Did I say to close down ERs or anything? No I think I was just against paying other people premiums and covering the gap that medicare leaves.
Yes, many other countries does it that way. But the AMA want the entry into the profession as hard as possible so they can keep their standard of living. In any other field, if the field is making good money, there would be many people joining the field. Not the case with doctors.
Wow these ideas are really terrible. Less education for doctors when we have so many medical mistakes as it is. I prefer my doctor to know how to read an EKG.
fmullegun: Maybe you missed my last post at the end of the previous page, but I'd love to have your opinion on it.
How does a Liberal arts undergrad or even an engineering under grad make you a better doctor? Apparently people are dying in other countries left and right because they are not required to do four years of undergrad study first.
We would be better off if we did that. We'd also be better off if people didn't go to the doctor with colds, or their kid gets a little sick. I hate going to the doctor for that reason. The doctor is just going to say you have a virus and you'll have to wait it out, or they give you prescription strength painkillers, or some amoxycillan if it is bacterial or if they aren't sure.
How does 8 years of schooling help read a EKG? Do you honestly remember everything you learned in undergrad?
I was a chem undergrad and a ton of my friends were pre med. Many of them did chem/bio undergrads. You need that base understanding. It also weeds out idiots who cannot pass undergrad. Also the whole argument is DUMB because med school costs so much more than undergrad the savings are minimal. Infact it would cost more because you would have people flunking out of medschool when they could have been weeded out at the undergrad level.
this is what I think is a bigger issue, however, people say we need to go regularly so we will not have to wait for a big expensive treatment.
Couple of problems with this: #1: Costs range from $600B to $1.6T - but that's over 10 years. $100B per year to cover 30MM people is not terribly unreasonable. #2: The cost ignores that covering uninsured saves money elsewhere. For example, if a person gets preventive care early, they aren't likely to need more expensive care later on. Emergency care for uninsured is already subsidized - just at different levels. So you'll save money at the state and local levels if they aren't covering those costs anymore. #3. More widespread insurance balances costs. Right now, the uninsured actually subsidize the insured, and the paying uninsured subsidize the poor uninsured. It's completely messed up. Insurance providers can negotiate rates for services, while the uninsured pay the full price. So if a hospital is getting less than average from the insured, they charge more to everyone else. And since they have to account for a high default rate on payments, they have to charge even more to balance it out. Covering everyone cuts all this mess. #4. This also doesn't consider the billions in lost productivity from serious illness right now. If you can reduce that with preventive care, you'll have a more productive workforce which generates more taxes. So yes, if you only look at costs, it's probably unaffordable. But when you account for savings and other secondary effects, it's a whole different story. The problem is that those things are difficult / impossible to measure numerically, so the budget estimates can't include them. Improved health care can function as an investment just like education or scientific research.
That also fits in with the preventative care stuff. Heart attacks are the number one killer. It seems a Dr. telling people to lose weight and exercise does not work to prevent that for those with medical care.
Why do many think we have the best health care system? We surely have the most expensive, but the best? Not according to world rankings. We do not even cover 1/6 of the population on top of that. What a great system.
Yes. I asked you a question at the bottom of the previous page which you ignored. Then I posted again on this page asking again for a response and you ignored me again. Now you're asking if I have comments? I do have a comment about The Netherlands as well though. Everything I observed while in the hospital there led me to believe that they give excellent care to citizens. I did not receive very good care, but I'm not a citizen. As it turns out, I'm pretty unhappy with my treatment in America too - where I am a citizen and have American health care. But you seem to have decided to ignore my post about that.
I agree - Americans tend to believe that more is better, no matter what (see, e.g., SUV's) so people grudgingly or not, tend to go the doctor and get as much treatment as possible, which means as many expensive tests etc (that doctors are frequently incentivized to order) and believe that as a result they are getting "better" care, when in reality they are basically just wasting everybody's time and money.
People should probably have routine physicals if they are at high risk for a condition. I really wish we had access to certain drugs without seeing a doctor. For example I had to go to the eye doctor to get a prescription for drops when I already knew I had pink eye. Easier access would have saved the doctor time, saved me money, and saved the insurance company money. Edit: Its actually a big complaint I have about medicaid. At least with insurance you have co-pays that make you more weary about a visit, but with medicaid, or full universal coverage there is no reason to avoid the doctor. My wife used to be one of those people.
