[tomder55]

A severe shortage of physicians to 2010 | Open Medicine Blog

In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option -- latimes.com

[ETWolverine]

tom,
As a person living in a country with UHC I can tell you that that isn't the case.

As a person WATCHING your system, I can tell you that it IS the case, and you simply haven't recognized it.

And I can tell you that your own government AGREES that this is the case. But you don't believe them.

[NeedKarma]

There's a shortage of IT workers too.

[NeedKarma]

As a person WATCHING your system, I can tell you that it IS the case, and you simply haven't recognized it.

You've proven that you have very little understanding of the system here.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, folks:

It's simple MATH. If EVERYBODY is being treated NOW, like YOU say, then all we have to do is move a few doctors around and EVERYBODY will STILL be treated.

Or, is my math off?

excon

Yes, your math is off.

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

[ETWolverine]

You've proven that you have very little understanding of the system here.

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.

Bwahahahahahaha.

[ETWolverine]

There's a shortage of IT workers too.

Your government isn't nationalizing the computer industry... yet.

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

[excon]

Your math is off. If cheeseburgers were free then everyone would gorge themselves on free cheeseburgers.

Hello again, tom:

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

[phlanx]

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

[inthebox]

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

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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?

Hello again, Elliot:

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

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

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.

Riiiiiggggghhhhttttt!

[excon]

Investing isn't "work". Trading stocks isn't "work". The profits just appeared all by themselves.

Hello again, Elliot:

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

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

It's work they should not be allowed to do, just like an ice cream store isn't allowed to sell alcohol.

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.

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.

It's work they were NEVER allowed to do when they were chartered.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Elliot

[excon]

I told you at the time that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks. You argued in FAVOR of doing so.

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?

Hello again, Elliot:

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

[speechlesstx]

I am a fan of Thomas Sowell.

Really? So is Rush Limbaugh... does that mean you're a racist, too? :D

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

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

Changing the subject again? Can't respond to my arguments about lobbyists?

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