Docs get paid plenty. Teachers get paid plenty. Considering how many VITAL jobs are necessary to keep the country running, and how much less than doctoring most of these jobs pay, I have to wonder how much you think that docs "deserve".
Well, it's true. Obviously we should make peoples' final days as easy to bear as possible, but if a risky $1M surgery is necessary to get an 86-year-old man to live another month (in recovery for most of it, mind you), it's a waste of money and insurance should not cover it. Give him painkillers.
If we want more doctors, we either have to (a)pay even more for them...which will be VERY expensive (maybe provide stipends for med school?) (b)Compromise on quality...which will mean that we will also need to limit damages from medical malpractice suits.
That's a huge issue I take with the people who always denounce the horrors of public medicine. Most health plans will try to deny every claim that comes their way, and once you have a "preexisting condition" there's no going back; no health insurance plan will take you, you're just fucked.
My friend's husband can't get health insurance because he was diagnosed with a minor heart condition a few years ago. It's not debilitating, he exercises regularly, he works a 9-5 job. And he was a soldier in Iraq. If anyone deserves affordable healthcare, it's this guy. He can't get any health insurance at all.
It's a disgusting system. I'd rather have horribly inefficient socialized healthcare than this bullshit. I hope every single person who fears socialized medicine gets dropped by their insurance for one reason or another so that they can realize just how shitty our insurance system really is.
Doctors do make a lot, but they have to pay shit tons of money for med school and things like malpractice insurance. At the end of the day, most doctors are making a middle class income (specialists being an exception to the norm). That's certainly not awful, but increasing salaries does exactly what you said; more money = more qualified doctors entering the field instead of choosing other careers.
Anubis
No Lifer
They deserve a hell of a lot more then they get now considering even if you adjust for cost of living, inflation, costs,.. and all of that docs are making less then they were 20 years ago and they work more. The #1 reason for this is insurance company?s can reimburse whatever they feel like and the doc has to just eat it.
20 years ago if you billed $2000 for something you got $2000 back
Today if you bill $2000 for something you are lucky if you get $800 back, you just got fucked out of $1200.
UHC would make that even worse
"At the end of the day, most doctors are making a middle class income (specialists being an exception to the norm)"
That's just not an accurate statement at all.
That's just not an accurate statement at all.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,360
- 126
As a type 1 diabetic this scares the shit out of me. Especially,
"But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and ?guide? your doctor?s decisions (442, 446)."
I was diagnosed at the age of 10 months and am 43 now. So far I have one round of laser treatment to treat minor retinopathy in both eyes. Otherwise I havent had one complication. I agree the main reason is my own management of the disease, but my endocrinologists have always been at research universities (I fly to Seattle to UW once a year for a checkup) and these guys are on the cutting edge of the disease. I would hate to be refused a test or a treatment because it wasnt deemed appropriate or cost effective.
(I know you guys dont care about my own personal story, but I was using it as a real life example)
"But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and ?guide? your doctor?s decisions (442, 446)."
I was diagnosed at the age of 10 months and am 43 now. So far I have one round of laser treatment to treat minor retinopathy in both eyes. Otherwise I havent had one complication. I agree the main reason is my own management of the disease, but my endocrinologists have always been at research universities (I fly to Seattle to UW once a year for a checkup) and these guys are on the cutting edge of the disease. I would hate to be refused a test or a treatment because it wasnt deemed appropriate or cost effective.
(I know you guys dont care about my own personal story, but I was using it as a real life example)
He's already suggested that paying people to dig pointless holes is economic stimulus. With this kind of a baseline set, it really isn't too hard to justify anything from there.
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
the word is PROMOTE not provide. huge difference. The word PROVIDE is used in the defense of the country meaning its the feds job to defend us. it is NOT the feds job to provide for our general welfare. its all there in black and white read it for yourself.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Stop being ridiculous. Nearly any government action that you can think of that you think merely 'promotes' the general welfare I can turn to showing how it 'provides' for the general welfare in some way.
Silly semantics and a descent into pedantry? Not interested.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Every single word in the Constitution was carefully selected to convey a specific message. The divide between "promote" and "provide" is vast; and said vastness was most certainly intentional.
I'm sure the founding fathers -- especially Jefferson himself -- would take serious issue with your labeling of their very meticulous wordchoice as "silly semantics"... :roll:
Well I'm glad you were able to turn an argument on silly semantics into something even sillier, your opinion on what people who have been dead for nearly 200 years would think of my interpretation of the Constitution. Furthermore, not every word was carefully selected, and many of the people who made it thought the same passages meant very different things.
Finally, on the matter the US Supreme Court's view on the subject is an incredibly expansive one that covers pretty much the entirety of human existence. Congress' actions (and therefore presumably the government's) in view of the general welfare clause must be limited to general or national concerns. Literally no act of Congress has ever been struck down in the entire history of the United States because it did not serve the 'general welfare'. So, this is well within the enumerated powers and duties of the US government.
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
Eskimospy you can put your own little twist on the preamble if you want but the bottom line is that provide and promote are two very different words period.
the words are staring at you in black and white you cant cant handle the truth that the actual words are way different that what you have been spoon fed to believe.
"Silly semantics and a descent into pedantry? Not interested." figures you wouldn't want to actually read what the preamble says....
the words are staring at you in black and white you cant cant handle the truth that the actual words are way different that what you have been spoon fed to believe.
"Silly semantics and a descent into pedantry? Not interested." figures you wouldn't want to actually read what the preamble says....
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,360
- 126
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
I'd tend to say, let the 86 yr old decide what is best about his own health. Screw the insurance companies and their bean counters and the government on that one. UHC or not, he (or his family) should be the only ones involved in that process. Otherwise, it is government or insurance company passive euthanasia policy.
As far as the doctors go, they get paid more than plenty. It is excessive. The AMA keeps a tight lid on the supply of doctors, hence the high wages. I say we take a page from the "conservative" playbook and flood the market. Wages for them WILL go down, substantially. If the med school graduating standards remain the same, there is no reason we would have to compromise quality. Hell, the shortage of doctors/nurses we currently have probably contributes more to the lack of quality in our current system. Medical malpractice can be limited via tort reform. That argument doesn't really work here.
That's funny as the currently overpaid government schoolteachers with their sweet (state constitution-backed) pensions are better off at 35 years old in terms of retirement/net worth than a regular primary care doc buried in med-school loans. Not every doc is paid half-a-mill or more like the ones in Beverly Hills modding people's faces or implanting 8 embryos in a psycho-mom.
You're also smoking some good stuff if you're expecting "millions" of would-be docs to sign up for 11 years of post-high school education and earn only $40K per year. Even to back up the nurses, have you seen what they actually do? I'm not counting the lazy out patient ones, but the hard-working ones who earn $80-100K per year keeping tabs on multiple sick patients. (BTW primary care docs start at about $120K for having spent alot more schooling) In fact, a major reason for nursing shortage is nurses quitting after being on the job for about 5 years from burnout.
BTW you also need to substantially increase funding to teaching hospitals, which the last time I checked, have been getting their funding cut dramatically over the last 10 years.
Just to add another point, the one of the biggest reason why our healthcare is the most expensive per-capita is that we're the sickest nation on earth. We can cost-cut everywhere else, but unless there's across-the-board changes encouraging health (such as a siesta-like 30min per day per worker to actually exercise and lose weight) our costs are just going to get worse. I love it how people like to compare us against Euro health costs, but haven't you guys been to europe lately? They smoke like chimney's but they sure do look alot healthier on average compared to any American city.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,360
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter