Former Mexican president Message to Trump

[ShockerPrez]

Maybe not, but it's not like that just ends the discussion. Rights can change. If I remember correctly, a newish poll found a majority of Americans think it should be a right. Internationally, people consider it a right. And if life is a right, where does the line for healthcare stop?

I'm just saying ATL's scenario isn't some farfetched hypothetical we haven't considered. It is in fact part of the reason for the support.

I know what you are saying and the reasons people give for supporting it and it all sounds great.

Who supplies healthcare if there are no doctors?

[ShockTalk]

Frankly, that is the exact kind of thing many fans of single payer health care want to see eliminated. If health care is a human right, you shouldn't be forced to pay more because of something totally outside of your control.

I have no problem with this. However, as I have said before, somethings, even the whole problem itself, may not be outside of ones control. People do get medical problems because of their lack of a reasonable lifestyle. If those same people have absolutely no "penalty" in cost, deductible, and so forth, since they didn't care enough about themselves before, there is no incentive to improve that lifestyle.

I believe someone on this thread indicated that some of the countries that have these plans do attach certain "lifestyle" penalties. Don't know if this is true, but I think it's smart to encourage good health and try to keep costs down.

[jdshock]

I know what you are saying and the reasons people give for supporting it and it all sounds great.

Who supplies healthcare if there are no doctors?

Dumb this down a little for me. Where are the doctors?

[ShockerPrez]

Dumb this down a little for me. Where are the doctors?

My original thought was theoretical. If healthcare is a right, how is that right afforded to a person if there were no doctors, in theory.

But, i could see a scenario where there is a shortage. Free healthcare (in theory) increases demand for it. More demand on the system with the same amount or fewer doctors. Guessing that the incentive for people to go into the medical profession since they arent going to be paid as much, now that the feds are writing the checks.

[BOBB]

Most of healthcare expense could be limited by reducing end of life expense and rewarding/requiring management of chronic diseases.

I know some would call that death panels and nanny state.

[BOBB]

My original thought was theoretical. If healthcare is a right, how is that right afforded to a person if there were no doctors, in theory.

But, i could see a scenario where there is a shortage. Free healthcare (in theory) increases demand for it. More demand on the system with the same amount or fewer doctors. Guessing that the incentive for people to go into the medical profession since they arent going to be paid as much, now that the feds are writing the checks.

The problem is we don't have a free market in healthcare. Doctor supply is limited by the AMA. Are doctors smarter than engineers? If a radiologist makes a million a year wouldn't supply and demand draw people to radiology? What if there were 10 radiologists competing for your or your insurance company's dollar?

[wufan]

The problem is we don't have a free market in healthcare. Doctor supply is limited by the AMA. Are doctors smarter than engineers? If a radiologist makes a million a year wouldn't supply and demand draw people to radiology? What if there were 10 radiologists competing for your or your insurance company's dollar?

Radiologists often do compete for hospital money. Subcontracting radiology is big business, and one of the more elite specialties from a market and IQ perspective. Where free enterprise is stifled is between primary care and the patient with insurance being the mediator/regulator.

Edit: and yes, on average doctors have higher IQs than engineers. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx

[MoValley John]

The problem is we don't have a free market in healthcare. Doctor supply is limited by the AMA. Are doctors smarter than engineers? If a radiologist makes a million a year wouldn't supply and demand draw people to radiology? What if there were 10 radiologists competing for your or your insurance company's dollar?

AMA doesn't limit anything. It's an organization.

Doctors graduate from accredired medical schools, pass boards and are then accepted into residency programs where they specialize and receive further certification.

Specialty programs are definitely filled by demand. The more anesthesiologists a practice needs, the more residency programs they offer. Same with a group of cardiologists. On and on. If you want to have your pick of specialties, you better do well in school, test well and interview well, otherwise, you end up some washed up pathologist, working in the basement of a hospital identifying tumors and skin cancer.

The AMA has nothing to do with it.

[BOBB]

AMA doesn't limit anything. It's an organization.

Doctors graduate from accredired medical schools, pass boards and are then accepted into residency programs where they specialize and receive further certification.

Specialty programs are definitely filled by demand. The more anesthesiologists a practice needs, the more residency programs they offer. Same with a group of cardiologists. On and on. If you want to have your pick of specialties, you better do well in school, test well and interview well, otherwise, you end up some washed up pathologist, working in the basement of a hospital identifying tumors and skin cancer.

The AMA has nothing to do with it.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/american-medical-association-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html

[MoValley John]

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/american-medical-association-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html

Does the AMA collude, probably. Does the AMA actually have the power to do anything but make recommendations, no. If the AMA wants fewer cardiologists, there are probably going to be fewer cardiologists. The AMA has no more power to limit doctors than the plumbers union has to limit the supply of plumbers. But the guy that licenses plumbers is in the union.

Keep in mind, the AMA is an association of doctors, medical schools are taught by doctors, most of whom are members of the AMA. If the AMA suggests that it would be best if there were fewer doctors.

But as a matter of record, the AMA can't do anything like you are saying.

[Aargh]

I think Medicare has a pretty decent setup for the basis of single payer. I have something like a $20 co-pay for an office call and $50 for a specialist. I'm on Social Security, so I have to be careful about spending. That puts me in a similar situation as low wage earners.

For people with minimal resources, paying $20 to see a doc is definitely having skin in the game. It's low enough that when it's needed, it can be handled, but high enough that $20 out of pocket and taking an hour off of work is incredibly discouraging to misuse.

Misuse of single payer would be more likely from people with substantial resources, not from the welfare class or low earners.

My last visit to a specialist was for recurring nosebleeds. Doc spent no more than 10 minutes with me. Looked in my nose, told me there were two spots that were the problem, cauterized them and sent me on my way. I paid $50. Via Christi Clinic charged my carrier (I have a privatized Medicare plan) $788. That was negotiated down to under $400, but even that plus my $50 seems a little pricey.

If we're ever going to have anything resembling sane medical care where individuals are responsible for a portion of the cost, we probably need doctors who can give us estimates for what they recommend. Estimates are required for car repairs, but doctors can recommend anything where the majority of the bill goes to a third party and not tell the patient anything about what it's going to cost them. There are a lot of things I consider optional that my doctor tries to sell me every time I see her.

When doctors have quotas and sales goals (and they do), that's a problem.

[BOBB]

Does the AMA collude, probably. Does the AMA actually have the power to do anything but make recommendations, no. If the AMA wants fewer cardiologists, there are probably going to be fewer cardiologists. The AMA has no more power to limit doctors than the plumbers union has to limit the supply of plumbers. But the guy that licenses plumbers is in the union.

Keep in mind, the AMA is an association of doctors, medical schools are taught by doctors, most of whom are members of the AMA. If the AMA suggests that it would be best if there were fewer doctors.

But as a matter of record, the AMA can't do anything like you are saying.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

[MoValley John]

You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, I'm not. The AMA has no power to do anything. That said, most ACADEMIC physicians are active within the AMA. It is very complicated and you painting with a broad brush regarding the AMA and their supposed powers is not an accurate reflection of how physicians fill ranks.

My wife has worked in a teaching hospital for 20+ years. I've gotten to know many physicians very well. I go shooting with several. Physicians both in private practice and academia. If you want to know the real culprits, its the academic physicians, but they are also the ones most closely associated with the AMA. Those guys also control admissions at the school, not the AMA.

Then again, rather than blame academia which controls the spigot, it's easier just to lump all physicians together and blame the AMA, which does little more than turn out a magazine, publish some research papers, gives opinions and lobbies. The AMA has no authority to do much anything else. And private practice has little to do with the AMA.

You really think the AMA is powerful?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.physiciansweekly.com/is-the-ama-really-the-voice-of-physicians-in-the-us/&ved=0ahUKEwiBnuaa0svUAhXi24MKHc6vDIQQFggpMAU&usg=AFQjCNFYUjfrP_bMOlynBWTPXmQu3EA2IQ