“Socialism”

Well, I don’t know where they’ll run to, but if the govt. negotiates lower fees, then doctors would be less likely to want to work in the States. As it stands, more women are becoming doctors than men, as men have become attracted to more lucrative careers. Even doctors are not practicing, but “consulting,” or discriminating against claims to insurance agents, as their salary is higher and their worktime decreased. Not a lot of people going into medicine as a “caring” profession, these days.

There are some problems with your argument. Governments which negotiate lower prices will not only drive away people who are practicing medicine, but will also discourage people from entering into medicine. This is a long term problem which we see in England, will see in Canada. In Cuba they’re starving socialists, forbidden to leave the island, and assigned to jobs, so they don’t have that problem. So you can have “free” medical care at the cost of enslaving the nation, if you so desire.

There are other problems. Right now, government pays 55% of the 16% of our GNP which pays for health care. Since (as you point out) the problem is supply and demand, when they do this, and increase demand, they also increase costs. Let us say that we start spending 32% of our GNP on medical care. We’ll get twice as much care, right? WRONG! We’ll get a little bit more, but mostly the money will be absorbed by higher prices. This is especially important because high income individuals tend to take more vacations, retire earlier, and otherwise work less. It does you no good to make lots of money if you have no time to spend it.

So what is the solution? Deregulation. There are things that are done by Navy corpsmen with 3 months of training that require an M.D. with 12 years of training in the civilian world. Why do we require an MD in the civilian world? Because the AMA is the most powerful trade union in history, with their powers codified into law, and they like it that way. They make more money that way. Decreasing supply also increases prices, giving the AMA a way to prevent the creation of new medical professionals, and raise their own incomes. This is how all unions operate, though the AMA is better at it than most.

What else can we do? Remove the tax benefits from corporations which provide medical insurance to their workers, so that more people buy their own medical insurance. The more aware they are of the costs, the more they will economize. Incentives matter.

Lastly, stop forcing hospitals to pay for the care of those who show up without insurance. You are forgetting that we already have socialized medicine in America, and that what we are suffering are the early effects of socialized medicine. I, personally, carry no medical insurance. I have no reason to carry medical insurance. Why? Because I pay out of pocket for checkups and such (just like oil changes, which never result in a claim to your auto insurance) and I live in a state where if I show up with something seriously wrong at a hospital, they are not permitted to turn me away. So you (assuming you have medical insurance) pay for my care. I don’t like this. I would prefer to pay for a cheap major medical insurance policy, without paying for the care of those who lack insurance, and continue to pay for minor office visits myself. Since I cannot pay for mine without paying for yours, I choose not to pay for mine, either, and rather let you pay for it.

How sad.

Well, I don’t know where they’ll run to, but if the govt. negotiates lower fees, then doctors would be less likely to want to work in the States. As it stands, more women are becoming doctors than men, as men have become attracted to more lucrative careers. Even doctors are not practicing, but “consulting,” or discriminating against claims to insurance agents, as their salary is higher and their worktime decreased. Not a lot of people going into medicine as a “caring” profession, these days.

Another issue with regard to the shortage of practitioners has to do with the practitioner spending more time on bullshit paperwork and less time working with the actual patient. Imagine a world where the doctor, PA, RN, LPN, etc… could simply visit without a patient without having to memorize a metric ass load of ICD-9 reqs.

There are some problems with your argument. Governments which negotiate lower prices will not only drive away people who are practicing medicine, but will also discourage people from entering into medicine. This is a long term problem which we see in England, will see in Canada. In Cuba they’re starving socialists, forbidden to leave the island, and assigned to jobs, so they don’t have that problem. So you can have “free” medical care at the cost of enslaving the nation, if you so desire.

Would you mind substantiating your hypothesis about medical professionals being driven from practice because of Governmental price regulation? Do you feel that it would be ok for a physician to charge an astronomical rate for average care? What if the government regulated malpractice insurance so the physicians wouldn’t have to charge so much?

There are other problems. Right now, government pays 55% of the 16% of our GNP which pays for health care. Since (as you point out) the problem is supply and demand, when they do this, and increase demand, they also increase costs. Let us say that we start spending 32% of our GNP on medical care. We’ll get twice as much care, right? WRONG! We’ll get a little bit more, but mostly the money will be absorbed by higher prices. This is especially important because high income individuals tend to take more vacations, retire earlier, and otherwise work less. It does you no good to make lots of money if you have no time to spend it.

Erm…you are incorrect. Demand will increase. However, regulation of goods and services through price fixing/capping will keep the profiteering to a minimum. This is not about getting twice as much care. This is about obtaining care in the first place.

So what is the solution? Deregulation. There are things that are done by Navy corpsmen with 3 months of training that require an M.D. with 12 years of training in the civilian world. Why do we require an MD in the civilian world? Because the AMA is the most powerful trade union in history, with their powers codified into law, and they like it that way. They make more money that way. Decreasing supply also increases prices, giving the AMA a way to prevent the creation of new medical professionals, and raise their own incomes. This is how all unions operate, though the AMA is better at it than most.

Deregulation to what extent? Eliminating licensing by state boards? I have heard rumblings about that and as a consumer, I like knowing that my healthcare provider meets a standard, minimum amount of requirements.

Think about this, with regard to availability, hospitals, particularly those in the academic sector, are in such dire need for RNs and other allied health professionals, that they offer free tuition and expenses to students in return for a commitment to work for said facility for a specified amount of time post graduation.

I think you’re confusing an association and the ills that come along with it with the fact that there is a lack of licensed clinicians.

What else can we do? Remove the tax benefits from corporations which provide medical insurance to their workers, so that more people buy their own medical insurance. The more aware they are of the costs, the more they will economize. Incentives matter.

OK…you’re completely off your rocker with this one. So the corporations stop providing healthcare bennies. Do you think your salary would increase enough to cover the costs passed along to you?

Lastly, stop forcing hospitals to pay for the care of those who show up without insurance. You are forgetting that we already have socialized medicine in America, and that what we are suffering are the early effects of socialized medicine. I, personally, carry no medical insurance. I have no reason to carry medical insurance. Why? Because I pay out of pocket for checkups and such (just like oil changes, which never result in a claim to your auto insurance) and I live in a state where if I show up with something seriously wrong at a hospital, they are not permitted to turn me away. So you (assuming you have medical insurance) pay for my care. I don’t like this. I would prefer to pay for a cheap major medical insurance policy, without paying for the care of those who lack insurance, and continue to pay for minor office visits myself. Since I cannot pay for mine without paying for yours, I choose not to pay for mine, either, and rather let you pay for it.

Oh boy. So, you have willingly admitted that you are part of the problem. You carry no insurance because you think you’re healthy. What happens if you get into a car accident? Who pays your medical expenses then? The tax payer. I can guaran-damn-tee that you don’t have the hundreds of thousands of dollars laying around to cover your treatment.

Furthermore, what makes you think you won’t be diagnosed with a chronic ailment which will require insurance? Given that you’re not carrying insurance now, if you are (G-d forbid) diagnosed with something along the lines of diabetes, that is listed as a pre-existing condition. Therefore, if you manage to find a company to insure you, your premium will be through the roof.

Let me ask you this…do you plan on collecting Social Security and/or participating in Medicare and Medicaid when available to you. Dollars to donuts, you will.

How sad.

Yes you are. You are extremely sad as you have absolutely no concern for your fellow man. Your me-ism attitude is part of the huge problem we face.

To surmise, it is rather apparent that you have a limited understanding of healthcare, public healthcare, procurement, basic economics and common sense. Maybe…just maybe…instead of devising contrived, convoluted arguments, you should think about something other than your bad self. Perhaps through a little reflection, you might realize exactly how erroneous every single point you have made is.

Tsk tsk tsk.

I was just looking at the IMDB page for the movie Sicko and the forums are an interesting read. The people who post in them seem to be divided into two camps: those who say, “I don’t want to pay for your health insurance!” and try to argue that health care is a not a basic human right but rather a privilege. And those who say that access to free or low cost health care is as basic a human need as food and water and it should therefore be paid for by the government/tax payers. I fall into the second camp and I find myself wondering about ones in the first camp. When did they lose their concern for the well-being of their fellow man? When did they become such cynical bastards? Come to think of it, what planet are they from?… because they sure aren’t acting like human beings.

Here in Sweden the idea that sixty million adults and children in the US are without access to low-cost health care is incomprehensible. The Swede asked me, “What are they supposed to do if they break a bone or catch a terminal disease?” Well, according to the US government, if someone without health insurance gets sick or injured then it’s his or her own fault. He or she should have been more careful knowing that he or she couldn’t afford medical care. He or she are therefore supposed to suffer and die.

Yup, medical care in the US these days has nothing to with saving lives, easing suffering, or helping the sick.

I don’t like socialists, and I don’t like insurance companies and greedy buggers. I believe that the 8 billion dollars we spend a month in Iraq would have bought a lot of health care in the US for Americans. What’s the point of building a hospital in Iraq if it gets blown up the next day?

I believe strongly in preventative care, it should be mandatory that all Americans have a physical every year. We have a reactive health care system, not a proactive one. Finding diseases early can save lives, and money as well. Of course who really stands to benefit from that, apart from the lucky bastard who was spared death?

We aren’t the only ones talking about this. For all that people complain about Michael Moore, it seems that he has effectively put this issue into the spotlight.

Health Care Terror
by Paul Krugman
Commentary, NY Times

These days terrorism is the first refuge of scoundrels. So when British authorities announced that a ring of Muslim doctors working for the National Health Service was behind the recent failed bomb plot, we should have known what was coming.

“National healthcare: Breeding ground for terror?” read the on-screen headline, as the Fox News host Neil Cavuto and the commentator Jerry Bowyer solemnly discussed how universal health care promotes terrorism.

While this was crass even by the standards of Bush-era political discourse, Fox was following in a long tradition. For more than 60 years, the medical-industrial complex and its political allies have used scare tactics to prevent America from following its conscience and making access to health care a right for all its citizens.

I say conscience, because the health care issue is, most of all, about morality.

That’s what we learn from the overwhelming response to Michael Moore’s “Sicko.” Health care reformers should, by all means, address the anxieties of middle-class Americans, their … fear of finding themselves uninsured or … den[ied] coverage when they need it most. But reformers shouldn’t focus only on self-interest. They should also appeal to Americans’ sense of decency and humanity.

What outrages people who see “Sicko” is the sheer cruelty and injustice of the American health care system — sick people who can’t pay their hospital bills literally dumped on the sidewalk, a child who dies because an emergency room that isn’t a participant in her mother’s health plan won’t treat her, hard-working Americans driven into humiliating poverty by medical bills.

“Sicko” is a powerful call to action — but … defenders of the status quo …[are] very good at fending off reform by finding new ways to scare us.

These scare tactics have often included over-the-top claims about the dangers of government insurance. “Sicko” plays part of a recording Ronald Reagan once made for the American Medical Association, warning that …. the program now known as Medicare … would lead to totalitarianism…

Mainly, though, the big-money interests with a stake in the present system want you to believe that universal health care would lead to a crushing tax burden and lousy medical care.

Now, every wealthy country except the United States already has some form of universal care. Citizens … pay extra taxes as a result — but they make up for that through savings on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs. The overall cost of health care … is much lower…

Meanwhile, every available indicator says that in terms of quality, access to needed care and health outcomes, the U.S. health care system does worse, not better, than other advanced countries. …

All of which raises the question Mr. Moore asks at the beginning of “Sicko”: who are we?

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics.” So declared F.D.R. in 1937, in words that apply perfectly to health care today. This isn’t one of those cases where we face painful tradeoffs — here, doing the right thing is also cost-efficient. Universal health care would save thousands of American lives each year, while actually saving money.

So this is a test. The only things standing in the way of universal health care are the fear-mongering and influence-buying of interest groups. If we can’t overcome those forces here, there’s not much hope for America’s future.

If you don’t have Times Select, the Economist’s View blog frequently reposts his columns.

In response to a blog post by a Google employee, the Official Google Blog wrote Google and Health Care:

In a world of 24/7 news cycles, a summer weekend can bring considerable — and unanticipated — excitement. Take for example the reaction we’ve just seen to an item on our new health advertising blog. Frankly, we were surprised by the pickup, but perhaps we shouldn’t have been. We’ve been proponents of corporate blogging for some time, despite the significant communication challenges that obviously arise from having many voices from all parts of our company speak publicly through blog posts. In this case, the blog criticized Michael Moore’s new film “Sicko” to suggest how health care companies might use our ad programs when they face controversy. Our internal review of the piece before publication failed to recognize that readers would — properly, but incorrectly — impute the criticisms as reflecting Google’s official position. We blew it.

In the meantime, we have taken steps on our own to address the failures we see in our health care system. In our case, the menu of health care options that we offer our employees includes both direct services (for example, on-site medical and dental professionals in certain locations) as well as a range of preventive care programs. It’s one of the ways we’re attempting to demonstrate corporate responsibility on a major issue of our time.