Does anyone have any analysis of how a Federally Funded Universal Health Care affect the Texas Medical Center? I had not thought about this when I originally made views on UHC.
My fear is that research funding will go out the window due to the expense of Federally funded universal healthcare coupled with the inability of taxpayers to pick up the added cost.
This is a big issue that looms out there, but I think you can set things up to keep it going, though it may look different. Considering other big science areas, like space, spy stuff, weapons systems, technology, etc., I don't think your fears would come to fruition. It would have to done thoughtfully though. I sometimes wonder during my infrequent visits to the hospital how much of that innovation is necessary and how much is the equivalent of heated side mirrors in luxury cars... which goes to your cost question. You could make a good argument that universal health care would reduce the costs of things. We'll just have to wait and see. The only thing that is obvious about this question is that the current system is untenable and cannot last.
The question becomes whether or not: 1. We want to government to essentially take over 12% of the GDP. 2. This could all be set up and done with a price tag that an already overtaxed middle class can afford. I doubt that much of the technology in hospitals is essentially useless. One of the reasons that health care in the US tends to be of good quality is because, in part, that we have the best equipment available. Very seldom when government gets involved to costs decrease. Usually it is just the opposite. Completely and totally agreed. That is twice I have completely agreed with you tonight. Could it be that the world is ending and we need not worry about health care?
If we regularly sat down over nachos and a huge pitcher of iced tea we'd probably see that we agree on a lot of things... we might even fix one or two.
By the way, what are you doing up so late? Me, I let the kids stay up late and watch a movie until 10:00, but that's PST. It's past midnight in Texas.
If we can get folks in for preventative care -- universal health care will be a big winner down the road.
1. right now its 15% of our gdp while about half of it is in government hands. you increase 7-8% of gdp by 4% points and hence actually reduce cost while ensuring everyone. if you feel like that isn't enough for r&d you can add a percentage point or two. still have our effective healthcare spending BELOW our current standard. still have it 4-5% above other nations. 2. the upper end of the middle class (lets say 100k and plus) is not overtaxed. and secondly the question is unnecessary. we're already spending more on healthcare. a universal system would just divide the share in a way that people can afford it. how much does a family of 4 making 80k spend on healthcare? 5 grand? 10? maybe more? what is that as a percentage of their income? not true. this is one of the main reasons why other industrialized nations spend considerably less. there are enormous overhead costs in our current helathcare system. you make it a universal entitlement...you kill the overhead costs. look at social security. very few overhead costs. just the cost of printing checks and mailing em automatedly. soon (maybe? hopefully?) they'll just wire it to the accounts.
They need to get rid of ama let doctors come from other countries and not be big pharm's b**** and medicine would go down a lot.
getting rid of the AMA could be a double edged sword. pharm companies do charge a huge premium. but they have to invest huge amounts of money for R&D. for every drug out on the market, im sure there are atleast 100 other derivatives of the same drug that had to be created, tested, retested... cutting into their profits would definately reduce their motivation to develop newer/safer drugs. while universal health care is the right direction, it must be done very very carefully.
And let us not forget how much big pharma spends on relentless TV ads. Ask your doctor if Heroin is right for you!
If you talk to doctors from other countries you'd find out that the training system in place for physicians in the US is by far the best training system in the world. You can't assure doctors from other countries are as skilled or knowledgeable as american trained physicians.
I can guarantee you that is not true. If you go to a doctor here they will be like lets do some test go to a specialist etc. You go to doctor in india in about 15 min he/she will recommend a medicine and your symptoms will go away. I think the us training system is whack. In Australia training is six years. It is just the ama trying to limit the number of doctors graduating and keep their salaries high. You don't need to be that smart to get into med school. You just need to play the system.
are you a doctor? how do you know that the training system outside the US is the same or better than the US? i dont know where you came to this conclusion... yeah a doctor in india could prescribe you something w/in 15 minutes. a doctor over here can do the same thing. but the doctor over here chooses to perform extra test so that he can rule out any other possible reasons for illness. you may think the test are unecessary but docs in the US have to cover themselves bc the US LOVES to litigate... i can understand how it seems like the ama is trying to keep the number of doctors low and therefore keep their salaries high. while your argument is plausible, its highly unlikely. have you ever taken the licensing exam? do you really understand how difficult it is? it is more difficult than you could imagine. how many people can get into med school, graduate, then get licensed? not many. if you really believe that you "dont need to be that smart to get into med school you just need to play the system" then youve never studied for the mcat nor have applied for med school.
AMA definately keep the salary of doctors high by limiting the number of doctors. In just about every other field, when the demand is high, the number of college graduates increase significantly, but that is not the case for doctors.
What was your MCAT score, again? Any papers published yet? How many Honors courses did you take in college? How many scientific disciplines did you study as an undergrad? Only the best go to medical school: because they can.
while im sympathetic to the frustration...there are other reasons as to why there is a short supply of doctors. for one...we want stringent standards for doctors which automatically limits those who are not as skilled. there is also significant money in various other fields with less education/training needed.
Drs do not need 4 year of college degree and then get to medical school. A system of four year medical college with master and phd is much more practical.
