…how do you possibly #14?
13/14 was the number of nevers. Not sure I’ve ever been drunk.
Oh haha that makes more sense
Stuff like this is an underrated reason for why UHC is so hard. If the vast majority of clavicle fractures will heal perfectly fine with no treatment, but someone comes up with a treatment that might make them heal a little faster (or even a lot faster) then is that something UHC should pay for?
How would you even decide? Based only on hobbes’ post I’d be willing to bet that if you offered every routine clavicle fracture either surgery or a check for the cost of the surgery (or even half the cost), they would probably all snap take the cash.
I really don’t know enough about clavicle fractures to know what the answer to “Should UHC cover it?” is in this case. But it wouldn’t surprise me if the answer was no. And I’m sure there is lots of other stuff like this in health care that comes up.
There are at least half a dozen countries who have solved that problem. We don’t have to re-create the wheel here.
1 Like
I forgot how much I liked Venus Hum till I saw this:
1 Like
And the solution is what exactly?
1 Like
So because I don’t know the intricacies of the health care systems of every other country that has UHC that means your dumb question about collar bones is unknowable?
Ask a Canadian.
Like most of this stuff, it depends. Young athletic mountain biker/skiier, maybe 10% better range of motion, dominant hand - surgery might be reasonable. Older guy, moderate hiker and a lousy golfer (IE me) - maybe not so much.
Two places you’ll be able to tell when we’re getting serious about health costs - 1) Medicare allowing to negotiate drug prices 2) Exhausting other modalities for chronic back pain before surgery, absent objective neurological findings or OBVIOUS findings on MRI (and knocking off the "everyone gets an MRI for their back pain on demand, while we’re add it)
MM MD
2 Likes
OK, so clearly this is way above your head. I’ll try to make it simpler.
A country can have universal health care without having solved that problem.
The problem is not a reason to not have UHC. It’s a problem that is hard for UHC to deal with that will satisfy everyone.
1 Like
EVERY incident that is covered by insurance can generate the same bullshit discussion. The answer is we’ll figure it out. Most likely, some country that is doing UHC has already figured it out and we’ll ask them. Worrying about every little detail before supporting such far reaching legislation is a tactic to maintain the status quo.
No, that’s not it at all. I can tell this is hard for you. You’re probably better off forgetting the whole thing.
Nope. Not every. I could provide countless examples. But I honestly don’t think it would help you.
Oh fuck off Melkerson. You don’t care about the answer, there is no answer that will satisfy you.
Yeah, that makes sense, but some times the “it depends” part is tricky. For example I could see plenty of boomers getting rustled that UHC would pay for some millenial skier to get clavicle fracture surgery while they can’t.
LOL. I’m pro UHC, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Like I said. Adults are talking. You should just go back to what ever it is you were doing.
Well, the example you guys are hypothetically fighting over is somewhat close to what I had for my toe. Break my big toe playing soccer at 18. It “heals” quickly and I’m running and exercising at a good level 3 weeks later. About a week after that get tackled, receive a segmental fracture where a piece is floating. Get told I can have surgery and I’m off my feet for ~2 months, or if it’s not bothering me you can just stay injured.
I’ve had this argument with people before. Some people believe that treating health care as a right should mean that everyone gets exactly the same treatment and that it would be horrible if rich people could pay for supplemental insurance that gave them better care. I argued for health care as a right meaning that everyone should have a certain minimum level and it was okay if some people could buy a higher tier of care. People who believed the former accused me of sentencing poor people to die.
I do challenge people to think about what they mean if they think health care is a right. I’ve given a couple of ways that can be interpreted. There are more ways.
The British system of having a bureaucracy to determine the cost-effectiveness of procedures for the purpose of health-care rationing makes sense to me as a way for dealing with those clavicle fracture options.
Healthcare always has to be rationed under any system, it’s a question of how you go about it. I don’t know that clavicle fractures are a particular problem for a single-payer system over any other system.
3 Likes