I'm not into politics at all, but this happened today.
I'm on my surgery rotation. The worst when it comes to time (up at 4 am, rounds at 5, there til we finish- today was 4 pm), but some of the coolest stuff. Today we had an exploratory laparotomy (open the abdominal cavity and look around for the cause of obstruction, etc) on this 40 year-old African American female who presented in the ER on Saturday with non-specific abdominal pain. Some of her labs were off, and Dr. Harris (my surgery preceptor) and Elke, his PA, suspected cancer going into the surgery. Turns out, they were right, and the surgery was a MESS. Tumors all over the place (metastasis to liver), biopsies taken and right/ proximal transverse colon resected with anastomosis. But the mess was due to so much bleeding from the omentum, and a lot of bowel leakage all over the place. He said he hasn't seen colon cancer anywhere near that stage in years, now that screening is so regular.
The reason I'm saying this is because she doesn't have health insurance. She is going to need some major chemotherapy, and Dr. Harris doesn't know how she's going to get it. He is a very altruistic doctor, doesn't look at a patient's insurance until after the case, finds the most inexpensive way for the patient to get what he/she needs, pulls strings with the hospital for self-pay patients... but there's only so much he can do. He said he wished he could put her port in, since she might not even be able to afford that, much less the actual chemo.
That is why he supports universal healthcare. Also, he said (for those who aren't so altruistic), he is not going to get paid for her surgery, whereas, if she had insurance, he would be reimbursed.
I know the other side of the argument, because my Internal med PA might lose control of his practice if universal healthcare is implemented. The heavy patient load that will be necessary to make enough money to maintain the practice will mean he can't follow his patients the way he does now, etc. Both sides have strong arguments. I just thought this was a good point.
Back to studying.
The reason I'm saying this is because she doesn't have health insurance. She is going to need some major chemotherapy, and Dr. Harris doesn't know how she's going to get it. He is a very altruistic doctor, doesn't look at a patient's insurance until after the case, finds the most inexpensive way for the patient to get what he/she needs, pulls strings with the hospital for self-pay patients... but there's only so much he can do. He said he wished he could put her port in, since she might not even be able to afford that, much less the actual chemo.
That is why he supports universal healthcare. Also, he said (for those who aren't so altruistic), he is not going to get paid for her surgery, whereas, if she had insurance, he would be reimbursed.
I know the other side of the argument, because my Internal med PA might lose control of his practice if universal healthcare is implemented. The heavy patient load that will be necessary to make enough money to maintain the practice will mean he can't follow his patients the way he does now, etc. Both sides have strong arguments. I just thought this was a good point.
Back to studying.