Post #336,303
11/27/10 12:49:37 PM
|
thanks for the clarity
so we reduce doctors incomes to 80k a year and tell them to fuck off if they dont like it. That will improve care
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #336,305
11/27/10 1:26:21 PM
|
What's your solution?
|
Post #336,308
11/27/10 2:48:57 PM
|
posted it many times, look it up
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #336,310
11/27/10 2:54:20 PM
|
Raising the cap won't reduce the inflation.
|
Post #336,330
11/28/10 4:54:57 AM
|
Whoa
You said $80K. I said let them range between $150K and $300K.
And you chose to make up a number and respond to Another, but not mine.
Not nice.
Not logical.
|
Post #336,342
11/28/10 2:10:39 PM
|
And actually, that's pretty much how it works up here
though the numbers are a bit different, of course, not being the same currency and all that.
When Canada passed the health act, the doctors were all up in arms about the restrictions on their incomes. As it turned out, they're still very well paid. If you guys want to fix the problems with your health care costs, you're going to have to stick it to them to at least some extent, along with the equipment and drug manufacturers. This will not mean the end of the world; it certainly didn't in the rest of the world, and I can't think of any reason why the US would be any different.
|
Post #336,359
11/29/10 7:24:47 AM
|
Mike's Economic Law
expressed here for the first time:
If the cost of A is out of control, money is going to some group B. Any effective control on the cost of A reduces at least the potential income of B.
There is no effective solution Y that can reduce the cost of A without a reasonable objection from B.
However, I suspect that in this case B is the insurance, um, I believe the current PC term is "industry", although I'm pretty sure "scam" better reflects the value-add, more than doctors. I'm pretty sure that he eventual solution to the health care crisis will cause the insurance companies considerable pain. Marie Antoinette's neck type pain. (Mike's Political Law: there are ALWAYS checks and balances. Systems that plan for them have prettier outcomes. Ms. Antoinette discovered that the French Aristocracy was subject to a system of checks and balances - a formal system might have been more to her liking.)
---------------------------------------
I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band.
(Tori Amos)
|
Post #336,367
11/29/10 11:13:00 AM
|
If you guys want to get that under control
they will need to be crushed. It's that simple.
|
Post #336,374
11/29/10 1:28:39 PM
|
See my other response to Mike.
|
Post #336,373
11/29/10 1:28:03 PM
|
Four things need to change...
1) Soft-tissue damages need to be capped. Since "National Health Care" will do the long term care... that rules out that cost.
2) Device manufacturers need to be hurt horribly. Most "machines" used in each room... like the multi-function (all in one heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate, oxygen levels, ekg...etc) devices, many cost less than $500 for the manufacturer to deliver it including delivery costs. Yet many of those devices cost upwards of $30,000. Many service contracts are ~ 1/4 to 1/3 the cost of the device new. Refurbed devices cost even less to round trip and are provided to replaced failed/problematic machines. Considering some really large hospitals have thousands of these devices... the cost is considerable.
3) Pharma... lets just say that recently they have made all "cures" 3-5 times more expensive... because they can. Also upping the costs of regimens by a lot. As well as "standard" long term medications... claiming "increasing costs to produce". Many of these reasons are pure and utter bullshit.
4) Health Insurance "Industry" needs to be turned into a break even kind of thing without the stupid loopholes. Forcing it to be health care not sick care and make it the primary reason to exist is to keep people healthy not reduce costs.
Then and ONLY then will our healthcare system be fixed.
|
Post #336,389
11/29/10 6:38:51 PM
|
Your mistake is reasonable
The word that is. Most objections in this case are actually unreasonable, based on the unspoken assumption that because people have made a living doing something in the past they have a right to continue doing so.
Just as technology change can make industries and businesses obsolete, so can legal changes.
Jay
|
