old europe wrote:
Yes, that's the ideology. But is it true? How can we decide without knowing the details of the story?
And why would you agree with the author without knowing what he is talking about? Do you think you can look at the facts objectively, or would you say you're so biased you would draw a conclusion without looking at the facts?
Common sense understanding of both human nature and how the economy works, and history. Pretty simple really.
okie wrote:old europe wrote:
Yes, that's the ideology. But is it true? How can we decide without knowing the details of the story?
And why would you agree with the author without knowing what he is talking about? Do you think you can look at the facts objectively, or would you say you're so biased you would draw a conclusion without looking at the facts?
Common sense understanding of both human nature and how the economy works, and history. Pretty simple really.
Just be glad, Okie you don't live in Europe and have to visit a Vet for medical care.
okie wrote:old europe wrote:
Yes, that's the ideology. But is it true? How can we decide without knowing the details of the story?
And why would you agree with the author without knowing what he is talking about? Do you think you can look at the facts objectively, or would you say you're so biased you would draw a conclusion without looking at the facts?
Common sense understanding of both human nature and how the economy works, and history. Pretty simple really.
Are you saying you don't need to look at the facts, because already know the outcome?
Kevin Pho: Cut Medicare payments for doctors, you'll have fewer doctors
By KEVIN PHO
17 hours, 52 minutes ago
MEDICARE is planning to cut physician payment rates by 10 percent in 2008. These reductions will continue annually, and it is predicted that the total cuts will be about 40 percent by 2016.
The topic of physician compensation generally elicits little public sympathy. After all, the average primary care physician salary in 2006 was about $150,000. Who are we to complain about reimbursement? As you will see, however, cuts in physician Medicare payments affect everyone.
Medical practices today essentially function as small businesses. Physicians are responsible for expenses like rent, payroll, employee health insurance and malpractice insurance. These costs are expected to increase 20 percent in the next nine years. During this same time, physician Medicare payments are faced with cuts of 40 percent. Already, some practices lose money every time a Medicare patient is seen. Some may find the link between medicine and money distasteful, but the hard truth is that it is impossible to practice medicine in a business model that is headed for financial disaster.
At a time when baby boomers are approaching the age of 65, some physicians attuned to this economic reality have simply stopped accepting Medicare patients. According to a recent survey by the American Medical Association, 60 percent reported that they would have to limit the number of new Medicare patients they treat due to next year's cut. Half would reduce their staff. Fourteen percent would "completely get out of patient care." Some seniors are already faced with calling 20 to 30 providers in the desperate hope that someone will accept Medicare.
It is unlikely that the primary care shortage will improve in the near future, as Medicare reimbursement rates continue to be a primary driver of physician salary. In a report by the Center for Studying Health System Change, incomes of primary care physicians fared amongst the worst in keeping pace with inflation between 1995 and 2003, while medical specialists fared the best.
Medical students, already burdened with an average debt in excess of $100,000, are clearly gravitating towards specialties where salaries have better kept pace with inflation. The report concludes that with "the diverging income trends between these specialties and primary care, the result is likely to be an imbalance in the physician workforce and perhaps a future shortage of primary care physicians."
Some may be wondering if this is just a "Medicare problem." Should you care if you have private insurance?
Absolutely. With primary care being the backbone of every health system, patients cannot have their chronic medical issues addressed in a timely fashion with a lack of primary care access. In delaying care, chronic diseases blossom into more serious conditions that are forced to be seen in already overcrowded emergency rooms.
Hospital-based care is often the most expensive and the corresponding rise in health care costs plays a major role in the increase of health insurance premiums. Unfortunately, the government responds to rising health care costs by further reducing physician payments and the cycle continues to spiral out of control.
You will hear physicians rallying against the Medicare fee reductions in the coming year. Think about how this affects you. Contact your government representative and do your part to break this vicious cycle.
unionleader.com
July 27, 2007
Walter E. Williams - Sometimes the advocates of socialized medicine claim that health care is too important to be left to the market. That's why some politicians are calling for us to adopt health-care systems such as those in Canada, the United Kingdom and other European nations. But the suggestion we would be better served with more government control doesn't even pass a simple smell test.
Do we want the government employees who run the troubled Walter Reed Army Medical Center to be in charge of our entire health-care system? Or, would you like the people who deliver our mail to also deliver health-care services? How would you like the people who run the motor vehicles department, the government education system, foreign intelligence and other government agencies to also run our health-care system? After all, they are not motivated by the quest for profits, and that might mean they're truly wonderful, selfless, caring people.
As for me, I would choose profit-driven people to provide my health-care services, people with motives like those who deliver goods to my supermarket, deliver my overnight mail, produce my computer and software programs, assemble my car and produce a host of other goods and services I use.
There's absolutely no mystery why our greatest complaints are in the arena of government-delivered services and the fewest in market-delivered services. In the market, there are the ruthless forces of profit, loss and bankruptcy that make producers accountable to us. In the arena of government-delivered services, there's no such accountability. For example, government schools can go for decades delivering low-quality services, and what's the result? The people who manage it earn higher pay. It's nearly impossible to fire the incompetents. And, taxpayers, who support the service, are given higher tax bills.
Our health-care system is hampered by government intervention, and the solution is not more government intervention but less. The tax treatment of health insurance, where premiums are deducted from employees' pretax income, explains why so many of us rely on our employers to select and pay for health insurance. Since there is a third-party payer, we have little incentive to shop around and wisely use health services.
There are "guaranteed issue" laws that require insurance companies to sell health insurance to any person seeking it. So why not wait until you're sick before purchasing insurance? Guaranteed issue laws make about as much sense as if you left your house uninsured until you had a fire and then purchased insurance to cover the damage.
Guaranteed issue laws raise insurance premiums for all. Then there are government price controls, such as the Medicaid reimbursement schemes. As a result, an increasing number of doctors are unwilling to treat Medicaid patients.
Before we buy into single-payer health care systems like Canada's and the United Kingdom's, we might want to do a bit of research. The Vancouver, British Columbia, Fraser Institute annually publishes "Waiting Your Turn." Its 2006 edition gives waiting times, by treatments, from a person's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist. The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks). The longest was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks), followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks).
As reported in the June 28 National Center for Policy Analysis' "Daily Policy Digest," Britain's Department of Health recently acknowledged 1 in 8 patients waits more than a year for surgery. France's failed health-care system resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people, mostly of dehydration, during the heat spell of 2003. Hospitals stopped answering the phones, and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.
I don't think most Americans would like more socialized medicine in our country. By the way, I have absolutely no problem with people wanting socialism. My problem is when they want to drag me into it.
Washington post
old europe wrote: Are you saying you don't need to look at the facts, because already know the outcome?
I will bet the sun comes up tomorrow, although I can't prove it yet.
Washington Times, not Post.
You know, I found this bit here funny:
Miller wrote:From this excellent article:
<snip>
Many claim this reflects the American system's extreme wastefulness, but it may actually reflect the high quality of U.S. health care--and much higher wages for health care staff.
I wonder if that might be the reason Miller is defending the US system so much.
It's more expensive than any other system. It doesn't provide universal health care. Infant mortality is higher than in most other developed countries. Life expectancy is lower than in most other developed countries.
One might wonder why people defend an excessively expensive system that underperforms significantly when compared to other countries...
okie wrote:old europe wrote: Are you saying you don't need to look at the facts, because already know the outcome?
I will bet the sun comes up tomorrow, although I can't prove it yet.
You're not saying that astronomy is guess work rather than an exact science, and we have to rely on our emotions and common sense to predict that the rotation of the Earth will give us the impression of a rising G2V spectral class star within the next 24 hour time period?
Miller wrote:Quote:As reported in the June 28 National Center for Policy Analysis' "Daily Policy Digest," Britain's Department of Health recently acknowledged 1 in 8 patients waits more than a year for surgery. France's failed health-care system resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people, mostly of dehydration, during the heat spell of 2003. Hospitals stopped answering the phones, and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.
About the National Policy Center
Quote:The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation.
You guys are really having a hard time finding material that's not coming from some kind of partisan propaganda website, eh?
It can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to a high degree of certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow.
littlek wrote:It can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to a high degree of certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow.
I believe you're right...
Okay then.
Nobody seems to give a flying fig about numbers. Nobody seems to be interested in facts.
Let's move this thread to "Spirituality & Religion", shall we?
Nearly six sites .... well, if page-three-girls had beefed it up ...
littlek wrote:It can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to a high degree of certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow.
Well...the sun did come up in Boston...
old europe wrote:You know, I found this bit here funny:
Miller wrote:From this excellent article:
<snip>
Many claim this reflects the American system's extreme wastefulness, but it may actually reflect the high quality of U.S. health care--and much higher wages for health care staff.
I wonder if that might be the reason Miller is defending the US system so much.
It's more expensive than any other system. It doesn't provide universal health care. Infant mortality is higher than in most other developed countries. Life expectancy is lower than in most other developed countries.
One might wonder why people defend an excessively expensive system that underperforms significantly when compared to other countries...
Horrible, horrible place that America. Makes me wonder why so many want to to live in such a **** hole. It obviously is a death trap and you can almost bet that your baby will die there and if not, you will go bankrupt keep it alive.
So many other countries are far superior to America, especially those in Europe, I just can't figure out why any European would even bother visiting, much less choosing to live there. I am amazed that Europeans even bother writing about the place as run-down and unhealthy as it is. Just another back water, filled with hicks and yokels barely able to eek out a living killing swamp rats.
