-for-service medical community. Not so good for patients (and sometimes taxpayers). Bad too if you are in healthcare where your local population cannot pay themselves or afford insurance....

How do you fix a botched system like that? The system doesn't seem to want to be fixed....

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

I would think that there would have to be a costing associated with each and every procedure. It needs to be regulated because the industry refused to do it itself.

Setting prices usually end bad, but it is going to end bad doing what we are doing.
I feel the same way about the pharma industry.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Is it a tax that everyone pays into to have access to the medical system?

a reply to: seasonal

I have no idea what to do ... add a morally oriented driver into the system? There are limited resources involved, and seemingly unlimited diseases and afflictions ... and when you stomp out one disease or affliction, those people just live longer enough to get the next one.

IT IS A ZERO SUM GAME.

So morality, how does that come back?

I mean, when religion controlled healthcare, was that even better? Was it worse?

I just say that ... like making sausage, the production of healthcare services will always be messy, and emotional because people get hurt/can't be saved/die ... everyone eventually. You cannot win.

About the cost: it is an endeavor that about anyone would pay whatever then can pay to have to stay alive/healthy, but that in the end, nobody ever 'wins'.

What to do ?

We are doomed hah ... and I don't see any way to make it better. Sorry for that!

Just we must try to prevent it from getting worse again here in the US, like the so-called (and I HATE the arrogant term) 'Third World'.

If we keep going like this though, we are going there. Maybe we need to go there? I wish it was different.

Sorry to babble on so long. The issue is slightly heartfelt though.

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

In many cases we are not talking about disease. It's broken bones, MRI's to see what is wrong with a joint-then repair, or preggy.

Even these things have been cranked up the costs that they are even a budget busters, even with insurance.

Then pharma.

Then at the end of life, there is convalescent homes that you can go die in for 1500 a week.

This will all work out when it crashes or gets some serious reforms.

a reply to: seasonal

I agree. If gross malpractice occurs then yes, that practitioner should be held accountable. Medicine is not engineering, things can and do go wrong, if a patient was high risk, AND had a poor outcome, should the family still be entitled to sue?

a reply to: FredT

I would think that this sort of high risk is a known before you go under the knife that you maybe not have a great chance of the procedure working or correcting the problem.
I think what I am talking about is a child birth when something is done wrong and the child will need life long medical assistance for life. The Dr.s did something wrong, but tort reform limits awards to $250,000. Guess who pays for the child, the tax payer. I say a documentary about a case like this.

a reply to: seasonal

There has to be some sort of balance but I see this ALL the time. You get a 1000 gram premie with say Total anomalous pulmonary venous connection aka TAPVR with bad pulmonary hypertension. This is about as complex as it gets in terms of congenital heart defects. If the cardiac surgeon does the expected job without a mistake these kids still can die. They sue even though this was a high risk as you can get. They should be barred from suing.

If a preventable error in a negligent manner then it should be fair game.

a reply to: FredT

Agreed, as hard as it is and as crappy of a situation, sometimes we or ours are meant to go.

And perhaps a new line of claim proof surgeries in particular situations, barring huge mistake by the dr-dr.s.

a reply to: LSU0408

As a smoker, if you smoke 10 cigarettes or less a day, I have to wonder why you're even smoking. Lol. I average a pack to a pack and a half a day. I have had days where I smoked 3 or 4 packs. Hasn't happened often, but has indeed happened.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Are you OK with the Dr.s wanting you to quite so the can move forward with a procedure?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Are you OK with the Dr.s wanting you to quite so the can move forward with a procedure?

How long though? A week before? a month? plus all of the co-morbities that go along with smoking. I wonder how long is enough?

a reply to: FredT

Good question, and what is to stop a vegan, wanting no meat, because a study said bla bla bla.

This could also lead to only "healthy" people getting surgery.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: ThePeaceMaker
What about alcoholics ?

What about patients that have been prescribed harmful narcotics for a good portion of their lives?

The new brand of politically active doctors will cut them off cold turkey and cold as ice.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Oh those heavy duty drugs are FDA approved, so they are ficken safe.

Now my question is what about any other compounds in the blood? Oh, this is about making sure the patients are going to recover, not about limiting liability.

Also I wonder if fire arms.....never mind

originally posted by: Jefferton
Good. Smokers want to die. Let them.
Next?

Some of us would love to do just that in order to finally not be surrounded by people with that kind of asinine, reprehensible, ignorant, prohibitive, liberty-hating, evil attitude.

a reply to: gottaknow

Not to mention that vegans will say the same about meat eaters, and joggers may say that about couch potatoes.

See where this could head of there is not some reins put on?

i know ill have an unpopular opinion....but i dont disagree at all. Smoking causes inflammation which decreases organ function and healing. Its well known, well documented. Its bad for you. And its increeased risk for the surgeon.

I quit smoking a little over a year ago. I vape now. Still a habit, but without all the unsavory side effects.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don't think it is a bad idea in itself, but I wonder if there is gong to be other stipulations as we move forward. And when $$$ or bundling of service is a new thing, is this going to omit some more risky people. I would snot be surprised at all to see it happen.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There is a whole world of difference between thinking that people should quit smoking and denying smokers needed health care, jobs, places to live, places to socialize, raping them financially and in general treating your dog better than a human being.

There is no end here. The government now has the power to force personal changes and control behavior. And there is no end in sight.

first tobacco, then alcohol, then obesity, then sugar, then "risky" behavior (like riding motorcycles) and on and on and on.

It still all comes down to imposing your likes and dislikes on other people. Its about control.

What about a farmer who refuses to sell his land....what pressure can be brought to bear to force his compliance?