patrick.net

I always wonder about one thing, top schools always accept the TOP students from the class right? So what makes them better than the average schools? I say a good school should be something which can take "average" students and turn them into elites, but that's not how the way it works here....

warblah, >>I say a good school should be something which can take “average” students and turn them into elites, but that’s not how the way it works here…. Sure it works that way. Those kids are the not-always-so-bright children of the current elite, who get in with a little help from mommy and daddy.

I am amazed at the absurd claims of what people think will happen if we have a "public option". Do you people even read what you write? The worst legitimate criticism of the Canadian system (for example) seems to be "long wait times". Really? We've gone from "long wait times" to the end of the Republic?

We don't have a healthcare problem in the US. We have an insurance company problem, namely that the insurers have a stranglehold on healthcare. Insurance for a family of 4 can cost $20,000 and beyond. All the spin and memeering on this issue is designed to hide the fact that our medical system is hostage to the insurers and, by extension, their shareholders.

All hail the public option!! Bass, you may very well be in the wrong side of history on this one. What can we do to get you on the good side of that cause?

Tenpoundbass says

Kevin says

I am amazed at the absurd claims of what people think will happen if we have a “public option”. Do you people even read what you write? The worst legitimate criticism of the Canadian system (for example) seems to be “long wait times”. Really? We’ve gone from “long wait times” to the end of the Republic?

Bullshit Kevin, are you saying it is not legitimate to not want a “PUBLIC OPTION” because it is in fact just another insurance company, just like all of the others. Are you saying I should take the democrats for face value, when they keep saying “We’ll push for cheaper premiums.” Did Obama say or not say in many different ways that this plan will not replace but compete, and the whole administration is weary just exactly how much it competes with the existing insurance industry. This bill is being drafted with kit gloves as not to scratch and booger up the existing system. The Bill is running out of steam for a damn good reason, and that reason is, Americans aren’t half as STUPID as the Democrats reckons them.

Having the stance that the proposals currently on the table are inadequate since they aren't single payer is a legitimate criticism, but you're ignoring the tried and true "public option" insurers like the Swiss system, which prove that an insurance-based model is still viable as long as it is strictly regulated.

Ok just to chime in a bit here. Generally there's about five different health systems in the world...here's what the world has 1) nothing - 75% of the world basically has nothing 2) cash - this works well for small things...fine but few can pay cash for surgury or cancer treatments at least domestically in the USA (please don't make some argument of lactrile in mexico because that didn't work for steve mcqueen) 3) The national insurance model - this is what canada has...but it runs the risk as they don't allow private practices (except in quebec). 4) the belivider system in the UK and other areas (hong kong) everyone is covered but taxes are higher...however you can see private doctors and other things 5) the bismark system - mandates to get insurance. An argument can be made that massachusetts is somewhat like this now Obama said a canadian system would be impossible in the USA..duh...of course the companies would get into an uproar. If it's a public options well what he's implying might be the NHS system but we'd need higher taxes on people even on those beyond just the rich. He might simply be trying to put the bismark system on all. Now in all honesty the problem in mass isn't so much the employer mandates but it's that the subsidised care. I have a friend who has a source on the state house...this program will have will probably be dismantled within three years. In mass although we have a reputation for high taxes that isn't exactly the reality. According to some tax groups we rank 26th in the country (NJ is #1...California, CT and NY are much higher than mass) Simply giving someone insurance isn't exactly going to make them more healthier. Now it can be preventative sure for later on but this isn't going to really expand someones lifespan from say 75 to 105. You still have to wait you still have paperwork etc. There's nothing wrong with having people pay money for things because if they don't then they have no real ethical or moral right to complain. William Easterly suggested this with some foreign aid. When someone pays money for something they have a vested interest in that its a good product or service. If something is free or at least is preceived to be free it doesn't really jive. If there's a subsidized plan is it too much to ask someone to pay...I dunno even $5 for a doctors visit? is that too much? how about $1...how about 5 cents...anything is better than nothing. Health is about more than just seeing a doctor. I've been to china overseas and public parks have elipical machines for adults (as if some adult is going to burn calories on a swing..come on now) Walking is good for people but if there's no sidewalks that's not going to help. We basically have two problems with healthcare... 1) that people simply cannot get insurance 2) that the care cost too much With the exception of the food subsidy I can't see how a government plan will save money for the whole industry. And this is another odd argument because it creates a paradox. If a plan works and saves money some would say the government is putting companies out of business. If it costs too much people will complain about the costs. if medical insurance companies only insure the healthly then that means that any government plan is going to be costly... The way I see things is that we don't have the constitutional authority to do this on a national level. If anything we should give some block grants at best to allow states to do it as they can be more efficicent than the federal govenerment. That way it also blocks any other types of problems as the states could decide. If California wants to give care to illegals that's fine...if wyoming doesn't want to that's fine as thats their choice. If one state wants to cover abortion..another wants to cover viagra...another wants to cover steralization etc. to create one giant plan for the whole country really doesn't make logical sense to me.

Excellent idea bap. I also think we should return to the good old days of 35 year average life span, 2 months to cross the country by wagon train, and dentistry with a hammer and chisel. It's just wonderful you have enough money in the bank to whip out your debit card for things like chemo or open heart surgery. Like 99.998% of the rest of the people in the country I don't. How much money do you have in the bank set aside for medical treatment by the way? Or would you lay on the hospital bed surrounded by crying wife and children and say "I stand on my principles, I will die now rather than have anyone else pick one dime of my treatment costs that I can't pay for". Bullshit!! What you really mean is you are a selfish greedy bastard who doesn't want to pay for insurance, but if the spam hits the fan you want the rest of us to pay for your treatment. Perfect analogy for life in America today, privatize profits, socialize losses.

Tenpoundbass says

procedure, that was nothing more than running me through a machine that was paid for the first five minutes they plugged it into the wall.

Now that is a business I wish I could buy a piece of. Profits like that might even turn me against health care reform...

chrisborden, I agree. The discussion has gone really downhill in the last 5-6 months. I think it would get better if we disabled the quoting mechanism that was introduced a few months ago. All it does it to make it too easy for people to engage in a bunch of he-said-she-said tit-for-tat that only goes around in circles all day long. Posting should be more an exercise of stating and supporting your point of view clearly and succinctly, rather than endless back-and-forth about what someone else said or didn't say. Qoute one or two essential lines manually if you must, then get on with the analysis and facts.

>>How can the right force a Democrat congress to do anything? By using the mas media and angry wingnuts to frighten them with the loss in the next election. Same thing they did before the Iraq War vote. Democrats should toughen up an start to play hardball, just like the Republicans ALWAYS do. Check out this cartoon satire of what NOT to do: http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/08/18/tomo/index.html

The PDF of the complete coverage plan (this is just what they disclose, god only knows what details are missing) from my insurance company is nearly 800 pages. Why is 1017 pages so outrageous?

Bap33 says

no .. they would be treated … and the doc or pharm will get paid, or not, based on what the customer agrees to pay.

Please explain to me how that will work. When I get hit by a car and the ambulance shows up, are we going to negotiate my treatment then? Get real. And for those who don't understand how "the right" can force Democrats to do anything, remember the filibuster. Unless congress agrees to vote using a simple majority, the Democrats DO NOT have enough votes to pass. In the house everything would go through, but they only have 59 senators (really 58 since Byrd isn't around), and another 5 or 6 of them (cough cough Lieberman) are DINOs. So that leaves you with, at best, somewhere between 50 and 52 votes. With a simple majority, it would be enough, but a simple majority isn't allowed here.

If you have never filed a claim or been in a crash, then you are very lucky. I am sure that insurance companies do make more than they pay out--that is their goal, after all--but I do still see the value of insurance, for cars and for medical issues. Even when we make good and thoughtful choices, every single choice entails risk. No matter how careful, you or I might someday run into a bit of bad luck. In hindsight, you can see that your care and skill combined with just a bit of good luck kept you out of car accidents. But in 1971 you didn't know that, so you bought insurance. I have a great driving record, but my car was totaled a couple of years ago by a person who tried to drive straight through it. Not my fault, nothing I could have planned for, and no one in my car was hurt. The other driver zoomed away in her little blue car, never to be seen again. I could not get my camera out fast enough, because like many people, I don't drive with a camera hanging from my wrist. I was pretty glad that insurance paid out for me in that case, since the other driver chose not to take responsibility for what she had done. Luckily there were no medical bills to cover, but insurance would have covered much of that cost, too. I hesitate to suggest what we might want in the way of health insurance, but that does not mean that health insurance isn't useful. Even people who eat well and sleep enough and get enough exercise sometimes come down with cancer or some other serious illness.

Car insurance seems cheap enough. Why but why can we not do the same with health insurance? Car insurance is only for accidents. The moment car insurance starts paying for car wash and tune up's , the premium will sky rocket along with oil tuneup prices. I don't know how we ended up with health insurance paying for regular doctors visits ! I though insurance was only for catastrophy because insurance by design is flawed system ( encourages waste and bloat) but is a necessary evil for spreading risk for big catastrophies.

Bap33 says

I am suggesting this. If you need a doc, you pay for it. If I need a doc, I pay for it. If you feel like paying for someone else, do it.

How do I decide that I'm going to pay for it? What you're suggesting is that the doctors can just charge whatever we like, and we have no choice but to pay their prices. You do not get an option to negotiate when you're being rushed to an emergency room. You're presenting yet another pointless, unrealistic, bullshit "solution". You might as well suggest that doctors just work for free and that medical equipment companies operate as non profits.

Recently there was a segement on WCVB's Chronicle that talked to providers and writers about health care. In terms of the concept of having MRI machines at say..walmart. here's what they kinda said There is HUGE pressure at hospitals and other providers of health care to use or having the latest technology. It's just want people want. Medical technology advances but it's not always needed. And some act as if they want a quick fix constantly and for no real reason other than simply being there. "MRI’s aren’t advanced technology it’s been paid for thousands of times over, and there’s no reason why LG, Soyo or GPX can’t make one for $199.00" Technology works on the aspect of making something better than the competition...not cheaper! GPX can't make a decent cd player so I doubt they'd be trusted to make a MRI. However if you really want to see a large player in electronics look at Haier...they have a toe in north america...but they have a footprint the size of a elephant in china. Having said this though there's nothing wrong with breaking down some of the barriers for health care to make things run faster. Why should someone have to see a doctor to get a perscription? Recently in my state we allowed drug stores to have walk in clinics...does it really take a doctor to tell if someone has the flu rather than a cold? Of course the AMA was against this but too bad. Doctors shouldn't have a monopoly over the whole industry.

Because it's easy to make fun of when you mention 1017 pages. Of course, people would ridicule a bill that is one page as suggested. The truth is, big insurance doesn't want healthcare reform and has its butt buddy Fox news doing its best to incite the people. We need it, but will we get it?

Well, you can get a Philips-GyroScan-T5-III MRI machine on ebay for $74,999.99 (note the creative pricing). This appears to be a 1995 model, but clearly these machines are not cheap, even 15 year old ones. OTOH, if a new machine costs 500k (pick a number) and you have to pay 10% interest + writedowns per year, it would be 50k/year or $200/day if used 5 days/week, just the rough capital costs.

Having said this though there’s nothing wrong with breaking down some of the barriers for health care to make things run faster. Why should someone have to see a doctor to get a perscription? Recently in my state we allowed drug stores to have walk in clinics…does it really take a doctor to tell if someone has the flu rather than a cold? Of course the AMA was against this but too bad. Doctors shouldn’t have a monopoly over the whole industry. The republicans never bitch about losing thier "FREEDOM" to doctors. they want everybody out of thier life except the doctors lobby and insurance lobby.Anybody with normal brain can cleary see that republicans only cry when they see that something has to be "shared" or if thier so called "freedom" to exploit/keep the loot/dicriminate/ is taken away.

Bap33 says

Just like the computers of 1995, they worked just fine.

I'm going to assume here that you know very, very little about technology. You wouldn't say something so stupid if you did.

As far as health care, Why doesn't anybody get doctors involved. It seem like most are unknowledgable where the money is going. Whether we privatize or socialize medicine we will still have the cost issue because of the beaucracy and overhead. But, it will just cost more being run by the government. I would love socialized medicine however. That would allow me to quit my job and do free lance work. By the way, that's the real reason why corps do not want socialized medicine.

$MoneyGrubber$ says

I would love socialized medicine however. That would allow me to quit my job and do free lance work. By the way, that’s the real reason why corps do not want socialized medicine.

Interesting. But I wonder if companies like Boeing would prefer a NHS style medical system. Airbus currently has a cost advantage over Boeing since Airbus does not have to pay healthcare for employees. Of course, taxes for companies like Boeing may be increased to cover the costs of an NHS system.

“”They don’t run those ads in California because we actually have enlightened people here and it’s unnecessary.”" I live in Cali. Thanks for the love bro. You must have been standing behind the door when they handed out "Enlightenment"

hanskung23 says : a radiation oncologist, and there are far too few of us to go around for all of the people who need radiation treatment. Until they could train enough new residents to take our places, we could hold a virtual monopology on cancer care, basically charging whatever we wanted to treat you. We would make out like bandits. Hell, we could all retire after a few years. Doctors don’t hate insurance because of all the paperwork; they hate it because the reimbursement rates are low. You open medicine to a truly free market, and the shit hits the fan. A truly free market does not contraint supply! If its a truly free market, there won't be so much red tape on training a doctor or on allowing foriegn students to come to US. There is so much red tape in the supply chain that its almost choking the industry. In any free market, when the price of a service goes up, many people start training for providing the service and cost goes down....it somehow does not happen in medical field because thier is so much licencing and restrictions on medical schools. In many countries, a primary care doctor earns the same as an engineer and specialist earn same as specialized engineers. This is not true in US because barriers to supply of engineers has been reduced ( thanks to corporations lobby ) but doctors is not. Its ridiculous that a medical service ( provided by one human to another) is not scaling with population. If there was some scarce resource in the equation, it would have been more believable. Because relative intelligence in a population does not change with time , relative salaries should not change drastically for a long time unless something is broken.

Now, granted, this does not explain why we shouldn’t let more foreign medical graduates in. Certainly, there are many quality foreign students who could fill these spots. But I think this is a separate issue that gets into issues of immigration, the role of a sovereign nation in protecting its own, and a lot more complicated political issues. I mean, yes, you could open the floodgates to physicians from other countries, but then what is going to stop the government from doing that for all sectors of jobs? And will Americans be okay when all of a sudden every doctor is a foreigner? I don’t mean this jokingly either; Americans are very xenophobic. So, I don’t know. I would say this, though: seeing what I’ve seen, I would definitely take more foreign graduates over an increased supply of new American doctors. If it can happen in engineering why not medical field ? is medical field a holy cow we should not touch OR is it because the AMA is too big to fight ? If there were no immigrant engineers in companies we would be paying $300K for an entry level engineer and thus $2000 for an ipod. The fact is that we have allowed immigrants to work for cheap for all services except doctors which makes it look like doctors are expensive relative to other jobs. If there were no immigrants in all other fields (including oursourcing ie..remote workers), all the services in US would have been expensive and nobody would have complained about why doctors salaries are so high. by opening the flood gates to all other service sectors but protecting doctors, we are creating a privileged class.

Your average obese, hypertensive, diabetic, smoker who is noncompliant with his medications has done more than enough to dissuade people from going into medicine You are free to quit going to medicine.There are many excellent doctors in another countries who would love to do that job for that salary.

well thats what happened in engineering...whats so special about medicine. BTW, we are not talking about dictatorships here. most countries cannot stop people from emmigrating.

Yes, we are free to quit practicing medicine. And then you are free to take your chances going under the knife with an underpaid, underqualified physician, once you find that all of the best talent went to another profession where they are paid appropriately for their efforts. Hopefully those excellent doctors from other countries will be able to communicate with you in a language and culture that puts you at ease, and you will somehow be able to confirm their quality of training, previous board actions etc. before you put your life in their hands. Maybe you can get a jump on things by flying to another country for that medical care. But don't use a respected US airline with highly trained and paid pilots, I understand that you can get a real good deal on some of the no frills airlines in the former Soviet Union. You may be just trying to incite an emotional response, but unfortunately your mentality is common.

August 29th, 2009 at 12:31 am | top | quote | email this Yes, we are free to quit practicing medicine. And then you are free to take your chances going under the knife with an underpaid, underqualified physician, once you find that all of the best talent went to another profession where they are paid appropriately for their efforts. Hopefully those excellent doctors from other countries will be able to communicate with you in a language and culture that puts you at ease, and you will somehow be able to confirm their quality of training, previous board actions etc. before you put your life in their hands. If somebody is uncomfortable with a doctor who cannot communicate or if cannot prove his credentials, they are free to choose american doctors...whats the problem. but we atleast give the consumers the FREEDOM OF CHOICE. If you believe that american people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves then you are going down the path of soviet union.

“Hi everybody! I’m Dr. Nick! If you want to have an exclusive surgery with me, Dr. Nick Riviera, dial 1-800-DOCTORB. The extra B is for BARGAIN” US consumers are smart enough to say FUCKOFF DR.Nick ! Its ultimately the consumers who should decide whom they want the service from not the fucking govt. Generally, when it comes to life and death most people will go for good doctors....duh ! The training and expertise automatically gets driven by DEMAND by consumers ( patients). you doctors are talking like realtors. I heard exact same arguments when we use to talk of using 1% commission realtors or redfin.gosh so much similarity. " you are talking about the biggest investment of your life and you want to use someone who not qualified enough to represent you"...etc The entire world works on the fact that most people know whats good for them.

homeowner_for ever_san jose says

August 29th, 2009 at 12:31 am | top | quote | email this Yes, we are free to quit practicing medicine. And then you are free to take your chances going under the knife with an underpaid, underqualified physician, once you find that all of the best talent went to another profession where they are paid appropriately for their efforts. Hopefully those excellent doctors from other countries will be able to communicate with you in a language and culture that puts you at ease, and you will somehow be able to confirm their quality of training, previous board actions etc. before you put your life in their hands. If somebody is uncomfortable with a doctor who cannot communicate or if cannot prove his credentials, they are free to choose american doctors…whats the problem. but we atleast give the consumers the FREEDOM OF CHOICE. If you believe that american people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves then you are going down the path of societ union.

So the goal is to design a system where we have the freedom to choose good doctors or crappy doctors? This "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" bit seems like a strange angle on the issue. Sure- you can checkout Yelp before you get your brakes changed, but when you get broadsided at high speed in an intersection, and are rushed to the ED, or collapse with a giant heart attack or stroke, or get diagnosed with an unusually aggressive cancer where treatment should be initiated within days, etc. etc. how much time and desire will you have to be start trying to figure out if your care has been entrusted to Dr. Doright or Dr. Numnuts? What will you value most at that point, freedom of choice, or peace of mind?

It's easy enough to say that the US should go to a single payer model and pay everyone medicare rates, but that would immediately bankrupt 99% of medical groups. Groups such as the Mayo Clinic who gets hundreds of millions in charitable contributions or groups in the middle of nowhere like Grand Junction where practice costs are low are constantly shown as models of groups that can survive on medicare rates. Great, that's the 1%. All groups in the Bay Area would immediately go out of business. Most private insurance companies pay 3 times what medicare pays!!! There are some private practice physicians who survive in this area on medicare rates by running a bare bones operation with no nurses(just medical assistants) and are just patient mills where they see 80-90 patients a day, spending 1-2 minutes with patients in some cases. So anyone who thinks that going to a single payer system will force doctors to spend more time with patients have no idea what their talking about. Most will go out of business and those that won't will provide crappy care.

homeowner_for ever_san jose says

“Hi everybody! I’m Dr. Nick! If you want to have an exclusive surgery with me, Dr. Nick Riviera, dial 1-800-DOCTORB. The extra B is for BARGAIN” US consumers are smart enough to say FUCKOFF DR.Nick ! Its ultimately the consumers who should decide whom they want the service from not the fucking govt. Generally, when it comes to life and death most people will go for good doctors….duh ! The training and expertise automatically gets driven by DEMAND by consumers ( patients). you doctors are talking like realtors. I heard exact same arguments when we use to talk of using 1% commission realtors or redfin.gosh so much similarity. ” you are talking about the biggest investment of your life and you want to use someone who not qualified enough to represent you”…etc No disrespect meant to you homeowner_forever, but you are starting to sound a lot like that average obese, hypertensive noncompliant guy that we referred to a few posts back...

homeowner_for ever_san jose, wow, looking at the comments you made, I can see that arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. So you're saying that a realtor(my aunt who never even graduated from high school-in anther country) is like a doctor, someone who has trained for 15-20 years in some cases? Ok, the next time you need a bypass surgery, I want to see you get one done by someone who's never finished high school. Yeah right, you're probably the type that will DEMAND that you get your surgery by no other than someone at UCSF or Stanford!

hey pbenson ...you are arguing like you have something to loose when there is freedom of choice Our history is littered with arguments from people like you who opposed freedom of choice when thier special status was threatened. its hard to fight a case against freedom of choice...common ( atleast not in US) the case you are describing,most people will go for a hospital with PROVEN reputation..duh ! it forces hospitals to work hard to create a brand and distinguise themselves from others. this also creates competition and reduces wastage.for silly stuff, people will go for a cheaper less trained doctors. How much are doctors struggling in this system to create a name and brand for themselves ? are they not protected by barrier of entry ?

homeowner_for ever_san jose says

hey pbenson …you are arguing like you have something to loose when there is freedom of choice Our history is littered with arguments from people like you who opposed freedom of choice when thier special status was threatened. its hard to fight a case against freedom of choice…common ( atleast not in US) the case you are describing,most people will go for a hospital with PROVEN reputation..duh ! it forces hospitals to work hard to create a brand and distinguise themselves from others. this also creates competition and reduces wastage.for silly stuff, people will go for a cheaper less trained doctors. How much are doctors struggling in this system to create a name and brand for themselves ? are they not protected by barrier of entry ?

Firstly you are referring to a *hospital* with a proven reputation, which does not always equate to the individual physician. But more importantly, you seem to be unaware of the current ED overcrowding crisis, diversion, and the fact that you often will *Not* be able to select your hospital of choice, rather you will be taken to a hospital that is not full-

Ok, the next time you need a bypass surgery, I want to see you get one done by someone who’s never finished high school. Yeah right, you’re probably the type that will DEMAND that you get your surgery by no other than someone at UCSF or Stanford! ARE YOU A MORON...don't you understand that given a choice , i would prefer a good doctor from UCSF for my bypass surgery..most people will.ALL i am saying is that there should be FREEDOM OF CHOICE.BTW, i believe you are the type of person who takes appointment with the ENT surgeon for a flu ( which i wouldn't)

hanskung23 is completely correct that even with the strict standards, there are some really really bad doctors out there so opening the flood gates will make things even worse. And I also know a bunch of people who just barely didn't get in that absolutely do not have the intelligence and moral character to take care of another human being, let alone an animal. But I disagree that most go into medicine for the money. I certainly did not. I was considering going into investment banking, which most of my college friends did and many have already retired after making literally tens, and some hundreds of millions. But one only has one life and I didn't want to devote my life just to making money. Money in medicine is good(I'm sure that I'm not making the $$ like Mr. Rad Onc-some make millions a year), but most, like myself, want to feel that helping others is a worthy goal.

DT says

hanskung23 is completely correct that even with the strict standards, there are some really really bad doctors out there so opening the flood gates will make things even worse. And I also know a bunch of people who just barely didn’t get in that absolutely do not have the intelligence and moral character to take care of another human being, let alone an animal. But I disagree that most go into medicine for the money. I certainly did not. I was considering going into investment banking, which most of my college friends did and many have already retired after making literally tens, and some hundreds of millions. But one only has one life and I didn’t want to devote my life just to making money. Money in medicine is good(I’m sure that I’m not making the $$ like Mr. Rad Onc-some make millions a year), but most, like myself, want to feel that helping others is a worthy goal.

Agree.