 |
Comments |
|
 | Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 6:22:37 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: brian0918
E-mail: brian0918(at)gmail.com
Congrats Paul! |
|
| Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 11:16:31 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.Harris00 at gmail dot com
Very well done Paul, I'll have to send this to a friend of mine, she thinks government ran health-care is a great idea. Rubbish I say.
I'm still shopping for a good plan, and I'm just factoring total cost, etc. I have yet to even start trying to figure out how to pick a doctor (it'd be a PPO plan. I know that much.)
While nationalized health-care seems like a dream; when you wake up, you find out about the nightmare it really is.
John. |
|
| Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 12:44:37 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Jonathan Blazovich
It's funny the length that doctors will go to protect their hyper-inflated salaries, but I guess it's not surprising. Can't wait for the coming surge of Chicken-Little MDs. |
|
| Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 13:53:55 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
(Not having read the editorial)
I suppose it's possible that some short-sighted doctors (not just insurance companies) who work emergency rooms will (at least at first) welcome single payer.
Under current law (EMTALA) they must treat anyone who comes into the emergency room, regardless of that person's ability to pay. A fairly large percentage of the time, the person knows the system and came to the emergency room precisely because they could not (or did not want to) pay--which means that the cost gets passed on to everyone else.
I could see the doctors there shortsightedly thinking, "at least under single payer, I would get paid when this happens." Let's hope they think about this a little. |
|
| Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 14:04:06 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Dan G.
Its funny the length that lazy idiots will go to interfere with the industry of others, but I guess it's not surprising. It is much easier to post a complaint without any substance and a tinge of bitterness that is attempted to be passed off as wizened cynicism. If you don't like the amount of money doctors earn you could boycott them and seek cheaper homeopathic or self-administered medicine. |
|
| Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 15:29:16 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Jonathan Blazovich
The medical industry, spearheaded by the AMA, has used the government as a tool to supress the supply of physicians in order to keep salaries artifically inflated.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-02-26-doctor-shortage_N.htm
"From the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, several national advisory groups, including the Institute of Medicine and the Council on Graduate Medical Education, issued reports forecasting a surplus of physicians. As a result, medical schools voluntarily held enrollment relatively constant at about 16,000 new students a year. From 1980 to 2005, enrollment was flat while the U.S. population grew by more than 70 million, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)."
Now, you can go ahead and believe that this was a little 'oopsie' if you want, but anyone with half a brain can see that it's nothing but market manipulation, and it's not right. Less doctors = less access to care = more $$$ for doctors. Plain and simple. It's anti-competitive and it's disgusting.
Doctors already suck the government teat through Medicare wages, which medical lobbying groups have no doubt kept artifically inflated, as well as accepting subsidies during residencies.
The medical industry is crooked, and yes, they put money above all else. But the problem is that they control our health. The corrupt automaker unions in Detroit are one thing, they only make cars, and we can get other cars elsewhere. But in this case, the entire medical industry is tightly regulated, and the medical industry viciously protects its turf.
It's time for some oversight, it's time to dismantle the corruption and burst the manufactured bubble of doctor salaries.
Hopefully the Obama administration will discard the ramblings of desperate doctors addicted to money and power and reform health-care once and for all. |
|
| Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 17:23:07 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Dan G.
John,
I suggest that your first post should have had the same substance as your follow-on, otherwise the post reeked of troll. |
|
| Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 18:07:34 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Our resident perma-troll opines:
"But in this case, the entire medical industry is *****tightly regulated****, and the medical industry viciously protects its turf.
It's time for some *****oversight*****"
[Emphasis mine.]
IOW, the solution to the consequences of excessive regulation, is even more regulation.
'Nuff said. |
|
| Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 18:14:52 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: madmax
"IOW, the solution to the consequences of excessive regulation, is even more regulation."
This is standard left-liberal fare. I think this is the Left's version of original sin; ie if men are left free they will naturally prey on one another, therefor they must be preemptively regulated. |
|
| Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at 10:02:04 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Jonathan Blazovich
When I said "tightly-regulated" I meant tightly SELF-regulated. I bet if there was a renegade doctor who wanted to break the mold and actually charge REASONABLE rates (instead of committing financial rape, like most doctors), his peers would likely band together to stop him and/or blacklist him.
However, there is tight government regulation about who can ENTER the medical field. This is no doubt due to medical lobbying efforts which aim to limit the supply as much as possible. For example, doctors and nurses want to stop the practice of lay-midwifery. Why? Because it eats into their obscene profits, and offers people an afforable alternative to baby delivery. Doctors don't want people to take control of their own medical issues, they want people to be dependent on them, so they can charge them absurd rates for simple procedures. And since they have so much money, they can also influence the lawmakers to push their own greed-based agenda.
also see http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/weekly/20070205_A_pus ...
It's time for the government to stop bending over backwards to support the corrupt medical profession, and more oversight is a step in the right direction. I can't wait until they all start threatening to quit. |
|
| Thursday, March 26, 2009 at 13:45:16 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Luke Baggins
E-mail: lukebaggins(at)gmail.com
URL: http://bodybuildingelf.blogspot.com
The Faust and health insurance industry thing was well chosen, but there's also a dis analogy there. The devil wanted Faust's soul because it wasn't yet corrupt. Health insurance, on the other hand, is a weird pre-payment scheme disguised as insurance which became widespread during World War II as a way to get around price controls. So I think the American health insurance industry should be viewed by free-market advocates as a satanic creature to begin with.
On a sort-of related tangent. I read this promotional article in a hard-core leftist Seattle alt-weekly for a new medical clinic. I've been meaning to ask somebody in the medical business whether this business model A) has a chance, and B) is a good strategy for coping with the regulations we have. Also is this an example of what they're calling "concierge clinics"?
The article also gives some detail on how medical prices are regulated that I wasn't aware of and that helps fill in the picture of what's been happening to those prices over the past decades.
Here's the link: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/extremely-great-and-and10incredi ...
Here's a money quote "For the past 14 months, Dr. Bliss and a few other doctors in downtown Seattle have been running a radical experiment in health care. They've sidestepped the entire health-insurance industry by opening a practice that gives direct primary care to their patients for a monthly fee ranging from $49 to $129. "Think of it like a gym," says member services associate Meg Tronquet. "You can use it as much or as little as you like." |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh
Comments
