Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
That's not quite accurate. Allopathic (MD) medical schools are accredited by the LCME (Liaison Committee on Medical Education). AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) and the AMA sponsor LCME secretaries, who decide on accreditation. The LCME's authority is not under the AMA, strictly speaking, and at best is only half controlled by the AMA. Furthermore, Osteopathic (DO) medical schools are accredited by the AOA (American Osteopathic Association). Most of the new medical schools are osteopathic (DO degree).
I do agree that the AMA has significant influence over the number of medical schools though.
Also keep in mind that the number of physicians in residency programs (training after the MD/DO degree) is about 30% more than the number of new graduates. The excess training spots are filled by foreign graduates, who are required to do residency training here to practice in the United States. The real bottleneck is in the number of residency training programs, not really in the number of medical schools.
The difficulty with increasing the number of residency spots is that physicians learn by practicing medicine under supervision. There are numerous requirements for completion of residency, and it's not a simple matter. You have to guarantee that someone in a residency training program has seen enough patients and encountered the appropriate variety of cases to be fully trained physicians. For example, in surgical training programs, for a program to increase a training spot, they have to demonstrate enough patient volume and surgical caseload that adding an extra spot won't have detrimental effects on the existing trainees (diluting their experience). This is very difficult.
It's not simply a matter of greedy physicians or conspiracies. As a matter of fact virtually all academic physicians (who comprise a large part of the AMA, AAMC, etc) openly acknowledge the physician shortage and have aggressively worked to increase the number of medical students and residency programs. In fact several new MD programs have opened and more are awaiting accreditation, while even more DO programs have also opened.
Regardless of all the details, fact remains that the medical profession has not reacted to the surge in demand for their services with an increase planning for the supply. They've seen their wages soar so it's not quite in their interest to do so.
On a macro level, medicine is VERY protective and anti-competitive.
Group rates are quoted based on experience by actuaries. The risk is pooled, so the larger the pool the more accurate the pricing can be. Larger groups are systematically easier to administer. Enrollment/disenrollment is automated through payroll extracts. The sales process is over 100's or 1000's of insured so your marketing expenses are cheaper per life.Originally posted by: mattpegher
Someone mentioned that group plans are cheaper to administer, can you elaborate. This is one area I do not get. Many people cannot afford to get health insurance because of high premiums for non-group members.
Also it seems that if we took the benifits packages many people get and turn that into a monitary benifit, the disparity between those jobs with and without benifits would be more appearent to the american people.
1 million * $120 = $120M of tax payer money to sign pieces of paper to get penis medication, and all this time you probably thought prescriptions were a good idea.Pfizer Canada Inc. today announced that VIAGRA? (sildenafil citrate), the first effective oral treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), has reached the one million prescription mark after 20 months on the market.
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
1). Drugs should never require a prescription.
Do you people have any idea how much it costs to see a doctor? Most of you are Americans so I guess the answer is yes. It costs my government roughly $120 every time I see a doctor. I need to see a doctor at least once per month because my medication can only be given 1 month at a time. Oddly enough, my medication with no insurance only costs $20. Think about that. To buy a $20 product, the total cost is $140. Would you be satisfied if you tried to buy $20 worth of gasoline and were forced to pay a $120 service fee for some asshole to pump it for you?
12 months * $120 = $1440 per year to get a doctor to sign a piece of paper. Is he diagnosing a problem? No. Is he giving medical advice? No. Is he doing anything productive? No. All it does is cost my government tons of money and it ties up the system so people with real problems can't get help.
If I could buy my medication without a prescription, my government would save billions of dollars and the quality of everyone's health care would be a lot better.
Just in case you're wondering how many prescriptions are filled in Canada, here's a page from our friends at Pfizer. press release
1 million * $120 = $120M of tax payer money to sign pieces of paper to get penis medication, and all this time you probably thought prescriptions were a good idea.Pfizer Canada Inc. today announced that VIAGRA? (sildenafil citrate), the first effective oral treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), has reached the one million prescription mark after 20 months on the market.
Originally posted by: mattpegher
There is a reason that to practice medicine in this country you must complete 4 years of undergraduate, 4 years of medical school and at least 3 years of residence( as much as 10 if you do a fellowship), thats a minimum of 11 years of training. Your 29 before you even start your career. 26 before you earn a dime(about 30k/year for residents today).
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Originally posted by: mattpegher
There is a reason that to practice medicine in this country you must complete 4 years of undergraduate, 4 years of medical school and at least 3 years of residence( as much as 10 if you do a fellowship), thats a minimum of 11 years of training. Your 29 before you even start your career. 26 before you earn a dime(about 30k/year for residents today).
Here's how my last doctor visit went.
<doctor walks in>
Shawn: Hi. I'd like a new prescription of this but 300mg instead of 150mg.
Doctor: Does this medication seem to be working?
Shawn: Yep
Doctor: ok then
<signs paper>
$120 right there. Could I have walked to the shelf and just picked up the 300mg bottle instead of the 150mg bottle? I don't have 20 years of medical experience but I'm pretty sure that I know how to pick things up and read the number on the side.
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
GTKeeper, the reason insurance doesn't want to pay for your mouth guard is because you can get a similar product at a sports store for less than $50. It's not a perfect fit, but I wore one for hockey and I think they're fairly comfortable.
Originally posted by: mattpegher
GTkeeper, you didnt say but I assume that you are speaking of your dental insurance not your medical. Most if not all Medical insurances will not cover dental problems. Partly this is because many dental proceedures are debatably cosmetic and most have undesirable but cheap alternative therapies. Also few dentist will participate with insurance and those that do still have the right to balance bill you, since the rules preventing that in medicine do not apply to dentistry.
I agree with many who say dentisty should be included in medical coverage, as preventive dentistry can prevent many illnesses including non-dental ones. The problem is that I still want the option to pay extra for the better fillings, caps etc, which would require a system that allows balance billing even for in network patients, something that would make the rest of medical providers able to do. IE If you want to go to the more prestigious cardiologist and he wants to charge twice what everyone else charges then he could even if he participates with your insurance.
Hey wait isn't that how lawyers work?
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The other major problem with health care is that you have 47 million people WITHOUT health insurance, and all of us that do subsidize their health costs. Imagine if 47 million drivers were uninsured.... would never happen. I don't see why we can't make it a law so that you HAVE to have health insurance. Then its society's job to make sure that people can afford to have it.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The other major problem with health care is that you have 47 million people WITHOUT health insurance, and all of us that do subsidize their health costs. Imagine if 47 million drivers were uninsured.... would never happen. I don't see why we can't make it a law so that you HAVE to have health insurance. Then its society's job to make sure that people can afford to have it.
That 47 million is a bit misleading. That number included anyone that was without insurance for any length of time for the last year. It also includes those that are here illegally. It also includes those that can afford to buy insurance, but choose not too.
Healthcare costs are a problem, but that number is quite misleading.
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
1). Drugs should never require a prescription.
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The other major problem with health care is that you have 47 million people WITHOUT health insurance, and all of us that do subsidize their health costs. Imagine if 47 million drivers were uninsured.... would never happen. I don't see why we can't make it a law so that you HAVE to have health insurance. Then its society's job to make sure that people can afford to have it.
That 47 million is a bit misleading. That number included anyone that was without insurance for any length of time for the last year. It also includes those that are here illegally. It also includes those that can afford to buy insurance, but choose not too.
Healthcare costs are a problem, but that number is quite misleading.
Proof?
Originally posted by: mattpegher
And make all plans available to consumers to choose for themselves, not purchased by employer. The "benefit" for employees should be monitary to be used as the employee sees fit.
Originally posted by: ironwing
I agree with #3. The way to break the AMA is to remove doctors' monopoly on prescription writing.
8. Nationalize health insurance, eliminating the private health insurance industry and the incredible inefficiencies it has produced.
9. Ration health care. Stop spending tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to torture people who are going to die anyway. I never met anyone who said they wanted to spend the last six months of life traveling between a nursing home and ICU. I used to be a member of a small group insurance pool (~1000 members). Twelve members broke the pool before dying. Premiums soared due to the expenses of just twelve members who were at the end of life. Just these twelve accounted for 40% of the benefits paid out by the plan in its last year. Healthier members bailed out and the pool collapsed in a price spiral.
10. Stop pulling drugs off the market as soon as the patent expires and ban drug advertising. Patent cycle = Hard work => discovery of wonder drug => advertise the bejeebers out of it at a cost many time the R&D cost => profit, profit, profit => patent expires => discover all sorts of nasty side effects with drug => pull now generic drug from market => patent new variant that solves problem with old drug => advertise the bejeebers out of it at a cost many time the R&D cos => profit, profit, profit.
Originally posted by: JS80
Did children just drop dead on the street before the days of socialized medicine?
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: ironwing
8. Nationalize health insurance, eliminating the private health insurance industry and the incredible inefficiencies it has produced.
LOL, so in your estimation, government is more efficient than private enterprise?
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
You could also add a c.
c) What if it was you laying there. "Sorry Iron, you're going to die anyway so we are going to withdraw care". To pile on, someone else will make this decision for you--not you or a loved one. Doesn't that sound wonderful.
Been in this situation too many times.
what i don't get is why people think that a gov't bureaucrat making the decision of whether to fund a surgery or not is better than an insurance company bureaucrat
People basically want to do away with the "pre-existing condition" nonsense that insurance companies like to pull in order to arbitrarily deny care. The hope is that a system run by the government would be immune to this kind of abuse, since it's run by the people and for the people. Insurance companies are run by private individuals for profit, so it's in their best interest to deny care even when it's covered by the plan you've purchased. If it requires that they make up some "pre-existing condition" when a surgery looks a little expensive, then so be it.
Cancer patients have been denied insurance payments out of the claim that the cancer probably existed prior to the patients' obtaining insurance x years ago, even if the patient never knew about it. That's kind of fucked up.
