28 posts shown.
Kate Collins67 said:Look, let’s get one thing straight—whether we're talking about my patients or yours, you're already making that distinction between "my people" and "your people," even though everyone should have equal rights to care. If everyone is being treated according to professional medical standards, there shouldn't be any "mine" or "yours." It shouldn't matter at what stage of treatment I encounter a person; I should just be picking up exactly where the previous doctor left off. But honestly? To actually pull that off, you'd need a massive amount of specialized knowledge, much higher quality medical schools, and a level of top-down organization that our current system just isn't providing.
So, you’re out here preaching that "we treat the patient, not just the disease"? That sounds great on a bumper sticker, really, but let me ask you something—are you actually treating healthy people now too? Because if we're following your logic, what exactly am I supposed to be doing? Am I expected to step in and fix my patients' social struggles? Should I be playing social worker or calling up agencies to handle their living situations? Or maybe I should be acting as an unlicensed therapist and calling in a psychologist to deal with their mental health issues? No. Absolutely not. My job is to treat the actual illness within the patient. For everything else—the social stuff, the psychological stuff, all those other layers—there are plenty of other trained professionals who do that job way better than I ever could, and frankly, I have zero intention of stepping out of my lane and getting tangled up in it.
Look, there are tons of patients out there who have been given incredibly clear, thorough explanations about exactly what’s wrong with them and precisely what steps they need to take to actually get better. But here's the kicker—most of them don't follow a single word of it. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? If we're being honest and looking at the big picture, why are we even wasting our breath? Why spend all this energy on these exhaustive, deep-dive explanations when they just fall on deaf ears? It feels like a total waste of time to go through the whole "educational" process if people aren't going to actually do the work.
It really just depends on the situation—who I’m even talking to, honestly. Some people just aren't worth the breath, you know? So, I guess it comes down to who I’ll actually bother trying to explain things to and, more importantly, who I won't.
1. That is absolutely wrong. That mindset treats patients like machines rather than human beings. You, of all people, should know that in medicine, 2 plus 2 doesn't always equal 4 like it does in mechanics. Yes, protocols exist, but every human being is a unique organism that reacts differently to the same set of rules. Standardized medicine doesn't ignore individuality; it just provides guidelines for treatment, not guaranteed reactions. But actually providing an individualized approach takes a hell of a lot more knowledge.
And if you have a patient who isn't responding to the standard protocol (which happens about 90% of the time), how exactly are you supposed to just "pick up where someone else left off"?
2. I wasn't talking about that. I was saying that every tumor, heart attack, or case of gangrene is attached to a person with hands, legs, and a head. People forget that far too often. And that person's head has every right to know exactly what happened to their hand, leg, heart, or brain.
3. YOU ARE NOT GOD!!!!!!! It is not your job to decide who is smart enough or too dim to grasp your high-and-mighty lectures filled with a million Latin terms (the idea that medicine can't be "translated" into plain English for laypeople is total bullshit). Your job is to tell the patient the what, the why, and the how. Every patient has the RIGHT to listen or not.
They have the choice; you don't..
Brandon Newman95 said:I’m absolutely livid because I was supposed to have my results processed within two weeks. Does my primary care doctor actually benefit more from getting me sorted in fourteen days, or from letting my processing drag on for a year and a half? It’s not like it doesn't affect things—this delay automatically triggers medical leave filings and who knows what else. And yeah, I have every right to be pissed, whether you like hearing it or not. This wasn't just some "stomach bug" situation; there was blood in my stool because someone skipped a screening or someone totally dropped the ball. Casey Palmer5 is furious because someone she cares about didn't get treated, and if they had reacted in time, they might actually still be alive today. She knows deep down she won't change anything, though. Honestly, for that elderly woman, it was probably just a weekend of misery. Emergency rooms aren't called "emergency" for nothing, even if some people act like they aren't. Someone actually had to drive her to the hospital. This wasn't some minor thing. From what I understand, she had ruptured vessels in her intestine plus a blood clot.
Well, that’s exactly why I say our healthcare system is drowning in money. Your sick leave payments come out of that very same system. I’ll go on record here—politicians would call it making a formal claim—that if those tests had been finished in two weeks, it would have cost the healthcare system several times less than this mess.
Kate Collins67 said:@ Casey Palmer5
Look, if you’re going to post like this, you really ought to bring some actual medical arguments to the table—which, unfortunately, are nowhere to be found in your previous message.
If I understood that link you shared correctly, we were talking about NHL (Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, right?)
If you want anyone in the medical profession to take your arguments seriously, you need to include the discharge diagnosis from the hospital summary and the stage of the disease at the time of diagnosis—at least that much.
Your post is absolutely loaded with emotion, but let's be honest: those feelings stem from that sense of helplessness, sadness, and pure rage that hits when someone close to you gets seriously ill. It's understandable, but in all likelihood, those emotions don't actually help solve the problem.
Regarding the transfusion—blood is typically given when hemoglobin (not hematocrit) drops below 8, though some might wait until it hits 7. There are plenty of exceptions where they won't give it even if it's lower, or they'll give it regardless of the specific number.
Medical staff have to maintain a certain level of distance—patients often mistake this for coldness or a lack of care, but it's necessary for them to do their jobs. That's just how it works. You don't have to like it, and you certainly don't have to understand it, but it’s a prerequisite for functioning normally; otherwise, most of them would end up in psychiatry within a week.
Personally, I’d like to know specifically which part you’re angry about, and what exactly you think should have been done differently to prevent the situation from ending up the way it did.
There is a massive difference between being detached and being arrogant, or between being professional and being inhumane.
Medical professionals need distance because they are humans too, and despite all their schooling, they aren't always taught how to process the constant cycle of tragedy and death they witness. It’s wild to think someone studies medicine, becomes a doctor, and works in a system where death is a daily reality, yet doesn't have a single college course teaching them how to cope with it.
Because there's zero support in that regard, people often mistake clinical detachment for a total lack of empathy—or, in cases where someone lacks basic upbringing, for outright cruelty.
A kind word and a professional (even if distant) smile won't cure a disease, but it helps the patient and their family hold onto their dignity, especially when they are losing the fight for life.
Casey Palmer5
The story is honestly as terrifying as it is plausible...
The real tragedy is that after disasters like this, people just don't have the strength left to fight for justice, nor can they spend the next ten years dragging themselves through the courts, constantly picking at their wounds over and over again.
On the day when a doctor's, nurse's, or administrator's pay is actually tied to how many correct diagnoses they make and how successful their treatments are—which is totally possible, since that's basically how private practice works—rather than being based on some bureaucratic quota of referrals, prescriptions, or tests, then things like this will finally be nothing more than a bad memory. I hope.
Until then, if we ever have to face this, we’ll have to deal with figures like Minister Milinovic, whose stubborn attitudes are destroying what little good is left in this absolute wreck of a healthcare system.
analogviper2 said:Has anyone here gone through a laparoscopy followed by a three-day hospital stay without using supplemental insurance? I'm trying to get an idea of what the total bill actually looks like.
$1000, believe it or not.
Alright, I figured it was time for me to jump into this discussion too.
By profession, I’m a dentist running my own private practice, so I know the healthcare system from both sides—as a provider and as a patient.
My expertise lies mostly in primary care, so I’ll stick to that perspective.
The fundamental issue with our healthcare system is disorganization, plain and simple. I am firmly convinced that there is enough funding and enough capacity for everything to run significantly better. We also have plenty of highly trained, talented doctors.
The bureaucratic top-down structure has absolutely gutted any chance of prosperity in primary care. The way the system is set up, those who do less actually spend less, which means more money stays in their pockets. Essentially, laziness is being rewarded.
Doctors get penalized for issuing too many prescriptions or referrals, yet at the same time, Medicare lacks any criteria based on the actual demographics or age of a doctor's specific patient pool. There's zero incentive for physicians to invest in further training or to use precise diagnostics to reduce the sheer volume of paperwork. (Personally, for years now, I’ve been tossing excess prescription pads and referral forms straight into the trash because I have way too many. I can't return them to the agency, so I literally just throw them away.)
Every single day, my office receives several notices from Medicare sent via USPS that deal with things like gynecology, labs, or other primary care sectors that have absolutely nothing to do with me. Similarly, every general practitioner gets useless mailings—paper, envelopes, stamps included—regarding dental services. Just think about how much money is leaking out through those wasted resources. And all this is happening while "digital transformation" is supposedly in full swing? We don't even have functional email communication.
There is no preventative care.
Because of this broken system, everything gets pushed onto hospitals, creating massive backlogs, and then the disorganization just repeats itself within the hospital system.
What I believe a hospital truly needs is a Dr. House type.🙂
We simply don't do collaborative diagnostics here. You don't see a situation where a neurologist, an internist, a urologist, and an infectious disease specialist all review your results together. Instead, everyone stays strictly locked inside their tiny departmental silos. If you don't land in the right specialty immediately, they just shuffle you off to another silo where you have to start the whole process over again. How much money and time is wasted in a system like this? How many wrong diagnoses are treated with the wrong medications?
And one more thing: from 1990 to today, through every single healthcare reform in the US (and we've had plenty of ministers), not once has anyone actually mentioned "quality of service." It isn't part of the conversation, nor is it a goal anyone is aiming for.
The concept of service quality and improvement rests solely and exclusively on the shoulders of individual doctors—their ethics, their morality, and their personal drive to improve. The State doesn't support this. More often than not, the State obstructs it, or even punishes it.
stormyheron4 said:Check out our fellow member Susan Rodriguez4. From what I know, she's down in San Diego and posts over on this Reddit thread about dental questions
Thanks for the tip, man, but as much as I dream about living by the coast and soaking up the sun, it hasn't happened yet. I'm still stuck here in Chicago.
Hi everyone.
I thought I might share our experience to help you out a bit. My husband struggles with hearing loss (not just when he's listening to me, haha🙂), tinnitus, ringing in his ears, and trouble making sense of what people are saying. He’s been through almost everything here in the States—from Mayo Clinic to various specialists and local hospitals. Nothing works, nothing improves, and frankly, it feels like none of our doctors really take this seriously.
He finally got the chance to go to Los Angeles to visit one of the top hearing clinics in the country for testing. We met an amazing doctor who explained things clearly: one ear has some hearing loss (in terms of pure volume), but speech clarity is still okay. However, the other ear is a disaster in both volume and clarity. He told us that the fix for the speech comprehension issue is a cochlear implant, but they don't perform the surgery while the other ear is still functioning well because the difference in sound quality can be incredibly disorienting for patients. As for just "boosting" the volume? That's what a hearing aid is for.
Bottom line: a hearing aid doesn't actually help him understand speech better; it just makes the sounds louder.