State of the healthcare system in America: Let's discuss why it's failing

Jacob Fox6 said:I am totally on board with what you're saying here...

But I can't get behind the way ruggedscout91 is looking at things, because honestly, she’d probably try to hand off someone’s organ for transplant to whoever she thinks "deserves" it more, even though the rules are super clear on that... And those comments about third-party coverage are just totally out of line, and complaining about the number of prescriptions seems pretty silly to me. Sure, there are a lot of them, but most of those people genuinely need them just to live a normal life...

What you pointed out is exactly what I was thinking about when I brought up the budget... To me, what ruggedscout91 is advocating for isn't quite the same thing as your example, because yours is pure reality while her take is pretty questionable from a moral standpoint. Of course someone is going to miss out, I never said otherwise, which is why I emphasized that absolute truth, but as long as you aren't denying someone care based on prejudices like age or lifestyle, then I'm right there with you... because it stays within the realm of reality and isn't about discriminating based on some personal worldview, but rather just judging how urgent a specific test is. Even at my local clinic where I always go for bloodwork, they handle thyroid tests right there, so I don't see why every single patient needs to be sent to a major Medical Center unless they're actually hospitalized, since local clinics usually have decent labs... But hey, that was just a simple example for thyroid stuff, and there are a million other tests that can only be done at a big hospital. I know that's why waiting lists exist and all that... But we end up back at what I said—it all comes down to the money... Even with an organized system like ours in the States, it would be so much better if hospitals just had a proper budget...

Look, hospital budgets aren't magic money trees—they’re tied to the federal budget, which means it's a zero-sum game. You have to take from one pocket to fill another. It’s a vicious cycle. You pour more into healthcare? Well, maybe you’re cutting funding for agricultural subsidies or infrastructure elsewhere. You can't just conjure cash out of thin air. That’s why we really need to figure out how to make the current system run more efficiently with the money we already have, because let’s face it—in the long run, there isn't going to be any more money coming down the pike.

So, what’s the move? We can sit around waiting until there’s enough wealth to provide perfectly equal service to everyone—which, let's be honest, is a fantasy—or we can fundamentally change how the system works from the inside. We could prioritize resources for those who absolutely need them most, even if that means unfortunately cutting back on services for people who are less critical or perhaps less "financially viable" to treat. Whatever you want to call it, that's the reality.

That’s just my take on things—and don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind feeling a lot more comfortable if there were plenty for everyone. But I think some of you are missing the point of what ruggedscout91 is getting at. I get where the frustration comes from, believe me; I see it firsthand, and all I can say is that the situation is even bleaker than what's being written here.

Kate Collins67 said:Well, money has always been the issue. Always. But we can't sit around daydreaming about "what if" scenarios; we have to deal with the reality of surviving within the system as it exists right now.

But look, that reagent example you gave is a bit too simple because, usually, nobody gets fired over something like that. You have much more serious examples out there—far more serious potential diagnoses—where you're still prevented from acting, and suddenly you're stuck in this impossible dilemma: you know exactly what resources you have available, and you realize you can only help, say, one more person before the end of the month or the year. You're forced to choose between two people. And medically speaking? The only thing distinguishing them might be age—one is 40 and the other is 70—or maybe one struggles with alcoholism and the other doesn't. In certain situations, you might manage to game the system and help both, but in many others, you won't. And as time goes on, you'll probably start to falter because fighting against the system is exhausting and, most of the time, completely futile.

Since the law, with its restrictive budgeting, basically gives you a way to shift the blame onto the government, you’d think it would be easier to stomach—but it doesn't change the fact that you are constantly being forced to choose one person at the expense of another.
In a system set up this way, avoidance is impossible. And when you are finally making that choice, it becomes incredibly significant whether you're looking at a person with cancer or not, an alcoholic or a teetotaler, the young or the old. Because at the end of the day, you are the one making the decision that helps one person while depriving another... it's tragic, but that's just how it works. I'll say it again: sometimes there's a way to screw the system, but sometimes your hands are tied.

I'm with you on that. But I think you misunderstood part of what I meant... I've been consistently against the views expressed by ruggedscout91, who starts off by suggesting we should give this or that based purely on personal opinion. I'm not sure if you see the difference between what you're saying and what she was arguing. She was pointing out typical cases of discrimination, which isn't really what you're talking about here, because her point was about discrimination on a personal level fueled by individual prejudices (I could pull excerpts to prove it if needed), whereas you're talking about systemic discrimination, which isn't what I was getting at at all. It's an exaggeration to say the rules generally can't be followed. Of course, it's not always possible, and doctors definitely try to squeeze out every bit of good they can, but overall, there are guidelines that are easier to follow in some specialties than others, though I truly believe a doctor can act in a way that stays within the bounds of humanity... And again, that's not the same as what ruggedscout91 writes, where it seems like people are just tossed aside because they're elderly, or judged as doomed because they're alcoholics, using those excuses to justify treating or not treating them... what she represents is prejudice, while what you represent is something else entirely, and even though the line is thin, it exists. You're doing it because of a limited budget and you can't just change who you are to do things the way they "should" be done, but she does it because of bias. That's the whole point...

Jacob Fox6 said:I am totally on board with what you're saying here...

But I can't get behind the way ruggedscout91 is looking at things, because honestly, she’d probably try to hand off someone’s organ for transplant to whoever she thinks "deserves" it more, even though the rules are super clear on that... And those comments about third-party coverage are just totally out of line, and complaining about the number of prescriptions seems pretty silly to me. Sure, there are a lot of them, but most of those people genuinely need them just to live a normal life...

What you pointed out is exactly what I was thinking about when I brought up the budget... To me, what ruggedscout91 is advocating for isn't quite the same thing as your example, because yours is pure reality while her take is pretty questionable from a moral standpoint. Of course someone is going to miss out, I never said otherwise, which is why I emphasized that absolute truth, but as long as you aren't denying someone care based on prejudices like age or lifestyle, then I'm right there with you... because it stays within the realm of reality and isn't about discriminating based on some personal worldview, but rather just judging how urgent a specific test is. Even at my local clinic where I always go for bloodwork, they handle thyroid tests right there, so I don't see why every single patient needs to be sent to a major Medical Center unless they're actually hospitalized, since local clinics usually have decent labs... But hey, that was just a simple example for thyroid stuff, and there are a million other tests that can only be done at a big hospital. I know that's why waiting lists exist and all that... But we end up back at what I said—it all comes down to the money... Even with an organized system like ours in the States, it would be so much better if hospitals just had a proper budget...

Sure, the protocols for transplants might be black and white, but that doesn't mean they're actually moral.
In my book, if there's only one liver available and two patients—one who's an alcoholic and another dealing with a liver disease they had zero control over—that second person is the one who deserves it.
Since nobody is asking me to make the call, I'm not going to play God, and if the law dictates a certain way, I'll follow it—but don't think for a second that I agree with it.

If you ever found yourself in a position where you desperately needed a liver, only to watch it go to an alcoholic while you're left with maybe six months to live, I bet your perspective would look a whole lot different.

Jacob Fox6 said:I'm with you on that. But I think you misunderstood part of what I meant... I've been consistently against the views expressed by ruggedscout91, who starts off by suggesting we should give this or that based purely on personal opinion. I'm not sure if you see the difference between what you're saying and what she was arguing. She was pointing out typical cases of discrimination, which isn't really what you're talking about here, because her point was about discrimination on a personal level fueled by individual prejudices (I could pull excerpts to prove it if needed), whereas you're talking about systemic discrimination, which isn't what I was getting at at all. It's an exaggeration to say the rules generally can't be followed. Of course, it's not always possible, and doctors definitely try to squeeze out every bit of good they can, but overall, there are guidelines that are easier to follow in some specialties than others, though I truly believe a doctor can act in a way that stays within the bounds of humanity... And again, that's not the same as what ruggedscout91 writes, where it seems like people are just tossed aside because they're elderly, or judged as doomed because they're alcoholics, using those excuses to justify treating or not treating them... what she represents is prejudice, while what you represent is something else entirely, and even though the line is thin, it exists. You're doing it because of a limited budget and you can't just change who you are to do things the way they "should" be done, but she does it because of bias. That's the whole point...

I hear exactly what she’s saying, I hear what I’m saying, and I get your point—but let’s stop pretending for a second. Let’s forget that I’m a doctor, you’re a medical student, and she’s a patient. Let’s pretend we’re all just "patients" stripped of any identity other than raw medical data.

Personally? It would absolutely kill me if my son, my daughter, or my grandchild died, while someone in their 80s gets to cling to life for a few more months simply because the system is rigged to prioritize "excessive care for the elderly," causing a massive bottleneck for everyone else.

On the flip side, if it were my grandfather or grandmother in that bed, maybe I wouldn't be able to say that—though, honestly, life has already shattered most of my ideals anyway. But even then, I wouldn't want to be the one forced to make that call when it comes to my own flesh and blood (even though my grandparents have all passed away).

ruggedscout91 writes what he writes because he understands the fundamental truth: in a system where it is impossible for everyone to get everything, it makes more sense to prioritize those for whom the intervention will actually provide long-term value (or at least, that's how it looks from where I'm standing).

Kate Collins67 said:Sure, the protocols for transplants might be black and white, but that doesn't mean they're actually moral.
In my book, if there's only one liver available and two patients—one who's an alcoholic and another dealing with a liver disease they had zero control over—that second person is the one who deserves it.
Since nobody is asking me to make the call, I'm not going to play God, and if the law dictates a certain way, I'll follow it—but don't think for a second that I agree with it.

If you ever found yourself in a position where you desperately needed a liver, only to watch it go to an alcoholic while you're left with maybe six months to live, I bet your perspective would look a whole lot different.

That’s exactly the point—I wouldn't have looked at it any other way... I'm not putting myself above an alcoholic, even if that's clearly a hard pill for you to swallow... We're both stuck in the exact same boat here, regardless of the fact that he's struggling with addiction and I am not...

Look, I'm not gonna get all deep into your personal moral compass or anything... I only really brought up ethics because that’s when it starts messing with how you actually do the job. If you're following the law and playing by the rules like you say you are, then whatever... what you think about it in your own head is totally your business. Work is supposed to be objective, so bringing your own feelings into it just isn't the move...

Kate Collins67 said:I hear exactly what she’s saying, I hear what I’m saying, and I get your point—but let’s stop pretending for a second. Let’s forget that I’m a doctor, you’re a medical student, and she’s a patient. Let’s pretend we’re all just "patients" stripped of any identity other than raw medical data.

Personally? It would absolutely kill me if my son, my daughter, or my grandchild died, while someone in their 80s gets to cling to life for a few more months simply because the system is rigged to prioritize "excessive care for the elderly," causing a massive bottleneck for everyone else.

On the flip side, if it were my grandfather or grandmother in that bed, maybe I wouldn't be able to say that—though, honestly, life has already shattered most of my ideals anyway. But even then, I wouldn't want to be the one forced to make that call when it comes to my own flesh and blood (even though my grandparents have all passed away).

ruggedscout91 writes what he writes because he understands the fundamental truth: in a system where it is impossible for everyone to get everything, it makes more sense to prioritize those for whom the intervention will actually provide long-term value (or at least, that's how it looks from where I'm standing).

That’s exactly why it shouldn't be left up to any single person to decide. Like, is the life of some kid—who, let's be real, might end up being a criminal one day—actually worth more than the life of your mother, who's in that older age bracket? Age isn't an absolute metric for anything, really, and it shouldn't be a criterion for anything else either. Personally, I think the rules are fair because I dealt with those exact dilemmas a long time ago... At the end of the day, every life is just a life and nothing more, and there's no such thing as a life being more or less valuable once you're talking about survival...

I think I already covered the rest of my thoughts in my last post...🙂

Fair enough if that's how you see it—really, I respect the perspective—but don't take it personally when I say that even that "ideal" could vanish completely at some point in your life. Maybe you aren't the type to feel the need to protect yourself so fiercely, but honestly? The real question is what you’re going to have to say when it’s your own kids on the line.

Jacob Fox6 said:That’s exactly why it shouldn't be left up to any single person to decide. Like, is the life of some kid—who, let's be real, might end up being a criminal one day—actually worth more than the life of your mother, who's in that older age bracket? Age isn't an absolute metric for anything, really, and it shouldn't be a criterion for anything else either. Personally, I think the rules are fair because I dealt with those exact dilemmas a long time ago... At the end of the day, every life is just a life and nothing more, and there's no such thing as a life being more or less valuable once you're talking about survival...

I think I already covered the rest of my thoughts in my last post...🙂

I mean, it really depends on how you look at it—the way laws actually get passed around here basically boils down to one single person at the top pulling all the strings on the important stuff.
Sure, technically it isn't just one person sitting in the executive branch making every move, but let's be real: it's still just one person hiding behind that fancy title of "legislator."

Kate Collins67 said:Fair enough if that's how you see it—really, I respect the perspective—but don't take it personally when I say that even that "ideal" could vanish completely at some point in your life. Maybe you aren't the type to feel the need to protect yourself so fiercely, but honestly? The real question is what you’re going to have to say when it’s your own kids on the line.

Thanks so much... And honestly, it's the exact same thing when it comes to my kids, and even my parents whom I love dearly...

The whole "protect yourself" thing is pretty subjective, isn't it? In most areas of life, I'm actually super self-protective, but everything changes when we're talking about the difference between one life existing versus another in medicine... That's where that instinct to save yourself just disappears, because then we're talking about a literal fight for survival... If I were stranded on a desert island, I'd do whatever it takes to make it through, but when there are two lives involved—even if one of them is mine—I'm sticking to those rules no matter how crazy they might sound...🤷

Kate Collins67 said:I mean, it really depends on how you look at it—the way laws actually get passed around here basically boils down to one single person at the top pulling all the strings on the important stuff.
Sure, technically it isn't just one person sitting in the executive branch making every move, but let's be real: it's still just one person hiding behind that fancy title of "legislator."

Oh my God, where did you go with that one... 😵 😁

I wasn't talking about politics, I was actually referring to the entire medical profession across the globe agreeing on certain standards that some people might question, all while using the Hippocratic Oath as their guiding light...

Jacob Fox6 said:Oh my God, where did you go with that one... 😵 😁

I wasn't talking about politics, I was actually referring to the entire medical profession across the globe agreeing on certain standards that some people might question, all while using the Hippocratic Oath as their guiding light...

Certain things happen that I find distasteful. I would be happiest if every single patient could receive top-tier care. Perhaps those days will come. Until then, the system must at least strive for basic functionality.

There are certain standards we would like to see—standards we have seen working effectively in other countries.

Why is it that in America, we constantly try to reinvent the wheel in every industry instead of simply looking at proven successes from abroad?

Her point about reagent shortages is accurate. No Secretary of Health is going to show up to explain why there are no reagents (because they’ll simply fly overseas for treatment). The issue is that the medical profession isn't even consulted when our famous legislators pass laws.
Today it is reagent shortages; tomorrow it could be organ transplants. Isn't there a greater risk of someone trying to play God in an unregulated field than in one that is thoroughly vetted and humanely, medically, and legally regulated?

Regarding that claim: I will never reach a point where I choose between lives, even if my own children were at stake. Let me tell you something: In my heart, my plea to God remains open—I would trade my life for my children's in an instant if they were ever threatened. That is why I went into a very demanding, difficult surgery without hesitation.
And I sat there, sick, waiting in hallways, enduring all those groups of people whom I don't resent. They are merely collateral damage of poor organization, not criminals for being ill.
Life, Jacob Fox, is a fight against windmills. I know this. I fight fiercely on the ground for the rights of certain animals, spending my time and resources. Instead of buying myself necessary medication, I am driving an animal to an emergency procedure because it’s lying near some shipping containers with a broken leg. Honestly, this life isn't even a grand heist.
Fortunately, it passes quickly.

Kate Collins67 said:You aren't going to achieve a single thing with that attitude; I went through all the psych testing myself and look where I am...

It is simply impossible to explain the nuances of what a poet is trying to convey to someone who isn't actually deep inside the system. Look, nobody is asking you to agree with my perspective—I’m just reporting exactly what I see and how things are actually being handled on the ground.

Let me give you a real-world example from my own practice: A patient was referred from a local community hospital to the Mayo Clinic hematology clinic because they needed urgent intervention due to a platelet count of 3 and obvious subcutaneous bleeding. This patient wasn't responding to the standard therapy available at the general hospital.
And according to you people, I’m some kind of monster just because I sent this individual to the Mayo Clinic—only to have them sent right back with some idiotic excuse? It’s either because the doctor who saw them was too overwhelmed to care, or they are one of those pseudo-moralists who loves to lecture everyone about the Hippocratic Oath while doing nothing...
Two days later, that same patient was admitted to the Cleveland Clinic and the procedure was successfully completed.

If you can't see why these systemic failures happen, then there is absolutely nothing I can do to help you understand.

🙄

Oh, I will achieve something, especially now, just out of pure spite for you and everyone else who refuses to budge.😳
Actually, we are very close to making communication studies a mandatory colloquium alongside subjects like ethics—and you won't get far in medical school without passing it.

How could I not be involved in the system? I am a patient; I am part of that system. The thing is, I'm looking at the situation from a different angle, but I've also taken it upon myself to study things from a professional perspective. That's usually what doctors do once they become patients themselves.
And you know what? I realize you guys are totally checked out, that you're miserable, and that the burden of that falls squarely on the patient's shoulders.
But that doesn't justify a lack of humanity—the inability to explain to a person what the problem is, who failed them, and what needs to happen next. And no, I don't think you're an animal for how you handled that hematology patient. What strikes me is your utter incompetence in communicating with the person. Why didn't you report that incompetent colleague? There is Medicare to oversee those kinds of failures.

Let me give you an example of a total communication breakdown experienced by the parents of a child with a malignant illness. They told me about it in the nursery. For three months, these parents couldn't get a straight answer regarding their child's diagnosis. They couldn't catch the doctor, couldn't talk to her, and couldn't schedule consultations during her working hours or whenever she felt like it. One day, they were practically pleading in the hospital hallway when she came by, and she snapped at them: "Why are you cornering me in the hallway? I don't have time to deal with this with you; I'm busy treating children who actually *can* be cured!"
In your eyes, is that a normal reaction from a pediatric oncologist? Is that how you're supposed to tell parents, after three months of zero communication, that their child is dying and there's no hope?
By Sharia law, that deserves stoning.😳
A dysfunctional system is no excuse for such disgusting behavior. Sorry, but if you don't have the temperament for this, lady, go grow tomatoes in the backyard and work on your nerves. Everyone knows how grueling a doctor's life is and how much it demands of you.

Kate Collins67 said:Are you going to ask that same question when you leave your own mother or father stuck in a hospital bed, relying on strangers just to wash them and feed them because you couldn't be bothered to handle it yourself at home? (That’s just standard behavior for an American patient's family.)

If you're going to throw a question like that directly at someone, you really ought to try and learn a little bit about who they actually are first.
No way—I would never "leave" my parents anywhere, but honestly, that is none of your business!
Besides, you can't just drop people off at a hospital and expect them to stay there for months under someone else's watch.

Angela Wright said:🙄

Oh, I will achieve something, especially now, just out of pure spite for you and everyone else who refuses to budge.😳
Actually, we are very close to making communication studies a mandatory colloquium alongside subjects like ethics—and you won't get far in medical school without passing it.

How could I not be involved in the system? I am a patient; I am part of that system. The thing is, I'm looking at the situation from a different angle, but I've also taken it upon myself to study things from a professional perspective. That's usually what doctors do once they become patients themselves.
And you know what? I realize you guys are totally checked out, that you're miserable, and that the burden of that falls squarely on the patient's shoulders.
But that doesn't justify a lack of humanity—the inability to explain to a person what the problem is, who failed them, and what needs to happen next. And no, I don't think you're an animal for how you handled that hematology patient. What strikes me is your utter incompetence in communicating with the person. Why didn't you report that incompetent colleague? There is Medicare to oversee those kinds of failures.

Let me give you an example of a total communication breakdown experienced by the parents of a child with a malignant illness. They told me about it in the nursery. For three months, these parents couldn't get a straight answer regarding their child's diagnosis. They couldn't catch the doctor, couldn't talk to her, and couldn't schedule consultations during her working hours or whenever she felt like it. One day, they were practically pleading in the hospital hallway when she came by, and she snapped at them: "Why are you cornering me in the hallway? I don't have time to deal with this with you; I'm busy treating children who actually *can* be cured!"
In your eyes, is that a normal reaction from a pediatric oncologist? Is that how you're supposed to tell parents, after three months of zero communication, that their child is dying and there's no hope?
By Sharia law, that deserves stoning.😳
A dysfunctional system is no excuse for such disgusting behavior. Sorry, but if you don't have the temperament for this, lady, go grow tomatoes in the backyard and work on your nerves. Everyone knows how grueling a doctor's life is and how much it demands of you.

You're actually more embedded in the system than most of the medical staff, but I guess some people just struggle to accept that.

@Angela Wright
And what even is "communication studies" supposed to be?
If you're talking about things like "delivering bad news" or similar disciplines, unfortunately, we don't teach that here—for quite a few reasons, actually—but at some foreign universities, they have specific workshops dedicated to practicing it, though that’s beside the point right now...

Secondly, I have no idea how you imagine implementing this, but let me tell you, introducing something like that isn't going to change the core of anything—honestly, it just becomes one more exam you have to pass. Learning "communication methods" doesn't change someone's fundamental "nature," and if someone is just naturally a person who doesn't talk much to people, then they won't, period. It's just like math; we all studied it and "learned" it, but that doesn't mean we actually use it outside of the most basic level...

By the way, I'm not even sure how you, as someone without a medical background, can even begin to grasp our perspective on these issues? Honestly, I don't know, I really can't wrap my head around it, and please don't take this as an insult, but it's just incomprehensible to me...

@vixen
What year of college are you in? I'm genuinely curious...

Now, for everyone out there advocating for "omnidirectional care," here's a little quiz...

Imagine you get a call stating that a child with asthma is in critical condition and can barely breathe; you throw on your shoes and head out, only for the dispatcher to tell you that on the other side of your territory, there's an elderly woman, say 60 years old, who also suffers from asthma, has heart disease, and is also struggling to breathe...

Technically, there is absolutely no way you can handle both—you only have one team, consisting of a driver, a nurse, and yourself, plus one ambulance, and you have to make a choice—so, what are you going to do?

I'm listening to suggestions, maybe I'll actually learn something...

Angela Wright said:🙄

Oh, I will achieve something, especially now, just out of pure spite for you and everyone else who refuses to budge.😳
Actually, we are very close to making communication studies a mandatory colloquium alongside subjects like ethics—and you won't get far in medical school without passing it.

How could I not be involved in the system? I am a patient; I am part of that system. The thing is, I'm looking at the situation from a different angle, but I've also taken it upon myself to study things from a professional perspective. That's usually what doctors do once they become patients themselves.
And you know what? I realize you guys are totally checked out, that you're miserable, and that the burden of that falls squarely on the patient's shoulders.
But that doesn't justify a lack of humanity—the inability to explain to a person what the problem is, who failed them, and what needs to happen next. And no, I don't think you're an animal for how you handled that hematology patient. What strikes me is your utter incompetence in communicating with the person. Why didn't you report that incompetent colleague? There is Medicare to oversee those kinds of failures.

Let me give you an example of a total communication breakdown experienced by the parents of a child with a malignant illness. They told me about it in the nursery. For three months, these parents couldn't get a straight answer regarding their child's diagnosis. They couldn't catch the doctor, couldn't talk to her, and couldn't schedule consultations during her working hours or whenever she felt like it. One day, they were practically pleading in the hospital hallway when she came by, and she snapped at them: "Why are you cornering me in the hallway? I don't have time to deal with this with you; I'm busy treating children who actually *can* be cured!"
In your eyes, is that a normal reaction from a pediatric oncologist? Is that how you're supposed to tell parents, after three months of zero communication, that their child is dying and there's no hope?
By Sharia law, that deserves stoning.😳
A dysfunctional system is no excuse for such disgusting behavior. Sorry, but if you don't have the temperament for this, lady, go grow tomatoes in the backyard and work on your nerves. Everyone knows how grueling a doctor's life is and how much it demands of you.

1. You won't achieve much by introducing communication studies—and not because of the subject itself, but because of the system again. Take Emergency Medicine, for instance; I don't even know if it's still taught or what they call it now. Basically, subjects directly tied to the job are prioritized over ethics, communication, ecology, epidemiology, and all those other "filler subjects." And that core subject was such a joke (if I recall correctly) that most people passing it couldn't actually provide basic first aid... and keep in mind, we're talking about future doctors here. Go back to the first page and look at that point regarding the poor quality of medical school.

2. Everyone views a situation from their own perspective—that's just human nature—but I can see it from both sides because I've been a patient and I'll be one again, and on top of that, I'm a doctor. Most of you only have the luxury of seeing things from one single angle, and when it comes to explaining why we sometimes act the way we do to someone outside the profession, it's almost impossible.

3. The person involved knows exactly what happened, but as for why they weren't admitted to the Mayo Clinic, only the person who turned them away knows that. If I were to report them, I'd have to be right there to witness exactly what went down, and even if I did, getting personally involved in someone else's mess isn't my thing—mostly because, legally speaking, I can only...

4. Cornering a doctor in the hallways is incredibly irritating for us. I honestly don't know what to say to that comment. All I can say is that if there's a designated time for consultations, that's when you should show up. Then again, from my experience in practice, even during consultation hours, they're often too busy actually working, leading to that vicious cycle of having too many patients and not enough doctors.

jadesailor14 said:If you're going to throw a question like that directly at someone, you really ought to try and learn a little bit about who they actually are first.
No way—I would never "leave" my parents anywhere, but honestly, that is none of your business!
Besides, you can't just drop people off at a hospital and expect them to stay there for months under someone else's watch.

You're actually more embedded in the system than most of the medical staff, but I guess some people just struggle to accept that.

Sure, you can't leave them for months—but you could certainly leave them for days. Say, when you're heading off on summer vacation? And then you could do that for a few days every two or three months, or whatever. There are all sorts of ways to work it out, really... anything is possible if you plan it right.

Kate Collins67 said:1. You won't achieve much by introducing communication studies—and not because of the subject itself, but because of the system again. Take Emergency Medicine, for instance; I don't even know if it's still taught or what they call it now. Basically, subjects directly tied to the job are prioritized over ethics, communication, ecology, epidemiology, and all those other "filler subjects." And that core subject was such a joke (if I recall correctly) that most people passing it couldn't actually provide basic first aid... and keep in mind, we're talking about future doctors here. Go back to the first page and look at that point regarding the poor quality of medical school.

2. Everyone views a situation from their own perspective—that's just human nature—but I can see it from both sides because I've been a patient and I'll be one again, and on top of that, I'm a doctor. Most of you only have the luxury of seeing things from one single angle, and when it comes to explaining why we sometimes act the way we do to someone outside the profession, it's almost impossible.

3. The person involved knows exactly what happened, but as for why they weren't admitted to the Mayo Clinic, only the person who turned them away knows that. If I were to report them, I'd have to be right there to witness exactly what went down, and even if I did, getting personally involved in someone else's mess isn't my thing—mostly because, legally speaking, I can only...

4. Cornering a doctor in the hallways is incredibly irritating for us. I honestly don't know what to say to that comment. All I can say is that if there's a designated time for consultations, that's when you should show up. Then again, from my experience in practice, even during consultation hours, they're often too busy actually working, leading to that vicious cycle of having too many patients and not enough doctors.

You just can't
because different rules apply to you; basically, the rules fly out the window once you become a patient.
Still, you're a "colleague" with friends and connections inside the system, whereas I'm just some random person, jadesailor14.

4. So, catching people in the hallways is irritating? Don't parents deserve a quick chat and an explanation about what happened to their child? We're talking about being too busy for three months, not just three hours.
They couldn't find any time in three whole months? That honestly feels like just pretending to be busy and acting untouchable.
It’s funny how some doctors always manage to find the time.

jadesailor14 said:You just can't
because different rules apply to you; basically, the rules fly out the window once you become a patient.
Still, you're a "colleague" with friends and connections inside the system, whereas I'm just some random person, jadesailor14.

4. So, catching people in the hallways is irritating? Don't parents deserve a quick chat and an explanation about what happened to their child? We're talking about being too busy for three months, not just three hours.
They couldn't find any time in three whole months? That honestly feels like just pretending to be busy and acting untouchable.
It’s funny how some doctors always manage to find the time.

I absolutely can, because I spent way too much time being a patient before I entered the medical field—and unlike you, I didn't have anyone on the inside helping me out.

Look, it irritates me. Do you really want me to lie to your face and tell you this situation is "charming"?
It's hard to even argue about this—does someone actually know the diagnosis or not? Because if a diagnosis exists, it’s documented somewhere: a discharge summary, an outpatient report, a medical history, something! If there is no diagnosis, then there's nothing to talk about. I don't know the specifics of the case, I don't have the details, so it's impossible for me to offer any meaningful insight.

Kate Collins67 said:I absolutely can, because I spent way too much time being a patient before I entered the medical field—and unlike you, I didn't have anyone on the inside helping me out.

Look, it irritates me. Do you really want me to lie to your face and tell you this situation is "charming"?
It's hard to even argue about this—does someone actually know the diagnosis or not? Because if a diagnosis exists, it’s documented somewhere: a discharge summary, an outpatient report, a medical history, something! If there is no diagnosis, then there's nothing to talk about. I don't know the specifics of the case, I don't have the details, so it's impossible for me to offer any meaningful insight.

I totally get why it’s annoying—I’d feel the exact same way! 😬
Since my job involves mostly paperwork, I can't really complain if people think I'm being grumpy, rude, or cold toward them.
The truth is, I just don't have the patience or the drive for customer service; human stupidity drives me absolutely crazy, and I'm definitely not the most social person... which is exactly why I didn't choose a career working directly with the public!

Your average person doesn't know how to interpret medical results.
The diagnosis is all in Latin—so what are they supposed to do with that?
I really believe doctors should set aside some actual time to explain things clearly to their patients and walk them through the next steps.
Where else is a patient supposed to go to find that kind of info?

Sarah Johnson11 said:I second everything that was said.

This is exactly how we are being treated on these forums. They would much rather lecture professionals than actually talk to us patients. And they aren't even afraid to be insulting. Look at what happened to jadesailor14. She shared her opinion—whatever that may have been—and she certainly didn't deserve the response she got.
I could write volumes on this, filled with nothing but ugly truths drawn from my own tears shed because of doctors who claim to be the best in America. But I won't. And frankly, I don't want to. Their attitude toward us patients can't be excused by blaming poor facility conditions or the systemic failures they face within this healthcare system. There is no excuse for how they treat people.
It’s pathetic, though undeniably true: the way patients are treated is abysmal. I already pointed this out, yet I haven't received a single response. I suppose that's because, in their eyes, our concerns simply don't matter. But it begs the question—who are we to them? Who are we, really?
Expecting my primary care physician to break down every detail of a diagnosis? I don't know. If I'm being treated by a specialist, isn't it their fundamental duty and obligation to explain the disease and the treatment plan in full? Isn't that what we pay them for?🤷 Perhaps I’m wrong?
I am fortunate to have a solid primary care physician at the moment, along with a team of specialists managing my care. I’m hopeful that the issues I’ve struggled with in the past won't resurface. But then again, who can truly say for sure?

What exactly do you think the role of a primary care physician entails? Is it merely a gatekeeper to specialists, or something more substantive?
The referral clearly stated what was required: a specialist should provide their expert opinion following the examination. It didn't ask for a sales pitch. Why does a doctor feel the need to perform a full presentation for the patient and their relatives, using simplified language just to make them feel comfortable? He doesn't have the time to stand there and lecture them. Isn't that the job of the primary care physician who wrote the referral in the first place?
That aside, there are doctors out there who genuinely want to go the extra mile—if they can actually find the time.
A general practitioner is still a doctor. Period. Their job is to understand medical procedures and interpret exactly what a specialist has written in their report. They aren't expected to diagnose rare diseases or perform high-level specialized testing themselves. But they absolutely must be able to present those test results and specialist findings clearly. Is that really too much to ask?
I was standing by in the pulmonology department when a specialist tried to comfort a patient who had completely misinterpreted the term "cardiac shadow." The man took it as some kind of pathological diagnosis rather than a standard medical observation. It was a lost cause; he was convinced the doctor was just lying to his face. While they wasted time on that misunderstanding, the specialist could have been reviewing five other scans from different patients. What a waste of resources.
Now someone will inevitably try to tell me that this matters more than those five scans. As if. It only matters to people sitting there staring at a TV screen or a computer monitor.

Furthermore, looking at all the posts above, there is only one set of actual suggestions:
Establishing better communication between doctors and patients. Is that even possible anymore?

Apparently, certain posts managed to ruffle some feathers.
Once again, the blame is being shifted onto those who actually provide healthcare rather than the people responsible for organizing it. We see it constantly. Instead of addressing systemic failures, the focus shifts to their communication style. Is that really where the problem lies?
If this is what passes for our healthcare system, then we’ll be boasting the best medical services in the world in no time. Is that really how this works?
All those heavy-handed threats and insults hurled at people who could have easily just sat back, read a book, and enjoyed the perks of their profession? It’s always the same. They continue to aim their vitriol in the wrong direction. Why is that?
If it weren't for Ms. Rusidovic barely managing to snag a few spots on local news, I wouldn't have the slightest clue what that patient association even does. Credit where credit is due, I suppose. But honestly, regarding that organization, I could have passed away without ever knowing they existed—if it hadn't been for one specific doctor who acted fast despite the "conditions" at the Medical Center during my surgery.
I still can't figure out who's actually in charge of issuing referrals for breast ultrasounds these days. Is anyone else just as lost as I am?
Once again, I am paying out of pocket for a private ultrasound of the fetal pelvis and other tests. Great.
While private gynecologists seem to be taking over almost every clinic in cities both large and small,
getting an appointment through public healthcare feels like you have to be on your deathbed just to get seen.
Does the patient association even bother monitoring pregnancy and women's health forums to see what people are actually worried about? Why do the same unresolved issues keep resurfacing constantly?

And here we are, where everyone concludes that poor communication is the root of all evil. Perhaps it is. I won't rule it out.