Post: #26

(01-12-2011 10:58 PM)Entropy4 Wrote:  Spending more does not equal higher quality care.

I am comparing the quality of care first-hand, based on my own experience with several "free" and one "non-free" healthcare. And I pointed out exactly where spending indeed provides higher quality care.

Quote:In fact, the US health care system is incredibly inefficient when compared to just about any other developed country. We pay far more and receive far less for fewer people.

Indeed. An "efficient system" in a development country would not treat a 80yo with an expensive surgery - they'll spend those money on younger people. The old fart doesn't pay taxes anymore, so he isn't worth spending any money. Barbaric? Indeed. But extremely efficient!

Quote:In 2000, The World Health Organization rated the US health care system 37th in the world in terms of quality and efficiency, coming in behind such powerhouses as Morocco, Chile and Costa Rica.

When you read such a report, it is important to understand criteria they use. Let's see them, and see how they apply to "quality and efficiency of healthcare":

1. Overall Level of Health. This is a very useless parameter, because it takes into account a lot of influential factors, quality of healthcare being very miniscule here. WHO considers that the healthier the population is, the better must the healthcare be. However, those two things are not really relevant. Look on US, for example - an obesity is a major problem here, so it would score very low. Now think of it: does really the fact a lot of people are stuffing themselves with crappy foods and are too lazy to go to gym, indicates problems in the healthcare system?

2. Responsiveness, how fast could one get treatment. WHO measures availability and accessibility, and the better they are, the better the system is. This is probably the most important factor for me, which determines healthcare quality. And USA scored high on this one.

3. Distribution of Health in the Populations or "fairness" of healthcare system towards those who have the worst health. WHO considers that the most sick people should get most healthcare money (regardless of their ability to pay for it). Meaning, if I am poor, obese, abuse alcohol and drugs, and have no insurance but more sick than you, I should get more healthcare than you, even if you are rich, have insurance and take care of your health. In short, this parameter measures how socialistic the healthcare system is. And of course USA scores low here, its healthcare system is not socialistic. However, if you think about it, it has nothing to do with healthcare quality or efficiency.

4. Distribution of Financing. Item 3 measures money spent, and this item measures money collected. Same as with 3, it measures how "socially fair" the healthcare system is toward the poorest. Meaning, to score high the country must charge rich a lot, middle class a little, and poor nothing, providing them all with the same level of healthcare. Same as 3, it measures the socialistic aspect of the system, which has nothing to do with healthcare quality.

Considering that 2 out of 4 factors measure just how "socialistic" the healthcare system is, it is not surprise that US came 37. If they removed the item 2 (which is the only item relevant to healthcare), US would be on the bottom of that list. What would it mean? It would mean that US has a significant unhealthy population, and that its healthcare system is not socialistic. Now, do you really needed to read a report to get that?

And now about what this report is helpful for. It is helpful to answering the following question: "if I am poor and have no money, which country would provide the best healthcare for me"?

Now, about the rest:

Quote:* Canada had the highest percentage of patients (36%) who had to wait six days or more for an appointment with a doctor, but the United States had the second highest percentage (23%) who reported that they had to wait at least this long.

This is based on (wrong) assumption that all Americans have the same, equal access to doctors. This, of course, is not the case. The cheaper/crappier is your insurance, the less doctors are available for you, and the more you have to wait. The correct answer would be that in US the waiting time depends on what kind of health insurance you got.

Another problem here is that in US, unlike Canada or Russia, you can go to any doctor, not only the doctor "assigned" to you. Of course your insurance might not cover it, but if you're in hurry, even $150 is not a very big deal. This, of course, is not measured in this response.

I've explained this one in such details so you can see how hard is to make a reliable comparison. And how easy is to introduce any bias.

Quote:Statistically speaking, the US only out-performs other developed countries in extreme situations. We have the most cancer survivors, for instance.

This is not an extreme case, this is a real indicator of how advanced the medicine really is. Everyone can treat common cold, but things like cancer, AIDS, brain tumors are significantly more difficult. And cancer is definitely not an extreme case.

Quote:As far as me being bankrupted by a judge... yes, but considering a 10k deductible would bankrupt me anyway, then it's a moot point.

Hospitals typically let you to pay in installments if you don't have money, so you could pay off those 10K in two years paying $416 a month. But if your financial situation is so dire that a 10K debt would force you into bankruptcy, you might consider working here and putting some money into your rainy day fund. If shit happens when you're abroad and you don't have insurance there, they may not even care to say your life until you pay or at least post a deposit.

Quote:Breaking my leg, yes, that's basically the worst case scenario. But Mexico is only a $300 flight and six hours away, and they can take care of it for less than $1k.

How you imagine it, you gonna walk around carrying a broken piece of your leg to the plane? What about a broken hip? You may not even be able to sit in the airplane seat.

Post: #27

You're straw-manning the hell out of the arguments. No developed country lets an old person die in the name of "efficiency." Please show me an example.

As for the WHO's ratings, they're not rating "socialized medicine," I think responsiveness, and amount of the population covered are totally reasonable things to measure... just because socialized medicine does it better than the U.S. doesn't mean it's measuring socialized medicine.

Yes, waiting time in the US is determined by what kind of health insurance you have, and considering the majority of the population has SHITTY health insurance, they have to suffer through wait times.

And I'm willing to bet that the VAST majority of people who go to the doctor, aren't going for cancer. They're going for colds, flus, physical check ups, and other non-life-threatening conditions. The vast majority of the population goes to the doctor for day-to-day health reasons... most people in other countries go to the doctor multiple times a year just to get checked out and take care of anything that may raise small concerns. In the U.S., most of us can't do this because we'd be spending a retarded amount of money.

Post: #28

(01-14-2011 02:01 PM)Entropy4 Wrote:  You're straw-manning the hell out of the arguments. No developed country lets an old person die in the name of "efficiency." Please show me an example.

Of course it is not called like that, but it happens everywhere through rationing. Think of it - healthcare resources (money, doctors, equipment) are limited and cannot be boosted up easily in a socialized environment. In US your health insurance can raise your premium twice a year, but try to raise taxes in France or Greece, and you'll get riots. Which means the country ends up with a tough choice - they can spend 100K to keep an old person in coma in ICU, or they can spend those 100K to purchase a new vaccine and immunize 10K children. Or build a new hospital. Or put it toward a new MRI machine. You ever heard of waiting lists? This is rationing. Google it.

Quote:As for the WHO's ratings, they're not rating "socialized medicine," I think responsiveness, and amount of the population covered are totally reasonable things to measure...

They do not measure amount of population covered, they measure "fairness" of coverage. Which is very different.

Quote:Yes, waiting time in the US is determined by what kind of health insurance you have, and considering the majority of the population has SHITTY health insurance, they have to suffer through wait times.

So far my impression was that the majority of the population here in US has a good health insurance. The only people who have a shitty one are those on welfare, but since it is provided for free, they shouldn't complain anyway.

Quote:And I'm willing to bet that the VAST majority of people who go to the doctor, aren't going for cancer. They're going for colds, flus, physical check ups, and other non-life-threatening conditions.

This is true, but my point is that those things do not address the quality of healthcare. Flus, for example, usually wear off in a week even if you don't see a doctor, so the quality of doctor education, available drugs and equipment doesn't really matter here. And those visits don't cost a lot either. But once you need an MRI scan, things start changing dramatically.

Post: #29

(01-14-2011 05:53 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  Of course it is not called like that, but it happens everywhere through rationing. Think of it - healthcare resources (money, doctors, equipment) are limited and cannot be boosted up easily in a socialized environment. In US your health insurance can raise your premium twice a year, but try to raise taxes in France or Greece, and you'll get riots. Which means the country ends up with a tough choice - they can spend 100K to keep an old person in coma in ICU, or they can spend those 100K to purchase a new vaccine and immunize 10K children. Or build a new hospital. Or put it toward a new MRI machine. You ever heard of waiting lists? This is rationing. Google it.

Evidence please. I believe the burden of proof is on you, especially for such a horrendous thing. The truth is that every socialized health care system takes people in the order of urgency. People with urgent conditions are never wait listed, and in fact, the vast majority of people in countries like Germany or the France never experience wait lists.

Quote:So far my impression was that the majority of the population here in US has a good health insurance. The only people who have a shitty one are those on welfare, but since it is provided for free, they shouldn't complain anyway.

55 million Americans are uninsured... almost 20% of the entire population. Most of us are not on welfare. Many of us are self-employed, or had our benefits cut by companies (because they became too expensive), or have pre-existing conditions, or lost their job.

There are a LOT of hard-working and good people who are not covered by the US system. In almost every case, I agree with the principle that markets allocate the greatest good to the greatest people... I do not believe this is the case for health care. The vast majority of people's health demands are uncontrollable by them, therefore you can't subject them to traditional supply/demand models. It's immoral. For a man to have cancer and not be able to get coverage or care because it's going to hurt some corporation's bottom line is just wrong. And the most fucked up thing is that the increased tax burden in most developed countries for socialized medicine is LESS than what many people already pay in health coverage in America. If America socialized its health care system, health insurance costs would actually GO DOWN for most people because the system would suddenly have 55 million more payers contributing to it than it does now, spreading the burden out greatly.

Post: #30

(01-12-2011 05:37 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  If you only present in US three months a year, you may get travel insurance instead. Consider it protection if shit happens. You might think you can't pay, but the system doesn't work that easy. You might find out your assets (including bank accounts) frozen or liquidated to pay your debts, and when you appear in front of bankruptcy judge he might consider that if you had money to spend nine months abroad, you were able to afford health insurance as well. But again, it is up to you.

That's not the way Bankruptcy court works. You only go in front of a Bankruptcy Judge(appointed by the District Federal Court of Appeals) in very rare and specific cases (Fraud is one reason). Otherwise a bankruptcy Trustee(local lawyer with connections) presides over the the matters. Furthermore, All the Bk trustee cares about is whether or not you pass the "means test" for Chapter 7. I have been to quite a number of 341 hearings and seldom have I heard the trustee asking for in depth questions. He has hundreds of petitions to adjudicate so he doesn't have the time to go thru every person petition with a fine toothed comb and ask stupid questions @ 341 hearing. Also, the look back period(pay stubs, bank statements, property) I believe is 180 days prior to filing bankruptcy. All Entrophy has to do is sell all his shit/lower his income prior to this time so he can fall under the Chapter 7 threshold (http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/201..._table.htm) and it is "all good in the hood." If he has real state property he can just file Chapter 13 and pay cents on the dollar.

Quote:Sure, if you don't have one, they will save your life - but nothing more. No rehabilitation, for example. However major health issues are not immediately life-threatening, and they are not required to treat you either. A broken leg, for example, is not life-threatening, so don't expect them to fix it for you without a payment.

Again this is not the case in at least in a New York and a lot of Eastern Seaboard states. By law private hospitals have to treat you in the Emergency room and Public hospitals in New York will provide follow up care and make arrangements for you to get temporary Medicaid even if you are here illegally. This is the reason why Medicaid are pushing states to the blink of bankruptcy.

Did you know NY actually has a form that you can use to "abandon" your spouse so that Medicaid will pick up the tab for long term care and you don't have to use assets to pay for care? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/nyregi...ets&st=cse)

Quote:until five years ago, when his wife, Wen Mei Hu, racked by bone-marrow cancer, had to be put in a nursing home, where the bills ran past $100,000 a year, threatening to quickly drain the couple’s life savings of $500,000. The nursing home told him not to worry: If he signed a document essentially refusing to support his wife of several decades, Medicaid, the federal insurance program for the indigent, would pick up the bill.

If you can get affordable insurance by all means get it, but being uninsured is not the end of the world. The biggest perk for me for insurance is not having to wait for hours in free "County" hospitals with West Indian nurses with fuck up attitudes. So, Entrophy is right, he can cross that bridge when he gets there.

Post: #31

Why argue bullshit politics like this on a pickup/travel board? Hell, why argue at all?

Post: #32

(01-15-2011 01:36 PM)Cruatha Wrote:  Why argue bullshit politics like this on a pickup/travel board? Hell, why argue at all?

Because ultimately it matters... and this is the "Everything Else" board.

Post: #33

(01-15-2011 05:11 AM)Entropy4 Wrote:  Evidence please. I believe the burden of proof is on you, especially for such a horrendous thing.

I mentioned some of it - waiting times being the most widely discussed one. Did you google it? I did, and here's one of the first links I've found:

The head of one of Melbourne's major hospitals has hit back at figures obtained by the State Opposition, showing more than 600 people die every year on surgery waiting lists.

You can also ask yourself, why do Canadians go to US to be treated at all? After all, they have a very good healthcare system, which is scored better than US in that WHO report, and it is free for them - but they not only go to US, but also pay money - sometime a lot of money - to be treated. Why?

But of course first you need to me honest with yourself. Are you really looking for evidence, or are you looking for excuse? So far it looks like the latter.

Quote:The truth is that every socialized health care system takes people in the order of urgency. People with urgent conditions are never wait listed, and in fact, the vast majority of people in countries like Germany or the France never experience wait lists.

That's in ideal condition. But if you go through the list I put up before you'll see where the problem is. MRI is an easiest case - one scan takes roughly 30 minutes including preparation, meaning you simply cannot scan more than 48 people in a day in a single MRI machine. Same with drugs - you can get new (but much more expensive) brand-name drugs, or you can use older generics which are cheaper, but have lesser survival rate. Same with doctors - really, what government employee has incentive to work overtime? True, doctors often do - and they do much more than they are obliged to do - but the lack of incentive here is very limiting factor as well.

Quote:55 million Americans are uninsured... almost 20% of the entire population.

Where did you get your number? I'd like to see the breakdown, i.e. how many of them want to have health insurance but cannot afford it, and how many just decided they needed this iPhone more than health insurance (which is a very different case).

Quote:There are a LOT of hard-working and good people who are not covered by the US system. In almost every case, I agree with the principle that markets allocate the greatest good to the greatest people... I do not believe this is the case for health care. The vast majority of people's health demands are uncontrollable by them, therefore you can't subject them to traditional supply/demand models. It's immoral.

Healthcare system cannot be "moral". The doctors do not work for free, the equipment is not free, the drugs are not free. No matter how you plan it, you'll end up with some kind of rationing. Generally speaking, it is similar to project management triangle - healthcare system could be:

1. Quality.
2. Affordable.
3. Available.

and you can only choose two of those. You can choose 1 and 2, and you'll get Canadian/French healthcare system with good quality and waiting lists. You choose 2 and 3, and you get Russian/Thai healthcare system. You choose 1 and 3, and you get US healthcare system. There is no system in this world which covers 1-3.

Quote:For a man to have cancer and not be able to get coverage or care because it's going to hurt some corporation's bottom line is just wrong.

Now look on it through a different angle. It is not some corporation money - it is your money. Healthcare is funded pretty much everywhere from the contribution of the country population, either through taxation or voluntary insurance. So the question is very different - are YOU willing to pay more so another man with cancer is able to get coverage?

Quote:And the most fucked up thing is that the increased tax burden in most developed countries for socialized medicine is LESS than what many people already pay in health coverage in America.

I explained it before. Seems like you didn't read it at all, and I just wasted my time.
I won't do it again. After all, your lack of health insurance is your problem.

Post: #34

(01-15-2011 11:05 AM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  Also, the look back period(pay stubs, bank statements, property) I believe is 180 days prior to filing bankruptcy.

This guy says it is one year. Which is enough in case of hospital bill to go through the justice system to the collection level where the assets are frozen, and he needs to go through bankruptcy to access his bank accounts again.
And don't forget wages/business income, those are much more difficult to hide than assets.

Quote:Again this is not the case in at least in a New York and a lot of Eastern Seaboard states. By law private hospitals have to treat you in the Emergency room and Public hospitals in New York will provide follow up care and make arrangements for you to get temporary Medicaid even if you are here illegally.

Is NY law more broad than EMTALA? Here (CA) ERs are only required to treat people in life-threatening conditions, and can refuse treatment to anyone else (not sure though if they do it).

Quote:If you can get affordable insurance by all means get it, but being uninsured is not the end of the world. The biggest perk for me for insurance is not having to wait for hours in free "County" hospitals with West Indian nurses with fuck up attitudes.

And then being hit with a bill. Which isn't a big deal if you don't have any assets. But if you do?

Post: #35

(01-16-2011 04:07 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  1. Quality.
2. Affordable.
3. Available.

and you can only choose two of those. You can choose 1 and 2, and you'll get Canadian/French healthcare system with good quality and waiting lists. You choose 2 and 3, and you get Russian/Thai healthcare system. You choose 1 and 3, and you get US healthcare system. There is no system in this world which covers 1-3.

Wow, very scientific. Your extensive research into this issue is abundantly clear. Not only are you unaware of the most basic data, but your beliefs have no bearing on the actual facts at all.

I'm done too... I encourage you to do some more research instead of just assuming that people are lazy and socialized health care = waiting lists. As someone who has lived in some of the countries you've mentioned, used their systems and talked to doctors and people who use those systems, your perceptions are way, way, WAY off. I encourage you to travel some more and find out for yourself.

I will leave you with this. A simple google search for "uninsured Americans" answers your most basic question of how many Americans are uninsured. The fact that you didn't even know this, the most basic fact necessary for this debate, makes everything you've posted suspect and anecdotal at best.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010...7_ST_N.htm

Money quote:

Quote:The reasons for the rise to 50.7 million, or 16.7%, from 46.3 million uninsured, or 15.4%, were many: workers losing their jobs in the recession, companies dropping employee health insurance benefits, families going without coverage to cut costs. Driving much of the increase, however, was the rising cost of medical care; a Kaiser Family Foundation report shows workers now pay 47% more than they did in 2005 for family health coverage, while employers pay 20% more.

The last thing I'll point out is that while you you have such a cavalier attitude about how other people must just be lazy to not be insured, and other systems must be poor quality or inefficient, the irony is that you're actually the one being lazy and inefficient, along with most of the US population, about informing yourself about these issues instead of just digesting the easy 24-hour news talking points and not looking into it yourself.

Post: #36

(01-16-2011 08:15 PM)Entropy4 Wrote:  I will leave you with this. A simple google search for "uninsured Americans" answers your most basic question of how many Americans are uninsured. The fact that you didn't even know this, the most basic fact necessary for this debate, makes everything you've posted suspect and anecdotal at best.

Apparently you do not believe in basic discussion etiquette - if someone introduces a claim, like you did, it is his job to provide the evidence to support it. Translation: if you said the number is 55M, it is your job to prove it. If you do not want to adhere to basic rules of a civilized discussion, this makes the discussion useless. Same as you're cherry-picking parts of my reply instead of addressing the concerns I mentioned. This means you're not looking for a civilized discussion, or maybe you're not mature enough to participate in one.

I made a mistake wasting my time on you, I won't do it again. Peace.

Post: #37

(01-08-2011 03:56 PM)wolf Wrote:  I can confirm for you. My friend recently went there to get some dental work done. He goes there whenever he needs extensive dental work done because in US it's overpriced.

He went to the main hospital over there and they charged like $80 to remove his tooth. Over here they were asking $200 for the tooth and $600 to put him under to remove that tooth. That's pretty much the price of the plane ticket there.

Does this include cosmetic dental work?

Post: #38

Somebody in this post claimed that dental costs in Thailand are now 80-100% of USA prices? That was in 2011, and the "golden days" were 2006? Is that really true?

Thinking of getting some work done. If someone has any recent experience, would appreciate a PM.

Post: #39

Bangkok dental is amazing. Got two root canals done for a grand. In Aus they were asking $7500.

Got a solid holiday out of it and saved 5000 after flights and accom.

Post: #40

(01-12-2011 10:58 PM)Entropy4 Wrote:  oldnemesis, a lot of your information is inaccurate or just regurgitated talking points.

Spending more does not equal higher quality care. In fact, the US health care system is incredibly inefficient when compared to just about any other developed country. We pay far more and receive far less for fewer people.



In 2000, The World Health Organization rated the US health care system 37th in the world in terms of quality and efficiency, coming in behind such powerhouses as Morocco, Chile and Costa Rica. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Statistically, we perform worse in almost every single category while paying more and dying earlier: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

Wait times in places like Canada or the UK are also blown out of proportion in comparison the wait times many of us already experience in the United States.
_ _ _

Hey. Poster see kettle:a lot of your information is inaccurate or just regurgitated talking points. Three points to answer, two of which odnemisis answered too briefly: US leads R&D in medicine and subsidizes the rest of the free-riding world; US redistributes a portion of that munificence badly (let's agree to blame the US traditional legal system). And finally it does lead to long life-spans: for ethnically matched, people over 50 years old live measurably long lives, and various common cancer treatment outcomes support that (eg, versus the UK).

For one thing, the WHO and most of the world's "health care" assessments put little value on freedom of choice, opportunity costs and price sensitivity - ie, the Real World - and therefore neglect comparing outcomes with differing inputs realistically.

First to outputs. Can you buy better health in the US? Yes, if only because most of the world's medical innovation arrives first to the US. For instance, my old university roommate is a prof of biomedical engineering at Arizona State University - and MD and PhD research scientists. Even middle-level departments in his field in the US are new departments in new facilities, everywhere - in Australia, by contrast, these separate departments and new facilities are non-existent.

Next, to inputs. The US takes in most of the world's legal immigration (and large portion of the illegal). In America's fragmented provider system (and far more diverse peoples - raising the cost barrier - than any larger nation), the language barrier can indeed result in less access to health care and thus premature death that could reasonably be avoided if the US weren't so diverse and frankly messy. Freedom sometimes means fragmentation - sometimes this is unavoidable (eg, southerners don't want Cali style taxes nor to live life like conformist Utah Mormons).

WHO takes stats as countries report them for life-expectancy. For example, the US reports every lives birth (and therefore has accurate rates of death and life-expectancy). Some nations don't report a birth until after a year has passed or not at all in the case of Cuba (because dictators can and Int'l orgs support them).

There is also the problem of "face validity" in WHO and other international reports, something which comparisons with small nations that are much more uniform often obscures. For example:

Quote:In 2000, The World Health Organization rated the US health care system 37th in the world in terms of quality and efficiency, coming in behind such powerhouses as Morocco, Chile and Costa Rica.

I also recall reading that Columbia ranks ahead of the US for health care, too. But do you recall the rich going there over Miami for the treatment of life-threatening illness? Of course not!

I once dated a woman with a genetic heart problem requiring a replacement heart valve to be installed. Did she go to Chile or Costa Rico or Columbia? No - of course not. She went to the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio and was saved from premature death.

So - given all of this, and given all the messiness inherent in the US medical system, how should it be judged? The most successful areas of advance are the most exposed to market rewards and penalties like eye-care and dentistry.

Today, US dentistry is mostly devoted to cosmetic improvements - such as the chain in my neighborhood called "Bright Now!" Dentistry.

How did that happen in my lifetime? Mostly because the innovation of fluoridated water meant harder teeth and much, much fewer dental cavities to repair and rotten teeth to extract.

Market-driven innovation in joint-replacement and other biomedical engineering aspects of living well and living healthy, longer is another case in point.

Finally, back to cancer outcomes, who leads in success here? The US:

Quote:AVIK ROY: "The Myth Of Americans’ Poor Life Expectancy."

If you really want to measure health outcomes, the best way to do it is at the point of medical intervention. If you have a heart attack, how long do you live in the U.S. vs. another country? If you’re diagnosed with breast cancer? In 2008, a group of investigators conducted a worldwide study of cancer survival rates, called CONCORD. They looked at 5-year survival rates for breast cancer, colon and rectal cancer, and prostate cancer. I compiled their data for the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, and western Europe. Guess who came out number one?

SOURCE
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca...6309e82b98

Nonetheless, the easier things for medicine to do are getting done elsewhere as expertise spreads and the advanced skill-sets get rewarded beyond US borders. Thus, if you need caps or implant replacement teeth or many other routine medical and cosmetic proceedures, there is Los Algodones, Mexico - Costa Rica - India - Thailand - even Budapest is the "go to" place for the rich socialist Austrians for dental tourism!

Capitalism rules, not the cranky and often dysfunctional US, nor its antipodes.

Which is why the Canucks could not save actor Liam Neesan's wife, Natasha Richardson, after an ordinary ski incident in Quebec, Canada, which had neither the right equipment nor expertise to utilize it, but the US probably would have. (SEE https://spectator.org/18158_yes-canadian...ctor-says/)

Post: #41

(01-22-2018 12:59 AM)Orson Wrote:  ...

The post you're replying to is five years old and off-topic. Maybe start a new thread for this rant, politics subforum might be good.

Come to think, this whole thread now belongs in lifestyle.

Post: #42

(01-21-2018 11:46 PM)churros Wrote:  Somebody in this post claimed that dental costs in Thailand are now 80-100% of USA prices? That was in 2011, and the "golden days" were 2006? Is that really true?

Thinking of getting some work done. If someone has any recent experience, would appreciate a PM.

No, it's not true.

Post: #43

Also interested in recommendations for cosmetic dental work, would appreciate a PM.

From the internet, it looks like prices are roughly half U.S. prices.

Also considering Budapest and Krakow.

Post: #44

Just a note. I went to thonglor dental hospital to get a quote on veneers.
They looked super professional and I was about to go for it but decided to wait it out.
The thing is the overall quote was just shy of 80k THB and it included 5 fillings that had to be done before the whitening and veneer procedure.
I was really surprised since I just had a checkup in London and had no holes whatsoever.
Now being back in the UK I went to my dentist and told her I had plenty teeth that needed filling, mentally preparing myself for multiple sessions.

My dentist said all my teeth are fine and they have no idea why the clinic in Thonglor wanted to drill up and fill them. Literally no filling needed.

I suspect the clinic in Thonglor wanted to get some extra cash out to me.

Just be aware of that fact.

Post: #45

Dental work is still extremely cheap there. I had two wisdom teeth removed 2 years ago for $60 each. You can get cleans for 500-1,000 thb, and that's at nice places not some basement dodgy place. Teeth whitening is also cheap I have seen promotions for 3,000-5,000 thb. Cosmetic dentistry is also still a fraction of what it is in the west. I have friends coming through quite often and they always get some work done when they are in Thailand.

Post: #46

(04-23-2018 10:18 AM)Advance Wrote:  Just a note. I went to thonglor dental hospital to get a quote on veneers.
They looked super professional and I was about to go for it but decided to wait it out.
The thing is the overall quote was just shy of 80k THB and it included 5 fillings that had to be done before the whitening and veneer procedure.
I was really surprised since I just had a checkup in London and had no holes whatsoever.
Now being back in the UK I went to my dentist and told her I had plenty teeth that needed filling, mentally preparing myself for multiple sessions.

My dentist said all my teeth are fine and they have no idea why the clinic in Thonglor wanted to drill up and fill them. Literally no filling needed.

I suspect the clinic in Thonglor wanted to get some extra cash out to me.

Just be aware of that fact.

I had a crown done at Thonglor Dental Hospital and am happy with it.

I've definitely had dentists in other places who wanted to do a ton of work, but they're just after the money.

For example, I used to have amazing dental insurance through my employer in London and a Soho dentist wanted to do all kinds of work but I got a second opinion and it wasn't needed. I guess he had to pay his exorbitant West End rent or was planning a vacation.

Something similar happened when I went for a cleaning in Odessa.

Some dentists care more about their wallets than your dental health.

Post: #47

I was looking at getting crowns on my front teeth a couple of years back and went to 3 different Dentists in Bangkok for a consult and was told pretty much 3 completely different things.

In the end I decided not to get it done there as I had no way of knowing who to trust and got it done back in the UK.

The one in Bangkok that suggested a pretty similar treatment plan to what my UK dentist later said was BIDC (Bangkok International Dental Centre) and they were also recommended to me by a girl I met on Tinder (a dentist) as being the best.

So if I was going to get work done I would only use them.

What I would suggest even better than that though, would be to get a treatment plan done in your home country from a dentist you trust beforehand and then you'll know if the Thai one is just recommending additional work to make more money from you.

Post: #48

+1 for getting the dental work done in Thailand.

I have a fair bit done here and there, always wait till I get back to Thailand.

The clinics are cleaner, safer and staffed by more professional and skilled staff than the old homeland of Australia for example, at 1/2 the price.

I've had no follow up problems or dramas.

Post: #49

I go to LOS for dental work every year.
BKK is comparatively expensive, but if you pm me I will introduce to my dentist in HH. English speaking and very reliable.

Post: #50

I've had dental work in Ukraine and had to get a filling refilled in Thailand after I popped it diving.

I used Silk in Kharkiv very very cheap and the work was done well. Shit in Ukraine you can get full veneers for under 4kusd which would be 25 - 30k in America.

I would not get any work done in Thailand again although I might have just had bad luck.