A severe shortage of physicians to 2010 | Open Medicine Blog
In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option -- latimes.com
|
As a person WATCHING your system, I can tell you that it IS the case, and you simply haven't recognized it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
And I can tell you that your own government AGREES that this is the case. But you don't believe them.
There's a shortage of IT workers too.
You've proven that you have very little understanding of the system here.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Yes, your math is off.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
In addition to the gorging scenario laid out by Tom, there's also the fact that 45% of current physicians have said that they would consider quitting the practice of medicine in the USA if health care is nationalized.
Do you think that we would have sufficient assets to cover everyone that would be covered under nationalized health care if almost half the doctors leave the system?
Oh... and in case you don't believe the IBD poll (they're a right-wing front group, right?), here's CNN reporting the Same RESULTS in a separate poll done by the Physicians Foundation.
Half of primary-care doctors in survey would leave medicine - CNN.com
That's TWO SEPARATE POLLS with the Same RESULT.
So, yeah, your math is off.
Elliot
Yeah... so does the Frazier Institute, the Canadian government and all those posting on Canada's open health care blog. We all have a lack of understanding of the system there.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Bwahahahahahaha.
Your government isn't nationalizing the computer industry... yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Pay better wages to IT people and there will be more IT people.
But government is capping the pay for doctors in your country. You CAN'T pay them more without raising taxes, and so there will either be no more doctors or you will pay more for your "free" health care.
You don't even realize how screwed up your system is.
Elliot
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Nope... I worked in restaurants... Coke was free. I stopped gorging after the first week. Besides, drinking coke and eating cheeseburgers are fun too. Going to the doctor ain't. So, no. I don't believe people will be lining up at the doctors office...
On a related note, last night O'Reilly was arguing with Stossel that if drugs became legal, there would be people lined up to get them. It has a nice drug warrior ring to it, doesn't it? But, they wouldn't. I don't know anybody who is just chomping at the bit to get himself addicted to meth so he can lose all his teeth and money... Nope. I don't know anybody like that, and neither do you. Everybody I know who WANTS to use drugs, IS using drugs.
Same thing with a doctor... If, as you say, EVERYBODY is being treated NOW, then those hypochondriacs amongst us, go to the emergency room every day. It's free there, no?
excon
Afternoon Excon,
There has been several experiments in this country with legalising drugs
First, in a an area of London - Lambeth, cannbis was legalised for 3 months
The result was arrests were down by 50% on Friday Saturday nights, Hospitals also saw the same drop in alcohol related casualties
Crime over the three months was also down by 40% overall
At the moment there is a trial where Herion addicts, where they can go to a clinic and obtain herion, of which they can take it home or take at the clinic, it's their choice
The results are still awaiting, but the signs suggest the same behhaviour in crime as reported in lambeth
The upshot is, drugs have been with us since man first discovered them, they are not going to go away at all, and if all illegal drugs were destroyed, the economies around the world would crash
Just thought I would share that after what you said mate
Ex
Lets take an example of the government's control :
Intention : keep housing [healthcare/ gas prices] affordable
Effect : shortages of affordable apartments [ healthcare/ gas]
Step one: artificially determine the price of a service. Don't let the consumer determine this via free market.
Step two : lowering the price of a service or product or service artificially will increase demand, whether it is healthcare, gas, housing. Look at the "success" of cash for clunkers. Why are prices lowered in a sale - to sell, to move merchandise.
Step 3 : reduce the ability of the producer to make a profit. Yes that evil word there. Profit is what helps businesses stay in businesses or expand services or products. This will have the effect of reducing the number of producers [ there already are geographic shortages in doctors. There will be more as the baby boomers get older, doctors retire earlier, less students take the path to being a doctor ].
Steps 1,2, and 3 lead to higher demand, less supply, and when the government does not allow for price adjustments, the result is shortages.
Rent Control: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
I suggest that anyone that does not understand this: read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" or try running a small business.
G&P
Hello again, in:
I am a fan of Thomas Sowell. I ran/run a small business. I AM a believer in free markets. And, IF free markets were what's happening TODAY, I'd still believe in them... But, our markets are anything, but free.
In the purest sense, if companies paid attention to the things that make them successful, like investing in R&D, customer service, and taking care of their most valuable asset, their employees, then we wouldn't be having this conversation...
But, that isn't what companies do to earn a profit anymore... Oh, they still DO invest the money where it does the most good. But, it's not in R&D. It's NOT in improving customer service... And, it's for SURE not on their employees... Nope, it's spent on lobbyists... THAT'S where it does the most good.
Now, of course they DO this, because congress passes laws that make it easier to make profits WITHOUT having to compete for them.
Doing that, SKEWS the marketplace. It's no longer free, operating for EVERYBODY'S benefit. So, when that happens, somebody has to SKEW it back. That's what health care reform is about.
excon
Ah, yes, the "corporate communism" argument.
Tell me, has paying lobbyists money ever resulted in an increase in profitability of a company? Or is spending money on lobbyists an expense that LOWERS profitability?
Seems to me that if a company is to be profitable, it STILL needs to sell product, even in this day and age of lobbyists.
Which means that R&D still needs to take place, as does production, sales, and collections.
In fact, businesses still have to operate as they always have in order to make a profit.
And it also means that lobbying expenses are LOWERING their profitability, no increasing it.
So your argument that all companies do to make money today is lobby is pure BS and makes NO SENSE from an economic or financial point of view.
BTW, as a general rule, COMPANIES don't lobby congress... INDUSTRIES do. Which means that any successful lobbying that takes place effects ALL of the companies in the industry equally. Which means that companies aren't getting advantages over each other, they are simply smoothing the way for EVERYONE in the industry.
Nobody is taking advantage of anyone else through lobbying.
Lobbyists, as a general rule, are there to make sure that members of congress keep the economic environment as free from government interference as possible.
What part of that do you dislike?
But I bet you'll argue that the lobbyists ARE taking advantage of someone. Though I doubt you'll have any actual EVIDENCE of that fact. It's just that "lobbyist" has become a dirty word, like "drug company" and "big oil". And so any lobbyist is automatically evil, and his very existence is "evidence" of wrongdoing.
Elliot
What's really funny is that excon's solution to a lack of a "free market" is to have the government take over the market.
Yeah.. that'll make the markets more free.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Are you kidding?? You shouldn't make it so easy for me...
A few of the largest banks just posted their biggest profits ever... They didn't earn those profits by lending. They earned them because they lobbied congress to allow them to change into bank holding companies which allows them to TRADE stocks. If congress wouldn't have let them do that, they'd have to earn money the old fashioned way. That's LENDING money, and they still AREN'T doing that.
Do you want more?
excon
I guess the investing they did had nothing to do with the profits they earned... they got all that money from lobbying. Investing isn't "work". Trading stocks isn't "work". The profits just appeared all by themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Riiiiiggggghhhhttttt!
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
It's work they should not be allowed to do, just like an ice cream store isn't allowed to sell alcohol. It's work they were NEVER allowed to do when they were chartered. It's work there are only allowed to do, because congress changed the rules to allow them to do it. Congress only did that because of LOBBYING & MONEY.
But, besides all that, they TOOK TARP money. We SHOULD have a say in how they operate, no? But, Geithner, Summers, and the dufu's guy Paulson gave away the ranch.
But, I'll answer your question... When a bank lends money diligently, the ripple effect causes great things happen throughout the economy... When a bank makes money in the stock market great things happen to the CEO's of those companies...
excon
Why not? Who decides what business a company is allowed to engage in? And why can't an ice cream store sell alcohol? If they are in compliance with the laws governingthe sale of alcohol, they SHOULD be allowed to sell alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Since when is a privately owned business not allowed to change its model, offer a different set of services, and move into a new line of business because the GOVERNMENT SAYS SO?
The government never had a legal basis for regulating what type of business a bank holding company can engage in or what subsidiaries and affiliates it may own. The lobbying groups simply fixed what Congress screwed up in the first place.
And their charter changed. They filed the paperwork to change their charter. It happens all the time, all over the country, in all sorts of businesses. Companies change their charters to offer new products and services, create new lines of business, and move their companies into new areas of the economy. It is not only legal to do so, it SHOULD be encouraged.Quote:
It's work they were NEVER allowed to do when they were chartered.
It is work that CONGRESS should never have been allowed to STOP THEM FROM DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE. They spent lobby money AS AN INDUSTRY to undo what Congress never really had the right to do in the first place. They spent lobbying money to get Congress to do what it is supposed to do in the first place... maintain free and open markets and opportunities for businesses to sell whatever product they wish to sell.Quote:
It's work there are only allowed to do, because congress changed the rules to allow them to do it. Congress did that because of LOBBYING & MONEY.
I told you at the time that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks. You argued in FAVOR of doing so. You've got nobody to blame for it but yourself. But that is beside the point.Quote:
But, besides all that, they TOOK TARP money. We SHOULD have a say in how they operate, no? But, Geithner, Summers, and the dufu's guy Paulson gave away the ranch.
But since when does bailing out a company mean that WE get control of how they operate? And even if the government DOES take control as they have in the case of GM and Chrysler, does that mean that we, you and I, have any sort of control of the companies?
Actually, great things also happen to the individuals that invest. That would be roughly 60% of Americans who have IRAs, 401Ks or other retirement plans or who have regular investment accounts that invest in the markets. You completely discount that beneficial ripple effect on the economy. And with the market closing last week over 10,000 for the first time in over a year, I'd say that it is a beneficial ripple effect being felt by many.Quote:
But, I'll answer your question... When a bank lends money diligently, the ripple effect causes great things happen throughout the economy... When a bank makes money in the stock market great things happen to the CEO's of those companies...
Excon
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Let's be clear. I didn't support bailing out the banks WITH NO STRINGS, which is what they did..
Yes, let's talk about STRINGS... If you're a failing company and you need my investment, you betcha I have a say in what you do. If I own 51% of you, I have a LOT more than a say. I have CONTROL. Would you suggest those who CONTROL a corporation have NO say in how it's operated?? You would?
So in answer to your question, yes. You and I DO have control of those companies just as if you and I were stockholders... OMG - we ARE.
excon
Really? So is Rush Limbaugh... does that mean you're a racist, too? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Changing the subject again? Can't respond to my arguments about lobbyists?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
OK fine.
My response is simple... the government should never have bailed out the companies at all. Strings, no strings, it doesn't matter. They should have been allowed to fail so that other companies that are stronger could take their place. The government should NEVER have a say in what companies do or how they operate. It is unconstitutional for them to do so. It is marxism for them to do so. And it is detrimental to the investors, the creditors, and the economy as a whole for them to do so.
As for you and I having control of those companies... I see the government making decisions about those companies. But I haven't seen a single shareholder ballot form come to my home for me to sign as I do for other stocks I own. Have you seen a ballot form?
If not, you don't have control... the GOVERNMENT does.
I also don't have the ability to divest myself of this "investment". If I can't buy or sell the shares of the company at will, I don't have control do I? The government does.
So get all that crap about being in control of those companies out of your head. You ain't got control over nothing. You are an involuntary sharer of the risk with no possibility of reward and no way to get rid of the investment. The government is calling the shots, and we're all just along for the ride.
Congratulations, you got your wish.
Elliot
Elliot,
I will bow down to your expertise on economics, so please answer me this
In the Depression of the 1920s, it is my understanding that the Givernment at the time allowed banks to fail all over the place, this prolonged the depression
If the banks in most of the western world had not be bailed out, wouldn't it have had such a knock on effect that we would have been in a depression again and not just a recession?
Actually, what prolonged the depression was NOT the failures of the banks. Other banks were quickly formed, and they took the place of the failed ones with very little muss or fuss. The economy of the USA trudged on even in the face of the failures of the banks, and the newer banks just slid right in and took up the slack. The recovery from the bank failures was very quick, and in fact, despite popular belief, very few depositors ended up losing money due to those failures. Those few who did lose lost MASSIVE AMOUNTS to be sure, but those were not "economy killers" the way it is often portrayed. And most people saw full or near full recovery of their deposits within short order. The system didn't fail so much as it shifted the burden to other financial institutions. And if that had been all that occurred, we would have recovered within 18 months to 2 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
What really prolonged the Depression was FDR's taxation and monetary policies. He raised taxes, which caused and INCREASE in unemployment. He created massive welfare programs that he couldn't pay for, and borrowed money and printed money to pay for them, creating massive inflation. What few jobs he created were all "makework" programs that didn't actually produce anything, and therefore never ended up priming the economic pump that real employment causes. It was the massive unemployment, government spending, runaway inflation and high interest rates caused by these policies that drew out the Depression for 10 years longer than it should have lasted.
BTW, do any of FDR's policies remind you of Obama's Stimulus Bill initiatives? Remember the shovel-ready jobs that Obama promised? How about his massive spending? The quintupling of the US Budget Deficit? Increasing the national debt by over $3 trillion?
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.
There's a REASON I get so excitable about Obama's policies. They are a mirror image of what FDR did during the Great Depression that made matters WORSE not better.
Elliot
Planx,
As a side note, if the reason for the Great Depression was the failure of the banks, then the inception of WWII and the wartime buildup of our economy would not have been able to cure that problem.
The War buildup created jobs, which reversed FDR's "makework" and "welfare" policies.
The buildup caused an increase in PRODUCTION and therefore a need for raw materials that primed the economic pump and rippled through the entire economy, causing economic growth. This was a direct reversal of the non-productive "makework" (read: shovel ready) jobs policy of FDR that resulted in a stagnant economy with zero or negative growth.
The buildup required funding via a "war bond" program that lowered interest rates and decreased the availability of cash in the market, thus decreasing interest rates and inflation rates.
In essence the Wartime Buildup was the perfect cure to the disease caused by FDR's prior policies.
That would NOT have been true of a Depression caused by bank failures.
Just something to think about.
Elliot
Elliot,
Any decent housewife knows that the best way out of a financial mess is to scrimp, and we all know that nearly every country in the western world has done the opposite, basically gambling on what will happen next
Back in the 90s we finally paid you guys off for what we borrowed in WW2
We are now back in debt, and whole lot of it, and the only way out of it to decrease public spending, and increase taxes
So yep, I am with you on this issue, sometimes you have to take the knock to prevent the fall
So do you think a stable economy will stave off the future of increase taxes - because I don't!
PS Cheers for the info on the depression, all I know about that era is the Al Capone Stories :)
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
One is not a function of the other. Stable economies don't prevent governments from increasing taxes. So I agree with you.Quote:
So do you think a stable economy will stave off the future of increase taxes - because I don't!
The key to preventing tax increases, as I have mentioned before, is the same as the key to preventing government from doing anything else we don't like... enforcing the Constitutional limits on their power.
In the alternative, voting the bums out of office works pretty well too.
Elliot
My pleasure.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
:D
Tom do you listen to yourself or do you just rave? If cheeseburgers were free would you gorge yourself on cheeseburgers? What you have just said tells me that you have a very low opinion, even lower than mine, of your fellow countrymen. I mean I already think they gorge themselves on cheeseburgers. But seriously;Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Obtaining medical care is a function of how sick you are and how much time you have available or wages you can afford to loose. If you are a user of free medical services such as in the ER you know you are going to have to wait, so you are not going to increase your usage of free medical services for trivial matters. Going to the doctor for a sniffle will not get your prescribed a drug which will lessen the duration of your sickness but it might get you some good treatment advice like stay home and don't infect others, so you could get a net sum gain in doctors attendances. What you are really complaining about is that the poor, the destitute, or the homeless might actually be enthused to see a doctor.
If indeed it is a routine stomach ache. What if you misdiagnose yourself, get desperately ill, end up in the hospital, and the medical staff employs all their resources to save your life? And you end up with a $100K bill. But look at the bright side -- you didn't have to pay that doctor's fee.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I think there is an equal chance that the doctor can do the misdiagnosis. Everything the doctor orders I do a web search on also .
You all can deny it all you want to . Increased demand needs to be met with increased supply ,or scarcity .Scarcity is met with either higher prices or rationing .
I recently went through the misdiagnosis thing and ended up in the hospital, but that's another story for another day.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So then let's make the medical field more attractive. During my hospital stay, I noticed a huge increase in the numbers of male nurses and lab techs.
If government runs all the health care, whether from insurance perspective or not, what it will amount to is everyone on medicare.
That's what I have now.
BUT, there are already doctors who REFUSE to accept any new medicare patients.
Price controls on doctors' wages (as with medicare) will only dry up supply.
It looks good for the moment, but will soon fail completely. What then? Doctors forced to work for the government at dictated wages?
So much for freedom, right?
FREE MEN ARE NOT EQUAL: EQUAL MEN ARE NOT FREE.
Who said "all"?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Hello again:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You and I don't DISAGREE on the evils of government at all... We also don't DISAGREE on governments' NEED to grab more power.
Where we DISAGREE is, in WHICH part of government is the BAD GRABBY part. It was clear to me, after all, that the dufus and vice were INCREASING, CONSOLIDATING, and GRABBING for more power. It IS what governments DO. They grab for power. There's NO disagreement there...
Although, you'll probably throw up your hands and look at me wide eyed, while you argue that when the dufus did what HE did, he was only following the Constitution, and doing what he NEEDED to do to protect us... And, I go riiiiiiiggggghhhhttttt...
THIS is where the disagreement lies...
Just as you said that the dufus needed to expand government to protect us, I'm going to say that Obama needs to expand government in order to protect us... In terms of the expansion of government, there isn't a substantial difference between us.
One of us is wrong. I know who.
excon
PS> Yes, I took your quote from another thread.
That would be President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, Barney Franks, Jan Schakowsky, Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein and Jacob Hacker. Among others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
See my previous post on the subject.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2043925
Elliot
Not to worry. You willl be able to keep your private health insurance plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Yeah, you guys keep saying that. If you believe that I've got some great property in New Jersey I'd like to sell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
YOU keep saying that. But the people who are putting the plan together and are going to be running it are telling us that we WON'T.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Which part of "We want a single payer health plan, and we're going to use the 'public option' to make that happen" are you having trouble understanding?
Elliot
Since that's the way the conversation is generally going to go, why don't we just skip to the part where you have no response, start changing the subject, and generally lose the argument, and I say "Checkmate". We can save time that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Elliot
I am sure you get 100 politicians in a room and you will get 100 ideasQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I really can't see anybody trying to force a single system onto the US especially when the insurance companies and vast amount of medical companies would loose out, which I understand have a powerful say in the government
Private Medical Cover will still be available like it is anyway in the world regardless of what system of health plan is in place
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 PM. |