Even the best health care is only as good as the patient’s willingness to listen to an expert. Unless there’s some poor intern being tasked with wrapping Donvict’s meds in cheese so he’ll swallow them, that might not matter.
More money does not mean better treatment per se. The standard of care is the same for rich and poor. He may be able to get more doctor opinions and have an easier time getting meds/etc. though.
“Oh, I see that you’re a rich - come with me to the executive wing of the hospital where we keep the cures”
No - the standard of care is not defined based on who or how much you have. You treat the same disease with the same treatment. Rich people can just afford treatments easier.
It was already in a trial and there is a law allowing “expanded use” to allow experimental drugs to be used on non-trial members under some circumstances. e.g. when the drug is safe, you are combating a novel virus for which we lack treatment, etc.
“experimental” drugs are not “better” - we don’t know if they work (they are experimental).
We didn’t know much about COVID-19 at the time and expanded use was frequent for drugs that are “generally considered safe” but whose effectiveness was questionable.
It was an emergency use - that the virus was novel, that we didn’t have adequate treatments for it yet, and Trump was considered to be in a high-risk category.
Yes - I would have had the same option were I in a high risk category.
Remember all those assholes getting Hydroxychloroquine? They were using a similar same emergency use authorization to do so since it was being used for things it was otherwise not authorized for.
That’s not what standard of care refers to solely. You’re last sentence shows that the standard is not the same. Being able to afford things that others can’t, being able to pay for early access to specialists, and diagnostics are exactly what I mean by differing standard of care.
He has access to about the same amount of care as anyone with good health insurance. Sure he can pay for more specialists and such but that is often wasted resources. “more doctors” does not always mean “better result”. In fact some studies show it can be worse.
So what you’re saying is that you are choosing a very specific section of the definition. Instead of the entire definition to suit your argument. He does not have the same amount of care as anyone else. He was potus, and will be again, unfortunately.
So what you’re saying is that you are choosing a very specific section of the definition.
Every definition is a “very specific one”. I’m clarifying what I said and you’re coming at me with some sort of weird “gotcha” energy. I don’t expect you have noble intentions.
Instead of the entire definition to suit your argument.
I only pasted part because I wasn’t going to put the entire thing in a post. But what part of the rest of the section do you feel I should have included?
He does not have the same amount of care as anyone else.
No, there are sections your cherry picked, you didn’t use the entirety of the definition. Nothing about “gatcha”, just showing that your point doesn’t stand. The definition is also a legal matter, the potus has access to better health care, more direct health care. And you’re right i don’t have a citation for that because that was a typo. But here.
Per se is doing a lot of work there. Sure, if the rich person and the poor person chose the same insurance company and the company doesn’t deny coverage to the poor person (it doesn’t matter for the rich one, since they can afford it) they could get the same coverage if they have equal quality hospitals nearby and the rich person is happy to be treated by their nearest in network hospital
But poor areas have worse hospitals
And when the rich one is president of the united states that one also has a staff medical team, and access to military medical units, and a plane and helicopter on hand to move him
Just regular rich have access to faster transport to better hospitals than the 99% can have
But yeah, on paper, ignoring effects from socio economic status and where the 99% live versus where the 1% live, versus where the .001% live it’s all equal
Per se is doing a lot of work there. Sure, if the rich person and the poor person chose the same insurance company and the company doesn’t deny coverage to the poor person (it doesn’t matter for the rich one, since they can afford it) they could get the same coverage if they have equal quality hospitals nearby and the rich person is happy to be treated by their nearest in network hospital
Thank you - that is my point and only my point. There is not “special medicine” that presidents get like all of Lemmy seems to believe.
With access to the best God damned Healthcare money can buy
He was almost defeated by a glass of water and a slight incline the last time he was president and his brain is pretty clearly Swiss cheese.
Good healthcare has its limits.
Even the best health care is only as good as the patient’s willingness to listen to an expert. Unless there’s some poor intern being tasked with wrapping Donvict’s meds in cheese so he’ll swallow them, that might not matter.
The people pulling the strings would probably have that happen tbh lol.
More money does not mean better treatment per se. The standard of care is the same for rich and poor. He may be able to get more doctor opinions and have an easier time getting meds/etc. though.
The standard of care is not the same in the US
“Oh, I see that you’re a rich - come with me to the executive wing of the hospital where we keep the cures”
No - the standard of care is not defined based on who or how much you have. You treat the same disease with the same treatment. Rich people can just afford treatments easier.
When Trump got COVID five years ago, he got treatment that is still not available to the general public.
We didn’t know much about COVID-19 at the time and expanded use was frequent for drugs that are “generally considered safe” but whose effectiveness was questionable.
What was the special circumstance for which Trump got that treatment? Would you have had the option to also get it?
It was an emergency use - that the virus was novel, that we didn’t have adequate treatments for it yet, and Trump was considered to be in a high-risk category.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=312.310
Yes - I would have had the same option were I in a high risk category.
Remember all those assholes getting Hydroxychloroquine? They were using a similar same emergency use authorization to do so since it was being used for things it was otherwise not authorized for.
Would your insurance have covered it? Did other people also get it as soon as Trump did?
That’s not what standard of care refers to solely. You’re last sentence shows that the standard is not the same. Being able to afford things that others can’t, being able to pay for early access to specialists, and diagnostics are exactly what I mean by differing standard of care.
This is how I am using it:
A standard of care is a medical or psychological treatment guideline, and can be general or specific. It specifies appropriate treatment based on scientific evidence and collaboration between medical and/or psychological professionals involved in the treatment of a given condition. .
He has access to about the same amount of care as anyone with good health insurance. Sure he can pay for more specialists and such but that is often wasted resources. “more doctors” does not always mean “better result”. In fact some studies show it can be worse.
So what you’re saying is that you are choosing a very specific section of the definition. Instead of the entire definition to suit your argument. He does not have the same amount of care as anyone else. He was potus, and will be again, unfortunately.
Every definition is a “very specific one”. I’m clarifying what I said and you’re coming at me with some sort of weird “gotcha” energy. I don’t expect you have noble intentions.
I only pasted part because I wasn’t going to put the entire thing in a post. But what part of the rest of the section do you feel I should have included?
Citation needed.
No, there are sections your cherry picked, you didn’t use the entirety of the definition. Nothing about “gatcha”, just showing that your point doesn’t stand. The definition is also a legal matter, the potus has access to better health care, more direct health care. And you’re right i don’t have a citation for that because that was a typo. But here.
Per se is doing a lot of work there. Sure, if the rich person and the poor person chose the same insurance company and the company doesn’t deny coverage to the poor person (it doesn’t matter for the rich one, since they can afford it) they could get the same coverage if they have equal quality hospitals nearby and the rich person is happy to be treated by their nearest in network hospital
But poor areas have worse hospitals
And when the rich one is president of the united states that one also has a staff medical team, and access to military medical units, and a plane and helicopter on hand to move him
Just regular rich have access to faster transport to better hospitals than the 99% can have
But yeah, on paper, ignoring effects from socio economic status and where the 99% live versus where the 1% live, versus where the .001% live it’s all equal
Thank you - that is my point and only my point. There is not “special medicine” that presidents get like all of Lemmy seems to believe.
The rest of your post is my third sentence…