Harvard's Poll on Socialized Medicine
February 16, 2008
Filed under: Healthcare,insurance,Politics: Healthcare ��" kurtglmft @ 4:08 pm
Tags: Harvard University, Poll, socialized medicine
Here is some interesting stuff from United Press International about socialized medicine. While the presented stats are somewhat shocking, the Blogmeister wonders if this is more about the frustration most Americans have with healthcare than an endorsement of Socialized Medicine.
Americans are uncertain if a socialized medical system would be better or worse than the current system, a U.S. survey found.
Among those who say they have at least some understanding of socialized medicine "any system of medical care that is publicly financed, government administered, or both" 45 percent say it would be better, 39 percent say it would be worse, 12 percent do not know and 4 percent say about the same.
The poll, by the Harvard School of Public Health and Harris Interactive, found 60 percent believe that Medicare is socialized medicine, 47 percent feel that the veterans healthcare system is socialized medicine.
Fifty-five percent of younger adults ages 18 to 34 are more likely to view socialized medicine positively compared to seniors age 65 and older at 30 percent.
Nineteen percent of the uninsured think that a socialized medicine system would be worse than the current system compared to 57 percent who think it would be better.
The telephone survey of more than 1,000 adults was conducted twice, once in January and once in February has a sampling error of plus/minus 3 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases.
Alice on 05.08.14 @ 02:01 AM CST [link] [No Comments]
One Reason Not to Socialize Medicine
Filed under: Healthcare,insurance,Politics: Healthcare,poverty ��" kurtglmft @ 6:17 pm
Tags: British National Health Service, Healthcare, socialized medicine
Today, United Press International carried a report highlighting one of the reasons why socialized medicine may not be the way to go. Long story short, when you put bureaucrats in charge of healthcare (not that they aren't already in the U.S., we just call them MBAs), stupid things happen.
Specifically, The British National Health Service decided patients were waiting too long to see doctors at emergency rooms. So, the Labour party instituted a policy where all patients had to be seen by physicians within four hours of being admitted an Emergency Room. When hospital administrators could not meet the requirements of the policy, they just stopped admitting people to the emergency room. According to the story;
…the delays not only pose a health risk to patients, but keep ambulances occupied and unable to answer emergency calls.
"This is evidence of shocking systematic failure in our emergency services," Lamb said. "As well as thousands of patients being stuck in ambulances when they should be getting urgent treatment, there will be countless others left waiting longer for ambulances to arrive."
The Mail said current figures show that last year alone, an estimated 43,576 people were forced to wait for more than an hour to enter a British emergency medical unit for treatment.
If you don't believe me, check out the story for yourself.
Alice on 05.08.14 @ 01:32 AM CST [link] [No Comments]
Mental Health: Meds, Therapy, or Both?
Filed under: Counselors,Depression,Disorders,Healthcare,Mental Health Centers,Mental Health Prof's,Pharmacology,psychiatrist,psychiatry,psychologist,psychology,Psychosis,Rx Meds,schizophrenia,social work,social worker
Tags: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, anitpsychotic, antidepressant, Arizona State University, Department of Health and Human Services, Depression, Genetics, Jason Robert, medication, medicine, neuroscience, Psychosis
In a story by the UPI, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, said consumers spent 17 billion dollars on Anti-depressants and anti-psychotic drugs. Accounting for just over 13 percent of the 127 billion U.S. consumers spent on prescription drugs in 2005.
However, in another UPI story today;
In a speech at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston, Jason Robert of Arizona State University said that while understanding biology is crucial to the understanding of psychosis, "there is more to psychosis than mere biology."
Robert said claims that genetics and neuroscience will revolutionize medicine and elaborate predictions about new diagnostic tools and new treatments are not being borne out "because they fail to grapple with the complexity of human beings..." as brains, bodies, and, embedded in culture, steeped in history, and dynamically creating their own worlds. If we’re really going to have personalized medicine, we have to be focusing not just on the genome, but the person."
Rather than having a caricature of culture in mind, "what's really critically important is understanding cultures dynamically, as complex, historic, social and political structures that dramatically influence people's lives."
Ignoring all except biology may mean never having the capacity "to actually influence the well-being of the patient," he said.
Mental health professionals have long known of their patients propensity to want an easy way out of their difficulties by just taking a pill to address their mental health needs. However, while medication is a wonderful way to feel better and treat the biology of a disorder, almost no one recommends pharmacology alone in the treatment of mental health difficulties.
When I was in school, the prevailing thought about how one develops some of these biologically based disorders was some people are more than likely born with the predisposition to develop these disorders, BUT it was an individual's life experiences that brought these predispositions out. Of course, I'm not including things like adjustment disorders (where the environment, social and otherwise, are to blame) or Developmental Disabilities (which are entirely biologically based).
Medication does not address any of the underlying experiences leading to a disorder. Nor does it help develop new coping mechanisms for situations affecting the disorder. Americans need to see psychotherapy as they do physical, occupational, speech, and/or other therapies that work in conjunction with medicine. For example, if one breaks their leg, they would see a physician to set the leg, then begin working with a physical therapist to teach them how to use the newly set leg now and in the future. They would probably also address what may have happened in the past to cause the fracture. If Americans used this same rationale with psychiatrists and mental health therapists, we would probably see dramatic "cure" rates for those afflicted with mental health issues.
However, because of stigma, time constraints, or whatever else, we see more people taking medications to feel better about what is going on in their life, which never really seems to change. Conversely, we also see people who spend years in therapy never getting better either, because, for one reason or another, they don’t want to see a psychiatrist. However, the people who, in my experience, seem to get better faster and go on to live well adjusted lives are those who employ the services of both professionals.
Alice on 05.08.14 @ 01:11 AM CST [link] [No Comments]