Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 1:35 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1531437 20120701 182850 "HeyBub" wrote:

Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health
care providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients
alive. If alive, they live to be treated another day.

Yep ... alive, just not healthy enough to live without Big Pharma.
There is no profit in a healthy population.


In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor,
nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report
claimed that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from
non-treatment or poor treatment.

US media propaganda.

Agreed ... not to mention that the past three decades, approximately
109,000 people die DIRECTLY each year from drug interactions in the US
... to put that in perspective, about 30,000 die from automobile
accidents.

A medical profession, and culture, where "nutrition" is not on the
menu, plus government malfeasance while Food, Inc and Big Pharma
poisons the population, insures profits.

There is NO profit in "healthy" for politicians, the medical and/or
drug industries.

You are what you eat ...

So the solution is simple - pay the medical providers on the basis of the
health of their patients. Oh, wait, that's just bookkeeping ...

That was for the kidding. I believe some progress is being made in
hospital reimbursements. No more reimbursement for preventable side
effects (hospital-acquired infections, readmissions because something
didn't go right during the first admission, etc).

Nowadays with the computerization of pharmacy records it is easier to
flag potential drug interactions. But it's difficult in some respects,
since almost everything you put into your body is a drug in some respect
(if you're on coumadin, as some in this newsgroup are, either eating or
not eating broccoli acts as a drug, becausethe vitamin K in broccoli
prevents the coumadin from doing it's job).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid