Plaintiffs Allege ‘Blatant Attempt to Destroy Radiologists’ Business,' Warn Ongoing Conflict Could Cause ‘Elimination of Mammography Services within a 50-Mile Radius of Fredericksburg.’
One correction to the terminology used- "staffed by radiologists and technicians." That last word should be technologists. I know because I am one. My way of explaining the difference to people is that technologists operate the x-ray equipment and technicians fix it.
This story, and others like it, highlight the ever-present need for a national health CARE system which is less based on a finance-heavy business model and more interested in positive patient outcomes. MWHC has, of late, been in the news more often for its shortcomings than for its successes.
There are few, if any, government run health CARE systems in the world that would support your argument. However, I note that you did say, "less based on..." rather than a system run entirely by the government. I am interested to know what that would entail and how it would be organized.
There are many models worldwide, and all have various degrees of success. Close at hand, the Canadian system offers universal health care through federal taxes redistributed to provincial administration on a per capita basis. The program covers visits to a person’s primary care physician, specialists, ambulance and hospital services, and pharmaceutical care at extraordinarily low copayments. At the same time everyone with financial means can obtain private insurance, use private physician practices, and pay for private hospital care. Weird and true.
I appreciate the reply. Various degrees of success, also means various degrees of failure. The biggest failures of government run programs are the wait times (months, years) and the (un)availability of services. Canada and Britain are prime examples.
My family's spread across the U.S., Canada, and Britain. In our experience, the wait times and availability of services are no better in the U.S. than in Canada and Britain. My husband waited more than six months to get a defibrillator implanted here in the U.S - a device that shortly thereafter had to activate to keep him alive. Meanwhile, another family member, in the UK, waited for significantly less time to see a cardiologist for the same health issue. And my Canadian relatives, including a nurse, pity us for the inequities and uncertainties our U.S. system creates. No system is perfect, but one thing's for sure: Only here in the U.S. do I need a payment plan to keep up with my medical bills.
One correction to the terminology used- "staffed by radiologists and technicians." That last word should be technologists. I know because I am one. My way of explaining the difference to people is that technologists operate the x-ray equipment and technicians fix it.
On it, Andrew. Making the correction now. Thanks.
Thank you!
This story, and others like it, highlight the ever-present need for a national health CARE system which is less based on a finance-heavy business model and more interested in positive patient outcomes. MWHC has, of late, been in the news more often for its shortcomings than for its successes.
There are few, if any, government run health CARE systems in the world that would support your argument. However, I note that you did say, "less based on..." rather than a system run entirely by the government. I am interested to know what that would entail and how it would be organized.
There are many models worldwide, and all have various degrees of success. Close at hand, the Canadian system offers universal health care through federal taxes redistributed to provincial administration on a per capita basis. The program covers visits to a person’s primary care physician, specialists, ambulance and hospital services, and pharmaceutical care at extraordinarily low copayments. At the same time everyone with financial means can obtain private insurance, use private physician practices, and pay for private hospital care. Weird and true.
I appreciate the reply. Various degrees of success, also means various degrees of failure. The biggest failures of government run programs are the wait times (months, years) and the (un)availability of services. Canada and Britain are prime examples.
My family's spread across the U.S., Canada, and Britain. In our experience, the wait times and availability of services are no better in the U.S. than in Canada and Britain. My husband waited more than six months to get a defibrillator implanted here in the U.S - a device that shortly thereafter had to activate to keep him alive. Meanwhile, another family member, in the UK, waited for significantly less time to see a cardiologist for the same health issue. And my Canadian relatives, including a nurse, pity us for the inequities and uncertainties our U.S. system creates. No system is perfect, but one thing's for sure: Only here in the U.S. do I need a payment plan to keep up with my medical bills.