Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 83

Thread: Why are doctors so expensive?

  1. #41
    the uni's dont train doctors, the medical colleges do (the australiasia college of surgens for example). If the goverment moves that to the uni's then they will be HECS places

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    roman, why bother to answer this when you have already made an assumption from line 1?

    basically my responce would be "suck it up, sucker"
    Because the evidence supports me, and all you have are feelings?
    Now if you want to debate the merits of capitalism, take it to one of the many other threads where the rest of the half-wits are stumbling over their feelings.

  3. #43
    of course it does roman

    if we ignore the every quality and quanity measure the WHO puts out of course
    if we ignore the fact that the US spends more per capita on health care than every other country
    if we ignore the fact that an employee costs less than a company of course your right.

    How could you possably be wrong

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    if we ignore the every quality and quanity measure the WHO puts out of course
    if we ignore the fact that the US spends more per capita on health care than every other country
    Right. This is the problem- why do Americans spend so much on healthcare? I have postulated that it's because of government interference. largely, that socialized policy leads to inefficiency because it's very easy to spend other people's money. The amount of government money contributing to this problem is not insignificant- some estimates put it as high as 50% (I'll try and get you a source on this when I can).

    There's also the issue where I cannot choose to go treat my minor illness for cheap, or get a checkup for cheap, due entirely to the government making it illegal to do so.

    Your solution to this wasteful, inefficient system, is to have the government spend MORE money, and meddle even more? This makes sense, how?

  5. #45
    Roman
    OR the solution is for the goverment to hire doctors.

    It makes apslolutly no sence to expect subcontracting to save money when you have a constant work flow like you do in health and education. Currently the SA goverment had no choice BUT to contract to an international company to clear a back log of work where there symply are no doctors (or enough anyway) avialable in that area in the country, let alone SA. Even though the state is providing the facilities to this company (the QEH actually if you wish to check it out) its still costing ALOT more than it would to hire the doctors but until more can be trainned there is symply no choice but to either do this or to tell the pts to wait 3 or more years till the docs DO become avilable

    as goverment expenditure in health goes up in EVERY industrialised nation (when compared to private expenditure), the total spending has gone down. Its symply a fact and the fact that you are blind to this is your problem not mine

  6. #46
    Well, I can't speak for other nations but if private expenditures are high because of government involvement in the US, wouldn't it make more sense to reduce gov't involvement in an attempt to reduce prices first before letting the government get involved even further? Were private costs in the other industrial nations high because of reasons similar to why we have high costs in the US, or because of other factors?

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    Roman
    OR the solution is for the goverment to hire doctors.

    It makes apslolutly no sence to expect subcontracting to save money when you have a constant work flow like you do in health and education.
    But why? That's inefficient. Why bother contracting at all? If contracting a little wastes money, I'm not really sure why going all the way would help.
    I work in a federal research lab in the summer. Some days I get no work done because the government needs me to fill out paperwork. It's stupid, and a waste of time. But the paper-pushers need it done, because otherwise they wouldn't have a job.

    When you don't have to compete for resources, but instead rely on force to collect revenue, there's no reason to be efficient.

    Currently the SA goverment had no choice BUT to contract to an international company to clear a back log of work where there symply are no doctors (or enough anyway) avialable in that area in the country, let alone SA. Even though the state is providing the facilities to this company (the QEH actually if you wish to check it out) its still costing ALOT more than it would to hire the doctors but until more can be trainned there is symply no choice but to either do this or to tell the pts to wait 3 or more years till the docs DO become avilable
    I hear this story from everywhere that has socialized medicine- long lines to see the doctor.

    as goverment expenditure in health goes up in EVERY industrialised nation (when compared to private expenditure), the total spending has gone down.
    What do you mean by this? That the per capita cost has gone down?

  8. #48
    ashura i dont have time to do the resurch for you now but i suggest you look at health care expenditure as a percentage of GDP in england pre and post WW2. Universal health care is very effecient because the goverment doesnt NEED to make a profit, the doctors get paid saleries as do all the other health care staff.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    Universal health care is very effecient because the goverment doesnt NEED to make a profit, the doctors get paid saleries as do all the other health care staff.
    ???

  10. #50
    long lines?
    HA
    my partner got into see a dertmertologist at one of the busiest hospitals in SA with in 2 weeks, she got an apointment to see a endocronologist with in a month of the referal

    GPs are same day (i do admit these are small buinesses though but they are paid by medicare and it doesnt cost me $1), blood tests are generally done the day they are ordered depending where they need to be done (as was my x-ray)

    When my partner had a UTI she was in a bed and on a drip with in 2 hours, again at FMC (one of the 2 trauma centers in the state i might add)

    I had an apointment with the psych within a week and the shrink with in a month for a NON URGENT case.

    for the urgent case we not only had ASIS trying to locate the guy who was threating suicide for us, but the police as well and when they couldnt locate him the HEAD OF PSYCHIATRY AT THE W&K RANG US TO GET HIS PHONE NUMBER TO TALK TO HIM DIRECT. All with in the hour.

    The ONLY thing we have had to wait for was my partner cant get an internal ultrasound done till jan (and this was because it was marked as non urgent)

    These gaps are in a very specific are of plastic surgury which there simply is no doctors in the country to do (public OR private)

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    ashura i dont have time to do the resurch for you now but i suggest you look at health care expenditure as a percentage of GDP in england pre and post WW2. Universal health care is very effecient because the goverment doesnt NEED to make a profit, the doctors get paid saleries as do all the other health care staff.
    But this is meaningless if private costs prior to universal health care were high because of government involvement to begin with. Without knowing that, I can't consider your argument. Unfortunately I don't have the time tonight to do the research either, but I'll try to get some reading done on the topic by the weekend.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    long lines?
    HA
    Didn't you just say that you had to wait 3 years to get a doctor in SA?

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Roman View Post
    ???
    Meaning that they can just tax to cover salaries, they don't have to rely on direct revenue from individuals.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Roman View Post
    Didn't you just say that you had to wait 3 years to get a doctor in SA?
    you didnt read the last line of my post did you. I never said "doctors" plural. I said there was a shortage of the doctors in one specialty which if the goverment was to wait for the ones currently being trained would mean some people had to wait 3 years. The shortage is country wide in both the public AND private sectors (rember we have both)

    If you dont have any butchers in the country it doesnt matter how much money you pour in or wether its the goverment or the private sector, you STILL wont get any meat

  15. #55
    ashura tax is not that big a burden on the australian population. If anything to many people live paying Zero net tax.

    If we stopped giving so many subsidies to familys with children we could spend almost as much as you do on health care (total, not govermental expenditure) with no increase in tax. Possably that is an exaduration but not by much

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    you didnt read the last line of my post did you. I never said "doctors" plural. I said there was a shortage of the doctors in one specialty which if the goverment was to wait for the ones currently being trained would mean some people had to wait 3 years. The shortage is country wide in both the public AND private sectors (rember we have both)

    If you dont have any butchers in the country it doesnt matter how much money you pour in or wether its the goverment or the private sector, you STILL wont get any meat
    Ah, my bad.
    But I guess that's what you get when you have so many controls on the market- shortages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    ashura tax is not that big a burden on the australian population. If anything to many people live paying Zero net tax.

    If we stopped giving so many subsidies to familys with children we could spend almost as much as you do on health care (total, not govermental expenditure) with no increase in tax. Possably that is an exaduration but not by much
    Uh, the US spends almost 3x as much on healthcare than the gross domestic product of all Australia.

  17. #57
    Roman

    actually no, the shortage is to do with

    a) the skills shortage in general, there is a generalised shortage of labor in Australia across all sectors including the goverment

    b) the manoplay control that the colleges have on training. This provides them with a conflict of interest as they are also there to represent the doctors as a group (for instance the austrolasion college of surgens again). This is why the federal goverment gave them an ultermatum, either increase the numbers they train to the levels the federal goverment (who i might add PAY for that training anyway) tell them to (after consulting with the states as the biggest employers of doctors as to the numbers they need) OR the goverment will remove there right to train doctors period and give it to the universities who are compleatly inderpendent from the people they train (in that they dont represent them in pay disputes for instance)

    So as this shows the issue isnt the goverment but rather the monopaly which has caused the shortage

  18. #58
    It can't be a monopoly if the government is giving them the thumbs up, can it?
    Anyone know the answer to this one? I genuinely don't know if that's the case or not.

  19. #59
    Mourning in America madanthonywayne's Avatar
    Posts
    12,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Nasor View Post
    You hear a lot of noise about, but there have been several studies that found that all the costs related to lawsuits (insurance, lawyers, etc) only accounts for about 3% to 5% of medical costs in the U.S..
    I'd like to see a source for this, I think you're way off. Even if the number was correct, it wouldn't include the cost of "defensive medicine" that causes doctors to order tons of unnecesary tests to cover their asses or to refer out patients they could easily treat themselves for fear of lawsuits.

    As to the direct cost of lawsuits, in some states it's so high that some specialties stop practicing in those states. The direct cost of liability coverage in federal programs alone accounts for $56 billion. http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/si...dical_Care.htm

    Obstetricians are some of the hardest hit, because people often sue when their child is born with a problem regardless of whether there was any actual malpractice. The result:
    A decade ago there were 42 working maternity wards in the Philadelphia area. Jeanes will be the 14th to close — that's one-third of them shutting down.

    The reason: money.

    Obstetricians in the Philadelphia area pay among the steepest rates for malpractice insurance in the country — about $160,000 a year. Also, if the patient is on Medicaid, the hospitals pays half the bill. So every time a doctor delivers a baby, the hospital loses money.

    "That truly is the problem: If you're losing on every birth, there are no economies of scale. There is no way, through volume, to make this service more financially viable," said Meg McGlodrick, CEO of Abington Hospital.

    The result: What amounts to a medical crisis, leaving the ones that are still open bursting at the seams.
    http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/si...ard_Crunch.htm
    So with a doctor paying $160,000 a year for malpractice insurance alone, you think that's only going to account for 3% to 5% of medical costs? That cost is probably the doctor's largest single expense with the result that in states without caps on malpractice awards, doctors leave. Prices rise. And patients lose access to care.

  20. #60
    Your not really correct there,

    you have to rember that goverments arnt just regulators but also consumers as well, currently the medical colleges provide a service of training specilist doctors (you have to rember im not talking about medical students, these are already trained by the uni's who compeate for students direct). So the goverment (as consumer) asks them for say 5 surgens but they only train 2. Now oviously they only PAY for the 2 they got trained but that is by the by. Currently the goverment has no choice but to accept the 2 surgens and suck it up even though now they need 8 next year and will again only get 2.

    This may seem counter intuitive and from the example i have given it is but rember these surgens are also the members of the college so they are the ones deciding how many are trained. There are no consumer representives on these boards (goverment or non goverment) and the boards are FAR from independent so what do the colleges get out of making sure there is a short fall? The college itself gets little however the surgens get more bargaining power when trying to find work

    Can you think of ANY other industry where employees can limit the number of new employees are being trained? Trust me there isnt one, its always either the uni's independently or the employers

    So anyway the Goverment got apsolutly SICK of wearing the political fall out from this (and rember the AMA is the strongest lobby group in canbura so this is a big move) and issued an ultermatium to the colleges that they could go to being just a representive body (and lose any ability to train anyone) OR they could do what the goverment told them to do and make as many places avilable as the goverment desired (paid for by the goverment of course)

    Guess what they did?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By Peyote Ugly in forum Human Science
    Last Post: 04-21-08, 12:05 PM
    Replies: 0
  2. By Fraggle Rocker in forum Art & Culture
    Last Post: 12-16-07, 12:18 PM
    Replies: 4
  3. By whitewolf in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 10-25-07, 02:18 AM
    Replies: 21
  4. By Reiku in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 10-20-07, 12:05 PM
    Replies: 6
  5. By Enterprise-D in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 04-03-07, 01:20 PM
    Replies: 8

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •