I'm looking for evidence that socialized medicine does not increase "frivolous" visits.

[Gravitycollapse]

I catch a lot of flack from people I come into contact with in AZ for supporting single payer or socialized medicine because they think it means everyone's going to start going to the ER for toothaches.

I realize this is bullshit. But I'm wondering if anybody has something like a peer reviewed journal piece demonstrating that it isn't true.

[idwiyo]

1. Why are you trying to prove a negative? They make a claim, they should prove it does.

[alarimer]

2. First of all, the uninsured already go to the ER for non-emergency care.

They don't have regular doctors they can go to. Or they wind up in the ER because the condition has worsened because they can't afford to go to the doctor without insurance.

Treating a condition at the doctor's office is usually much less expensive than waiting until it is an actual emergency. ER visits are expensive, no matter the reason, so having socialized medicine should lower expenses, not raise them, even with the fact that more people will be seeking medical care once they can afford to.

Having some sort of single payer will cost each of us much less than whatever we are paying now. I would prefer a system that also controls costs, by limiting what providers can actually change. But it would also remove the differential between what insurance companies pay for a procedure or visit and what the uninsured are charged for that same visit. Right now, insurance pays the provider peanuts, relatively speaking, and charges the uninsured more to make up for it (not they always get because you can't get blood from a stone.)

[MindPilot]

3. I think it is something so obvious no study is needed.

It is not a pleasurable experience to go to the dr. Even if healthcare were completely free, I think most people would still avoid it until absolutely necessary.

[BlueCaliDem]

52. Yep. And I speak out of experience having lived 16 years in the Netherlands

where we have universal health care with zero co-pays. Or, at least, we used to. I believe they're going to try and install co-pays, but then again, corporations handling the country's health care insurance have been trying that for at least two decades, with little success. At any rate, I never went to the doctor until it was absolutely necessary - like once every six months, sometimes once a year. I saw my dentist {then covered under my health care policy} more than I saw my doctor.

[eridani]

60. In 1996, my husband had an emergency root canal in Groningen

Because we were tourists, we had to pay cash. That turned out to be 100 guilders, or $25 American. There was a nice German car in the reserved parking spot, so the guy wasn't starving.

[hughee99]

4. Very hard to study, given that people's medical records are private,

(or at least they're supposed to be) so it's hard to tell what's "frivolous".

[CTyankee]

5. If anything, I hear just the opposite. That people are more likely to NOT go to the ER

because they WON'T get treated (rationing health care, ya know). It's all bull shit.

[JustAnotherGen]

53. This +1

[grasswire]

6. Maybe they are watching the British comedy "Doc Martin"

The primary care physician in that small Cornwall town sees plenty of frivolous appointments!

[LeftInTX]

7. Do you like going to the doctor?

Does anyone like going to the doctor?

You mean your friends are worried that hypochondriacs will start going to the doctor all the time or that single payer or socialized medicine will create a bunch of hypochondriacs.

The only people that "like" going to the doctors are hypochondriacs.

Going to the doctor is time consuming. It is not fun. Also doctors have standards. They aren't going to "treat" someone if nothing is the matter with them.

I don't think there needs to be a peer review.

I don't know what to say to the RW crowd, except they aren't thinking logically.

[timdog44]

14. WHEN these boys

did they ever?

[former9thward]

16. "They aren't going to "treat" someone if nothing is the matter with them. "

I guess you have never talked to a dr. They are not going to risk lawsuits, complaints to the medical board, etc.

[LeftInTX]

18. Yep, absolutely

The doctor won't prescribe/treat anything if nothing is wrong.

[former9thward]

26. Get a doctor to say that.

Doctors, often criticized for ordering up unneeded tests and procedures that harm quality and add to the nation’s tab for medical care, are calling into question scores of tests and medical procedures, “highlighting potentially unnecessary – sometimes harmful – care provided in the U.S.,” a group working with 25 medical societies said.

Another 90 tests and procedures from 17 medical specialty societies have been released as part of the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign, an effort put together by Consumer Reports and the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation. Since the campaign was launched last year, more than 130 tests and procedures have been called into question by 25 medical specialty societies with more than 725,000 member doctors.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2013/02/21/doctors-call-out-90-more-unnecessary-medical-tests-procedures/

[Hippo_Tron]

51. That's because of the fee for service system we have now

That wouldn't exist under any serious not for profit national health plan.

[former9thward]

55. Fee for service and fears of malpractice suits.

Everybody cites other countries that have national health plans but they never mention these countries don't have malpractice suits either. Have to get rid of both.

[eridani]

62. They certainly do--just not very many of them. And why not?

Because if you have a bad outcome (regardless of whether malpractice was involved or not), you don't have to worry about extra money for treatment, given that all health care is a right. That removes the major motivation to sue. As a result, the average GP in a developed country pays about $100/month for malpractice insurance. In Japan, it comes with your medical association dues, and you also get the monthly journal.

[former9thward]

63. Not really.

Neither Japan or the European countries have litigation culture. We do. The number of attorneys per capita in those areas are minuscule compared to the U.S. You want your cake and eat it too. Life doesn't work that way. Have to get rid of the sue culture or you will never get national health.

[eridani]

65. National health care is exactly what will eliminate lawsuits related to malpractice

Along with greatly muting income inequality.

[former9thward]

66. Do you seriously think there are no mistakes made in national health care?

Also you seem to think malpractice claim are all genuine. They aren't. Most get settled to avoid the cost of litigation and plaintiffs know that. You want it both ways. It will not happen. Ever. Not until the litigation culture is changed or ended legally.

[eridani]

67. Didn't say that--I said that mistakes under national health care never cost the patient more money

--thereby removing a major motivator for lawsuits. Malpractice claims under national health care ARE close to all genuine, unlike here, where people sue over bad outcomes in order to avoid getting creamed by the extra costs.

The problem is individualist culture. In other countries, people assume that their fellow citizens will help them out by paying taxes to cover unemployment, treatment for illnesses, disaster response etc. Here, you can't count on such help, so many try to extort it through lawsuits.

[former9thward]

69. A huge part of malpractice suits is "pain and suffering".

That is where most of the money is. For the most part that concept does not exist in other countries. That is why their rates are so low. You want national health but you still want to sue everyone in sight. You are a very typical American. They want government services but don't want taxes. As long as people demand the right to sue each other into oblivion they will never ever get national health.

[eridani]

86. This is just a bullshit excuse to get the money they will need for (often) a lifetime of extra care

This practice exists only because we have no guarantee of health care as a human right. Establish health care as a human right, and we can abolish "pain and suffering" awards at that time.

[raccoon]

81. Some people do like to go to the doctor. Maybe for attention. Seriously, I have two relatives who

go to the doctor every time you turn around.

And I'm 100% in favor of a national health plan.

[magellan]

8. Here's a dissertation that might help

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRIMARY CARE ACCESS THROUGH FREE CLINICS
AND EMERGENCY ROOM USAGE

Abstract

The health care system in the United States has a safety net to provide care for the millions of Americans without health insurance and lack access to care. The safety net system includes hospital emergency departments, federally qualified health centers, and community clinics.

With the costs of health care rising, ways to utilize and maximize the effectiveness of safety net providers is critical. One way to conserve costs involves preventing those without insurance from using the emergency room as a primary care provider. This study surveyed two uninsured groups, one using a local free clinic for primary care (n = 54) and one from the community that did not use the free clinic (n = 70). The uninsured group that used the free clinic had a statistically significant lower average of emergency room visits than the uninsured group that did not use the free clinic. The results suggest that providing primary care for the uninsured decreases emergency room usage.

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/24238/Trask_Jeffrey.pdf?sequence=1

(emphasis mine)

Common sense dictates that we can expect the same result if everyone has access to a GP through nationalized healthcare.

[winter is coming]

13. Anyone who's ever had to sit in an ER should be able to figure that one out. n/t

[magellan]

15. Of course. But the request was for a study of some kind.

Even though I think it's idealistic to believe that any study, peer-reviewed or otherwise, would change the minds of the dullards who oppose single payer, nationalized healthcare. If they were the least bit interested in facts then they'd already be on board.

[Gravitycollapse]

73. Thank you! It's not the exact answer but it's good enough.

[magellan]

85. You're welcome

[kestrel91316]

9. Thank you for your concern. Single payer is not "socialized medicine".

Obamacare is not "socialized medicine", either.

Why don't you ask the Brits? THEY have socialized medicine.

Why would someone go to the ER for a toothache if they have decent medical care available at their physician's office under Obamacare or single payer??

People aren't stupid.The reason they abuse the ERs these days for crap like the flu or the common cold is bacause they HAVE NO INSURANCE and can't afford a doctor visit, but the ER always has to take care of them. Obamacare will cut this problem substantially, as does socialized medicine.

[rustydog]

10. First of all you need socialized medicine, not the jury-rigged system in place

You and I already pay for the people who frequent the Emergency Rooms in America, every single day. Even if that did not change, with single payer, your employer would not have to pay into workman's comp, giving them untold money in the bank.

Of Course you know "OBAMA CARE" is NOT socialized medicine. Single payer would be thought and it would be great. You know, a system of healthcare set up so that you do not have to worry about a huge ER visit because the socialized medicine pays for your dentist visit, it pays for the ER visit, it pays for the physicians visit.

Why would you go to an ER for a toothache if your government was wise enough to use taxpayer dollars to cover medical dental treatments?

[quitnesset]

11. For a toothache see the dentist

I would tell my friends that under single payer, I would like to see them go to a dentist and that visit would be covered just like a trip to the ER.. It's HEALTH CARE and oral health is as important as any other medical visit.

[htuttle]

12. Define 'frivolous'

Should people be performing triage on themselves? I have to do that now. I have to decide whether I think it's worth paying my $500 deductible, or whether I can hold out another few days.

Seems as though it's a doctor who should be making that sort of decision.

[ret5hd]

17. Where's all the frivolous use of the fire department?

[leftstreet]

34. +1

[curlyred]

19. Obviously your "friends" haven't been to the emergency room

Do they also think socialized fire departments increase frivolous fires?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Far lower costs, superior outcomes.

Universal healthcare systems cost less and have better results. If there are frivolous visits, they aren't a significant problem.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Maybe not exactly what you're looking for, but the Time article on Health Care was thorough

And excellent.

A ringing endorsement of Medicare, for one.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html

[Locut0s]

22. That argument is a red herring to begin with...

Why would people WANT to go to the ER or DR for "frivolous" reasons? There certainly are people with hypochondria and health anxiety but these people are still suffering from a medical condition, a mental one in this case, that needs treatment. And they make up a small portion of the population. The argument also fails to realise that when you have socialised medicine you have access to regular checkups and preventative measures and hence this REDUCES the need to visit the ER.

[bluestate10]

24. A big problem is that many people in this country are covered by company health plans.

Those people don't bare the brunt of the "true" cost of keeping them healthy. I come close to spitting in their faces when I hear alleged "conservatives" railing against their companies asking the to pay a larger percentage of their medical insurance costs. If those so called conservatives had to pay their own way in this fucked up health care system that we have, they would be the first out rioting in the streets.

[HiPointDem]

40. since universal coverage is about 30% cheaper, i wonder what 'true' costs you're talking about?

the 'true' cost of subsidizing the insurance industry when it has to cover the poor?

[raccoon]

82. And it's getting to where fewer and fewer people have that. I wonder when we'll hit the tipping

point.

[bluestate10]

23. The fact that "socialized" medicine countries have lower patient expenses than we do

says that your AZ detractors are dumb-asses. Not only are patient costs less, the people in socialized medicine countries are healthier than we are. BTW, people that can't afford health care already go to the emergency room for toothaches now, and to top that off, many can't afford to pay, so we pick up the tab in the form of higher insurance rates and higher taxes as hospitals write off the bad debts and the Treasury has to get money from elsewhere.

[mick063]

25. The current scheme is the ultimate in frivolous care.

They are trying to soak you for every penny. They want you to visit as many times as possible and give you as many X-Rays and lab tests as possible. Cha-Ching.

The profiteering medical industry is built on frivolous and unnecessary care. If you are insured and have income, you can stay the night for observation without proper cause. If you are poor and uninsured, you can be sent home to die.

There is an ongoing battle between insurance companies and the health care industry. We are caught up in between.


Really. Where there is profit to be made, there will be profit made. Profiteering on the necessities of life has run amok. Medical care, education, food, water.

[On the Road]

27. I Agree With You That It's a Relevant Question

and as long as there's no way of showing the answer one way or another, it's moot.

Personally, I don't people change their behavior based on whether health insurance is provided by the government or corporationsl. They do change their behavior based on the nature of the coverage and whether they are insured on not.

There is no doubt in my mind that some people make frivolous visits. There is also no doubt that there are people who will spend significant time gaming the system. Whether those are a significant portion of claims is another question. But private vs. government insurance is not the thing that's going to make a difference in that behavior.

[JDPriestly]

36. How do you define "frivolous"?

Are you referring to some of the plastic surgery that is done?

Or back pain? Or heart palpitations that turn out to be no problem?

Tumors that are discovered to be benign?

Colds?

Problems with the back?

Stomach problems?

What?

Moms worried about their kids? Headaches?

European countries have single payer. In the end their costs are a lot lower than ours. In virtually every country.

In my experience, Europeans paid a small co-pay per visit. That discouraged unnecessary visits.

[OwnedByCats]

43. I think what is meant by frivolous

are things that an ER is overkill for, like say for a persistent cough that only started the day before. Emergency rooms should be for emergencies, something you need right now or else you could die. Excruciating pain for an infected tooth abcess, kidney stone or other such extremely painful conditions should also be something not frivolous. Of course those two things, in severe enough for can cause serious problems also. It's a good idea to go if the pain is extreme.

[JDPriestly]

47. Have you actually been in an emergency room?

They take the serious cases first.

I once went in after a fall. I was bleeding and had a finger completely bent out of shape. Also broken bones. The pain was terrible. Do you know how many hours I had to wait?

My visit wasn't frivolous.

Anyone who likes emergency rooms enough to hang around in them should simply become an EMT or a nurse.

They aren't fun places.

They rush anyone with symptoms of heart failure in as fast as they can.

For the rest, a nurse administers cold packs and aspirin to take away the pain.

Fractures and blood as long as it isn't an aorta can wait.

Maybe in small, mid-western towns where gang shootings and bar brawls are rare, people can visit the emergency room just for something different to do on Saturday night, but in the big cities in the US, the one place you do not want to spend your time is in the emergency room.

Worry about something real like global warming, not "frivolous" visits to the local emergency room. This is just an excuse to worry.

On second thought, parents take children to the emergency room because children cannot always describe their physical problems. It is very hard to judge whether a child has a serious problem or not. Cut some slack on that one. Assuming a child is OK can be deadly.

[OwnedByCats]

56. Yeah I have been there many times

Some for myself and other times with family. Of course a broken finger isn't frivolous - I guess I should have added broken bones to my list of important stuff, amongst other things. There are a lot of legit reasons to go, not all are fatal but there are a lot of conditions that need treatment ASAP, just to prevent complications or to be on the safe side, as you say with children. And not all things can be treated by your GP, such as broken bones are best treated in a hospital. You can't be walking around with a broken finger. I just mean if you go to the ER for a cold and you are otherwise a healthy person, that is what I think is frivolous. It all depends on the person and what's wrong with them.

But I bet you waited a while huh?I went to the ER twice for seizures, once with an infected abscessed tooth and once with a 104 temp when I had pneumonia (which I was forced into going, I would never have gone of my own volition for that but my parents worried it would get higher). One of the seizures was treated in London England - I was in and out, but only because the ER wasn't busy. The abscessed tooth was here in the US, in and out because they weren't busy. However, the second seizure and the pneumonia were treated here and I was there 7 or 8 hours both times. When I went with others, they all waited forever.

I wasn't the one complaining about frivolous visits, I was here to defend Britain's NHS in saying that those under a single payer system have no need to visit an ER for a cold because they have full access to their GP with no co-pay to worry about. People complain that a single payer system would cause yet more unnecessary visits to the ER, which is not true unless you have a serious doctor shortage.

[JDPriestly]

57. Yes. I prefer single payer. The British system is great.

[OwnedByCats]

58. Yep

and if you hear that it's a bad system, don't believe it. No system is perfect of course, and so sometimes you'll hear the occasional malpractice type of situation, but I never saw anything there that hasn't happened here, and you'd think with the amount of money paid for healthcare, it should be top notch but it's no better than the NHS.

I never had problems myself and to make a long story short, my husband had cancer and they could not have been better and there was no copays for it either. We didn't end up in serious debt as a result. He's been cancer free for 13 years now.

[hunter]

28. It's code talk. "Frivolous" is when people who are not white like them seek medical care.

I'm serious. Racism is the hidden reason for many questions like this.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. Exactly. "Those" people will be in the waiting room.

[gollygee]

54. +1

What is frivolous? No one goes to the ER as a recreation. It is not a fun place and involves long boring waits. Anyone who goes thinks there is something seriously wrong that needs attention. Now, I've taken kids to the ER thinking something was wrong and it turned out they were OK. I don't think people call it "frivolous" when I do it because I'm white and wealthy and have health insurance.

[arely staircase]

29. is arizona considering "socialized medicine" ?

nt

[truebluegreen]

30. Toothaches can kill you. Tell them that.

[moondust]

31. Ask the British.

They have probably developed some effective control methods/policies.

[nobodyspecial]

32. A tooth that has abcessed is not frivolous

Left untreated without antibiotics, the infection can spread and cause sepsis, which is often fatal.

[OwnedByCats]

39. You better believe an infected abscessed tooth is a good

reason to go to the ER, most especially if it's over the weekend and your dentist is closed. For whatever reason going to your dentist is not possible, you need to go for two reasons - the excruciating pain (feels like someone is jabbing an ice pick into your jaw) and the possibility that infection could actually kill you if untreated and it is no longer localized. If it spreads, you could be in trouble, especially to the heart. If they think you'll be ok until you see your dentist, they SHOULD give you something for the pain to get you through.

I had an infected abcessed tooth on a Sat night and couldn't see a dentist until that Mon afternoon. Now I will tell you that I don't go to the ER unless something really horrible is going on. The pain was so bad, especially worse when laying down (pooling of the blood around the abcess in a horizontal position causes the abcess to be pressurized by that blood, causing more pain), that I relented and went. The nurse told me he had one that almost killed him, if he had waited much longer it would have. The ER doc first tried to give me Motrin. I said she must be kidding - if that worked I wouldn't have been there! Why spend $400 on an emergency room visit when a $6 bottle of Motrin was sufficient? I told her I had already taken a handful that day. Well that was what prompted her to give me the good stuff, along with a lecture about how ibuprofen in large quantities could cause severe stomach bleeding due to an ulcer and I could die. That's my word of advice if you ever get refused strong meds if you really need them for things like an abcess or kidney stone. Tell them you've already had a bunch load of ibuprofen and/or Tylenol. Just be prepared to get a talking to about how you're damaging your stomach and liver. That worked for me anyway, even though it was unintentional.

[kenichol]

33. Negative Proof

It is mathematically impossible to prove a negative or to prove that something cannot happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

At best you can prove that their is no evidence of existence.

[MellowYellow]

35. That might be kind of hard to find. When people have insurance they do go to the Dr more

but that's the whole point. Giving them access to Dr's befor things get bad, and remember bad usually means very expensive. There may be more visits, but it's cheaper in the long run for everyone to have access to health care.

[sibelian]

37. There are no frivolous visits.

When your country decides you have a right to see a doctor if you feel ill, you have that right. It's not up to you to know what the illness is, it's up to the doctor. That's what doctors are for.

[OwnedByCats]

38. Ok, I lived in the UK for 10 years

so I can tell you why ER visits are not used for primary care

There was never any need for me to go to the ER for something stupid because I had a GP who I could easily see. I could either make an appointment or just show up for the walk in service they had every morning for three hours. Generally, people don't go to the ER unless it's an emergency.

There is a very good reason why this is not a problem in Britain. Here in America, for the sake of argument, say you had no insurance or money for the entire bill to see a GP at a clinic. They don't have the same obligation as emergency rooms. They don't have to take you. You can be refused for not having the money or if they don't take your insurance. The ER is different, they have to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. That is why people go to emergency rooms here, this is not a factor in the UK. You have no co-pay when you see your GP so being rejected by a clinic for monetary reasons, thus being forced to go to an ER is not an issue for the Brits.

Doctors are not hard to find, you just register with the clinic (or as they call it, "doctor's surgery&quot in your area and pick a doctor on their list of ones they have.

Absolutely no reason to go to the ER unless you're told to by your GP or it's an emergency. Some doctors there even do house calls if it's after surgery hours for things that aren't fit for the emergency room, but a doctor's help might be needed.

I find it absurd that anyone would come to the conclusion that single payer would cause non-emergency visits to the ER. NOT having single payer is what is causing so many people to do that.

[HiPointDem]

41. such research exists, because i remember reading it, though i can't remember the details.

i haven't been able to find it tonight, but it's out there.

[baldguy]

44. Define "frivolous".

Seems the me that the set-up we have now, with people NOT going to seek medical help when they should (mainly because they can't afford it) is more wasteful of public money & resources. The toothache they should have had taken care of 6 months ago is easier & less expensive to deal with than the abscessed tooth & blood poisoning it developed into.

[laundry_queen]

45. Exactly.

Where I am, in Canada, I can go to the doctor whenever I want, no co-pay. NO ONE that I know abuses that. They may go for things that are 'minor' but that just means they save the system money in the long run by going before things get serious and cost lots of money. But really, no one LIKES going to the doctor and most people in my family avoid it if they can. I'm sure there ARE people who abuse it, but for the most part, people like that get ridiculed and shamed here for 'wasting taxpayer's dollars'. It's rare enough I've only heard about it through 3rd person stories. And most people don't go to the ER unless it's serious or they can't find a 24 hour clinic and something is very uncomfortable.

I lived in a remote area that only had 'business hours' doctor's offices and once I went to the ER with strep throat. Sounds frivolous right? I had a mild sore throat on Friday and by the time I called the clinic on Friday afternoon, they couldn't get me in. I thought I'd try to tough it out till Monday. I bought numbing losenges and some Tylenol. By Saturday morning, I couldn't even swallow my spit, and I was carrying around tissue because I was drooling. I was in so much pain (seriously the worst sore throat I've ever had, and I used to get strep and tonsillitis all the time as a kid) I couldn't eat or drink. The numbing losenges only made a dent in the pain for a few minutes at a time and soon I had run out. I thought I'd have a look in the mirror at my tonsils to see what was going on - and oh my. It was awful. My tonsils looked as if I was a burn victim on the inside - all my skin had turned white and was coming off the inside of my throat. I was also running a high fever. So, I reluctantly went to the ER. I felt like it was so stupid to go to the ER for a sore throat, but the ER doc told me that I had a really bad case of strep and there's no way it could've waited until Monday. He said sometimes with strep that bad, it can become more systemic so it's important to get it treated quickly and that was exactly what the ER was for. Now that I'm in a large metropolitan area, I could probably find a 24 hour clinic and not have to go to the ER.

Another positive (I think this was addressed upthread) is that if a doctor thinks, for instance, antibiotics are unnecessary, they don't feel the need to prescribe them to keep that person from coming back to save that person money from a co-pay or if they don't have insurance. If, by chance, you get worse and DO later on need antibiotics, then there is no hesitation in going back. But generally, most people don't NEED them so most people will get better without them, which is good for stopping the growing antibiotic resistance of bacteria. The few that come back truly DO need them. And most people will go back because they don't have to worry about paying. When people have to worry about paying, doctors are going to be prescribing things just to make sure their patients don't have to come back, or to make sure that they will be okay if they decide coming back is too expensive if they get worse. A person isn't treated with their insurance status in mind - they are treated solely on the basis of the problems they present with. And that actually saves money in the long run too - they aren't loaded up with treatments they may not need to ensure they don't have to come back.

Anyway, this whole 'people go to the doctor all the time for every sniffle with socialized medicine' stuff is crap, in my experience.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

46. Not evidence, but personal anecdotes

In Italy, I never ever went to the doctor just for the hell of it, but only when I was sick or when scheduled for yearly or semi-yearly check ups.

My pediatrician made home visits when I was very sick (high fever, etc.). I remember one time when my younger sister was really sick and he came in the middle of the night. He was a great guy. Dr. Valentino - I still remember his name. He gave birth to me and my sister and he was our primary physician until we moved to the U.S. at ages 15 and 14. In Italy, the pediatrician remains your primary physician until age 19. By age 11, I also saw an ob/gyn because I started menstruating. But I never went to a doctor or ER just because.

My only time in an ER that I can remember was when I was teaching my sister how to dance a waltz at age 5, she fell and I put my right arm behind her to cushion her fall. I broke my ulna and radius. Went to the ER. The ER doctor put my broken arm on his knee and pushed the bones back in. Put me in a cast and learned how to use my left hand for a couple of months

My arm works fine.

I have plenty of friends and relatives in Italy and no one goes to the doctor unless necessary or as part of preventative medicine.

[area51]

48. Kick. n/t

[Sheepshank]

49. I remember seeing a chart on the old DU

undicating the number of doctor visits (by nation) and comparing it to longevity. Japanese people see doctors 10 times more frequently than their US counterparts. Japanese people live longer and in general better health.

I suppose since the general population are not doctors their laymans determinations are not always correct, so they will go to a doctor for what some USA popultion think is frivolous. But because of that concerned frivolous visit, they catch health issues earlier...which is always better. And even with oll those 'frivolous visits", they pay 1/3 as much on healthcare as the US.

In addition, since Medicare is already socialized, are these people telling us that old people tend to make frivolous visits? Way to pick on old people...yet again.

[Sheepshank]

50. ok here is the link.

It's really not all that complicated. Number of doctor visits vs. longevity vs. cost.

PS this chart also indicates nations with universal health, that do not seem to have outrageous number of doctor visits (averaged out). Remembering that the USA does have it's fair share of Munchausen patients that will see the doctor on every whim regardless of the type of insurance they have.



http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/04/26/cost-of-health-care-by-country-national-geographic/

[eridani]

59. If our system is so great at keeping costs down, why do we pay TWICE per capita

--what other industrialized countries pay?

[DanTex]

61. Here's a pretty good blog about health care.

If you look through it, you can probably find links to useful peer reviewed studies.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/
Particularly useful is the two-part series comparing the US system to other countries.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/what-makes-the-us-health-care-system-so-expensive-introduction/
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/how-do-we-rate-the-quality-of-the-us-health-care-system-introduction/

For starters, in response to those people, you can point out that the US currently spends a lot more per capita on healthcare than other countries with single payer. Also, with single payer, people won't go to the ER for toothaches, they'll go to the dentist for toothaches. The reason people go to the ER for toothaches in the US is that if you don't have insurance, and you don't have money, the ER is the only place that you can get treatment -- they are required by law to treat you.

[WinkyDink]

64. Clever variation on the usual "HELP ME REFUTE THIS" TROLLING.

1. "Socialized."

2. "Frivolous."

3. OP hasn't bothered to attempt his/her own research, but wants others to do it.

4. OP is a post-and-run.

[Gravitycollapse]

71. Yeah, no trolling. Just looking for information.

And less so a discussion.

I did my own research. I searched thousands of journals through my universities library system. The specific topic at hand is difficult to find subject matter on. Hence, I posted in here.

[Hekate]

68. Wth counts as "frivolous"? If you have a doctor, you don't go to the ER

If you have something you can't cure by yourself or identify but it worries you, you see your doctor or nurse-practitioner. You don't end up in the ER.

The ER is for people who don't have access to a doctor or nurse-practitioner, and who let themselves get dangerously sick and then it really is an emergency.

Why is this so hard for wingnuts to understand?

[Gravitycollapse]

72. Well, for one thing, wingnuts are stupid.

[cynatnite]

70. I've gone to the ER for a toothache...

It's not BS and if a person feels that their health condition requires an ER visit, then so be it.

Also, we have Urgent Care clinics in many cities and towns now. It helps to lighten the load on the ER.

Another thing I would also add as well...

Many people go to the ER because they can't afford the doctor visits. Many offices require the copay or cost of the visit to be paid up front. Even insured patients can't afford it many times.

That's what I would explain. I spent a good portion of my healthcare career both in the ER and in medical offices.

[bemildred]

74. Given the constant whining about overtreatment, it's hard for me to make sense of that claim.

We apparently are already neck-deep in frivilous treatment, so how is socialized medicine going to make that worse? I don't see it. It's more likely to increase the proportion of non-frivilous visits, because all those peole avoiding needed care now will then go get it, because they would finally be covered.

[REP]

75. I've gone to the ER with a 'toothache'

Well. It was a bit more than that; it was a fractured root with an infected, abcessed nerve. The pain was so bad I literally could not sleep, let alone close my mouth. I didn't have dental insurance, but I knew this tooth - like all my upper teeth - have root tips that enter my sinus cavity, which meant this was more serious than even a usual abcess. Turns out I was just starting to develop blood poisoning.

I got antibiotics and a novacain injection. When the oral surgery clinic opened, I had the tooth extracted.

So, maybe your friends think that was a frivolous toothache visit, but the ER didn't. I got scolded for not coming in sooner.

[emsimon33]

76. Doctors' offices are full of germs--most people try to avoid them

[Gravitycollapse]

77. You think a doctor's office is full of germs? Hospitals are gigantic petri dishes.

There are illnesses that exist almost exclusively within hospitals. A lot of bacterial infections. My mother has contracted them on more than one occasion while in the hospital.

[emsimon33]

80. That, too.

I know of several people whom I personally knew who died in a hospital from infections they caught there while undergoing simple procedures.

[Cleita]

78. The insurance industry are still flinging this poo?

Actually, the opposite occurs. People who can't afford health care don't go to the doctor, so the doctor, who needs to fill his waiting room, will take all the hypochondriacs he can as long as they can pay. When everyone gets access to health care, doctors will treat those who are sick and send the hypochondriacs and frivolous visits on their way because they are too busy to cater to them and they won't need their money. Once upon a time, elective but often unnecessary surgeries, like tonsillectomies, hysterectomies and hemorrhoidectomies were routinely performed because it filled the doctors' and hospitals' income ledgers. The abuses somewhat abated because Medicare and the insurance companies questioned such surgeries. The same will happen with frivolous doctors' visits.

[Demo_Chris]

79. The argument is either ludicrous or irrelevant, depending...

In any case, what's "frivolous"? Is it a medical concern that turned out to be groundless? If so, that's hardly frivolous when the concern is your own, and definately not frivolous when that concern and check-up illuminated a pending crisis. Truly frivolous cases, the parent hitting the emergency room because princess chipped a nail, are self correcting through triage and comparatively inexpensive regardless. If, as the right wing claims, emergency rooms would be flooded with demands for care, this is less a reflection on those seeking care than on the current lack.

It comes down to this: those with money have great care today like things just the way they are now.

[LeftInTX]

83. Me thinks there is racism and/or Fox News behind this thinking

Just a hunch.

They don't won't "those people" to have the same quality health care as everyone else.

[DesertFlower]

84. my friend has health insurance and pays

a co-pay but runs to the doctor for every little thing. she's got all kinds of specialists. recently she started suffering with constipation and swore she had ovarian cancer. test proved she didn't. BTW. she doesn't have a lot of money.

[Violet_Crumble]

87. I can only give you my own personal experience...

I live in Australia, where we have a public healthcare system (Medicare) as well as a private system. I don't make 'frivolous' visits the the ER nor my doctor, and I don't know of anyone else that does. Mainly because sitting in the ER for up to ten hours isn't my idea of fun, and the few times I've really needed to be there, I've resisted going because I'm not into waiting for hours. Anyway, they do a triage thing when you turn up, so if you've got the sniffles or something mild, they stick you at the bottom of the list.

Like others have said, toothaches sometimes aren't 'frivolous' when it comes for reasons to going to the ER. Eight years ago I got struck with the worst toothache I'd ever experienced and went to the ER, because I needed some relief from the pain and it was the middle of the night. They suspected at first I was some sort of druggy, but gave me Valium, which did bugger all. Turns out I had trigeminal neuralgia, which isn't by any means a 'frivolous' sort of thing, and my trip to the ER wasn't wasting their time at all...