Democracy For America: Healthcare for All

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Since when does amount of debt incurred and number of years spent have any correlation to income? You make what the market bears, and if you're a medical professional and the market you serve restructures itself, then guess what? Your income changes. It's the world we live in, get used to it or get out (kill yourself).

[HAL 9000 96]

why? - has the intended message changed?

Because your disregard for context and obviously polarized mentality impedes you from comprehending written words effectively.

Edited March 29, 2009 by HAL 9000

[HAL 9000 96]

Since when does amount of debt incurred and number of years spent have any correlation to income? You make what the market bears, and if you're a medical professional and the market you serve restructures itself, then guess what? Your income changes. It's the world we live in, get used to it or get out (kill yourself).

Indeed.

I'm going to start whining about my loans and expect higher compensation too. I am entitled.

[mRx 16]

Yes, I believe the hippocratic oath speaks volumes about the call to heal. If a doctor doesn't have that as his or her philosophical North, then that person should not be a doctor. Coincidentally, this is what separates the good doctors from the rest- service before self benefit. I should know, I see scores of med students every day and work in a hospital complex.

On the philosophical note, I do agree that an ethical compass is imperitave in the medical industry. Doctors that don't have the interest of their patient at the forefront of their profession, will not be successful. Just as a receptionist with no people skills won't be a receptionist for very long. But the issue being discussed is wage manipulation. The hippocratic oath doesn't deal with issues such as a proper wage in the market. Nor does it compel any doctor to perform their work for a wage that they deem unreasonable. And my point still stands:

Forcing down wages will force those who consider themselves to be worth more than the wage ceiling out of the profession. Then you'll have a shortage of labor and of quality.

Remember, often the highest paid doctors are the best ones. The market still works.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If the consumers of a service collectively decide they will pay less for that service, that isn't manipulation. That's the market at work.

[mRx 16]

Since when does amount of debt incurred and number of years spent have any correlation to income? You make what the market bears, and if you're a medical professional and the market you serve restructures itself, then guess what? Your income changes. It's the world we live in, get used to it or get out (kill yourself).

If the government alters your wage, then you're not making what the market bears; This is what will cause the outflow from the profession, which is precisely the point. Look at price and wage controls in the '40s. Meat was forced to be priced far below the amount the market could clear it. This led to the shortage of meat in the US.

Not comparing meat to doctors, simply pointing out that in forcing the price of something below market, you will force the labor out as well.

[mRx 16]

If the consumers of a service collectively decide they will pay less for that service, that isn't manipulation. That's the market at work.

If the entire populus of a country decides to pay less for a service, then their offers will only be entertained by those doctors who value their service less than the wage. This is how the shortage would come about.

But with a highly demanded commodity, such as healthcare, the unsatisfied demand would remain, and push prices back up to a market level.

Prices aren't determined by consumers, nor by suppliers. It's the concerted bidding up and down by both sides that lead to an equilibrium price.

[dalegg 143]

Dale,

This might help answer your question...

Federal law is very clear. Hospitals are under a positive legal obligation to treat everyone who walks in through the door. It does not matter whether the emergency is real, in the sense of a traffic accident inflicting unexpected injury, or to some extent manufactured, where the condition only becomes an emergency because of a deliberate delay. People must be given treatment. The difficulty is that most of the uninsured cannot afford to pay their bills. The hospitals can and do issue invoices for the treatment given and drugs supplied. This is also a part of the law. People have a responsibility to pay for their treatment. But hospitals are realistic about their chances of collecting. Continued pursuit for payment usually results in bankruptcy and the creditors only get a few cents in the dollar. So, hospitals make a rational decision. They spread all the unpaid bills among all those who can pay. In other words, whether you are paying out of your own pocket or you are relying on your own health insurance to pay for your treatment, a percentage of every hospital's bill is a provision against bad debts from the uninsured. The irony is that everyone who is insured is also insuring all the uninsured for their emergency room visits. If you have been wondering why your own health insurance premiums have been going up so sharply of late, it's because there is a wave of uninsured people going to the emergency rooms around the country. The health insurers are having to pay more and this additional cost gets passed on in the premiums. Is it going to get any better? No. It's actually going to get worse.

http://www.articlesbase.com/insurance-arti...oom-640036.html

...

So at least in the eyes of the law, medical treatment is generally considered a human right. Unless someone advocates legislation that would allow hospitals to deny treatment to those who can't pay, we are all paying for the uninsured.

Well there's the answer to the problem right there then! We would be fine someone for calling 911 to have police come out to get their cat out of the tree, so why do we tolerate people going to the emergency room because they need an aspirin?

I still don't exactly see where the difference is going to come (because frankly I don't know what the plan is). Does Obama's plan specifically say that from now on everyone is going to start paying for healthcare?

[HAL 9000 96]

Yes, I believe the hippocratic oath speaks volumes about the call to heal. If a doctor doesn't have that as his or her philosophical North, then that person should not be a doctor. Coincidentally, this is what separates the good doctors from the rest- service before self benefit. I should know, I see scores of med students every day and work in a hospital complex.

On the philosophical note, I do agree that an ethical compass is imperitave in the medical industry. Doctors that don't have the interest of their patient at the forefront of their profession, will not be successful. Just as a receptionist with no people skills won't be a receptionist for very long. But the issue being discussed is wage manipulation. The hippocratic oath doesn't deal with issues such as a proper wage in the market. Nor does it compel any doctor to perform their work for a wage that they deem unreasonable. And my point still stands:

Forcing down wages will force those who consider themselves to be worth more than the wage ceiling out of the profession. Then you'll have a shortage of labor and of quality.

Remember, often the highest paid doctors are the best ones. The market still works.

Well... I beg to differ on the salary part. Must be something about me being exposed to the clinical and research side of the medical industry on a daily basis. Believe it or not, I see a lot of everything at all stages of the game in terms of attitudes.

In practicum though your point is 100% correct. Most practitioners go where the money is in any capitalistic society. Why wouldn't most?

[HAL 9000 96]

Since when does amount of debt incurred and number of years spent have any correlation to income? You make what the market bears, and if you're a medical professional and the market you serve restructures itself, then guess what? Your income changes. It's the world we live in, get used to it or get out (kill yourself).

If the government alters your wage, then you're not making what the market bears; This is what will cause the outflow from the profession, which is precisely the point. Look at price and wage controls in the '40s. Meat was forced to be priced far below the amount the market could clear it. This led to the shortage of meat in the US.

Not comparing meat to doctors, simply pointing out that in forcing the price of something below market, you will force the labor out as well.

I'm sure the consumer wouldn't mind paying less. Of course, doctors CAN continue making close to what they make now if they want to be left out of the idealized restructuring... and we can cut out the leeching insurance profit structure to compensate. Insure for health, not for profit. But that will get you accused of being a Red Communist by some idiots.

If the consumers of a service collectively decide they will pay less for that service, that isn't manipulation. That's the market at work.

If the entire populus of a country decides to pay less for a service, then their offers will only be entertained by those doctors who value their service less than the wage. This is how the shortage would come about.

But with a highly demanded commodity, such as healthcare, the unsatisfied demand would remain, and push prices back up to a market level.

Prices aren't determined by consumers, nor by suppliers. It's the concerted bidding up and down by both sides that lead to an equilibrium price.

And then those doctors not entertaining the market pressure would perish.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

We keep avoiding what is driving the cost of health care and that is the cost of taking care of the elderly. That starts bringing up the issue of health care rationing. Will an elderly electorate permit what is already accepted in countries with socialized medicine? What will they do when they say, cannot get a hip replacement beyond age 50?

[childress_london 3]

"Free" healthcare is not free. If you aren't paying for it with higher taxes, then you are paying for it with reduced quality in healthcare, and sometimes both. I've experienced this type of healthcare and it sucks. Why do you think so many people come to the U.S. to get treated for conditions and diseases instead of doing it in their own country? Because we have the best medical system and hospitals. Yes it costs, but good healthcare, quality doctors, and modern facilities and medicines cost money. Most counties or cities have clinics set up for the poor people anyway. I've been to these clinics before when I was young and poor. I didn't have to pay a thing to get my annual physical and my birth control. Perhaps these could be expanded to help more people down on their luck, but I for one like my current healthcare plan and quality doctors.

[dalegg 143]

I'm sure the consumer wouldn't mind paying less. Of course, doctors CAN continue making close to what they make now if they want to be left out of the idealized restructuring... and we can cut out the leeching insurance profit structure to compensate. Insure for health, not for profit. But that will get you accused of being a Red Communist by some idiots.

You say things like this you know it scares me. If this plan is relying on insurance industries and doctors becoming more charitable and working less for profit out of the goodness of their hearts then there is no doubt it will not work. Insurance companies right now are publicly traded entities that MUST record profit or they will die. What you are referring to is a wholesale change in policy, practice, mindset, and philosophy. If this is the case then Mr President is right, we aren't going to get there in just one term.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dale,

This might help answer your question...

Federal law is very clear. Hospitals are under a positive legal obligation to treat everyone who walks in through the door. It does not matter whether the emergency is real, in the sense of a traffic accident inflicting unexpected injury, or to some extent manufactured, where the condition only becomes an emergency because of a deliberate delay. People must be given treatment. The difficulty is that most of the uninsured cannot afford to pay their bills. The hospitals can and do issue invoices for the treatment given and drugs supplied. This is also a part of the law. People have a responsibility to pay for their treatment. But hospitals are realistic about their chances of collecting. Continued pursuit for payment usually results in bankruptcy and the creditors only get a few cents in the dollar. So, hospitals make a rational decision. They spread all the unpaid bills among all those who can pay. In other words, whether you are paying out of your own pocket or you are relying on your own health insurance to pay for your treatment, a percentage of every hospital's bill is a provision against bad debts from the uninsured. The irony is that everyone who is insured is also insuring all the uninsured for their emergency room visits. If you have been wondering why your own health insurance premiums have been going up so sharply of late, it's because there is a wave of uninsured people going to the emergency rooms around the country. The health insurers are having to pay more and this additional cost gets passed on in the premiums. Is it going to get any better? No. It's actually going to get worse.

http://www.articlesbase.com/insurance-arti...oom-640036.html

...

So at least in the eyes of the law, medical treatment is generally considered a human right. Unless someone advocates legislation that would allow hospitals to deny treatment to those who can't pay, we are all paying for the uninsured.

Well there's the answer to the problem right there then! We would be fine someone for calling 911 to have police come out to get their cat out of the tree, so why do we tolerate people going to the emergency room because they need an aspirin?

I still don't exactly see where the difference is going to come (because frankly I don't know what the plan is). Does Obama's plan specifically say that from now on everyone is going to start paying for healthcare?

Obama's plan is a bit different. He wants to require everyone to have health insurance, but giving small business tax credits to help insure all their employees. The unemployed would be covered under an expanded Medicare system. I'm not sure that plan is the best way to go. Howard Dean is proposing an actual, single payer system, essentially cutting out private insurance altogether.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the approach to negotiating fees for doctors and hospitals under a single payer system should be something similar to the types of contracts we have with utility companies.