Dermatology VS Economy Crisis
Started by KWTRCSI
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
I'd surmise things are getting rough for those who participate in 100% cosmetic derm.
I'm booked out through July and only getting buisier. This is with ZERO cosmetics- medical derm and oncology only (thank god). I think this is a common misconception among medical students. i know quite a few derms that do NO cosmetics. It's great shutting patients down when they get to the "but these wrinkles, etc"- I just say sorry, then send them to the Gyn/ Fp/ IM, NATROPATH, etc. with cosmetic spas in the area.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Wow that is just disturbing. Does the ND do procedures or just have stake in the spa???
I would surmise that too 😕
This is really encouraging, wish you more success 🙂
Apparently, lipstick sales go up whenever the economy goes down. The rationale behind it is that women start splurging on the smaller things (ex: lipstick rather than purse).
This may be the case with cosmetic dermatology. Plastic surgeons may find themselves hurting as women forgo face lifts for a more attainable botox injection.
I'm guessing that you're panicking about universal health, right? Don't worry about paying off your loans. There are so few dermatologists out there that your practice will still be flush with patients who actually need your help. 😎
I would actually welcome this to some extent. It frustrates me when my classmates look down on derm as a "fluff" specialty. 😡 You'll be glad that we've got your back when you're wondering if that rash is stephen johnson's!
This may be the case with cosmetic dermatology. Plastic surgeons may find themselves hurting as women forgo face lifts for a more attainable botox injection.
I'm guessing that you're panicking about universal health, right? Don't worry about paying off your loans. There are so few dermatologists out there that your practice will still be flush with patients who actually need your help. 😎
I would actually welcome this to some extent. It frustrates me when my classmates look down on derm as a "fluff" specialty. 😡 You'll be glad that we've got your back when you're wondering if that rash is stephen johnson's!
It's interesting, at a recent meeting of my local medical society chapter, there was a discussion about a sharp drop in the AMA membership, and the biggest drop was seen in derm and plastics
i will do my best
There really should be a minimum IQ requirement to post on SDN.
There really should be a minimum IQ requirement to post on SDN.
Someone who has problems with syntax doesn't necessarily have a low IQ. This is likely not this person's first language, and if you were posting in, say, Italian you may make a syntax error or two also.
.....
My issue wasn't with the syntax. It was with the content. The majority of people out there have no insurance and are currently seeking alternative medical treatment? Someone should alert my prelim program with this breaking news, should make for a much more relaxed year.
My take on it was that somehow nancy18am was making it appear that alternative medicine options are free somehow.
Why is it that people would not have a problem paying fee for services to alternative medicine and not to an MD dermie? Seriously...
The next time you are in a grocery store just kindly tell them you will pay 10% the asking cost and that it will be paid the latest within the next 6 to 8 months. See how far out of the store you get before security hauls you back to the cash register to pay up front at 100% the asking cost.
Why is it that people would not have a problem paying fee for services to alternative medicine and not to an MD dermie? Seriously...
The next time you are in a grocery store just kindly tell them you will pay 10% the asking cost and that it will be paid the latest within the next 6 to 8 months. See how far out of the store you get before security hauls you back to the cash register to pay up front at 100% the asking cost.
Last edited:
N-Surge... the answer to your question, in one word: Entitlement
I guess it depends on your point of view. A lot of people--like, say, the president and people in every other G20 country--think that we ought to come together as a country and treat all sick people regardless of ability to pay. Other people think that society doesn't have any obligation to take care of the sick, and that's OK too, IMHO.
Cosmetic stuff is totally different to me, and Dermies should bill to their hearts' content in that realm.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
In a perfect world that would work just fine.... But, in a "free for everyone" system, for example, does everyone who needs Humira and Remicade get it? How would we be able to afford that (just the tip of the iceberg?
What I would like to know is where this stems from. Where and when?
I would think the consumption of calories would be a right as well. Yet no one complains about the price of milk going up along side with that of gas.
It's complicated, but, in essence, you decide what we as a society are morally obligated to do and then you make it work. We stop covering so many unnecessary CTs & MRIs, reduce physicians' obligations to practice defensive medicine, and cut administration costs big time. Taiwan's health care system has cut administration costs to 2% and their satisfaction rate with health care is off the charts. It can be done, and I hope it will be done. Remicade and Humira can be had for everyone who needs them, as can all the other expensive treatments we can think of. Many countries have successful universal health care. We have universal health care too, but it's mainly run through ERs and is the least efficient, most expensive plan in the world. We can do better and people with real derm issues can be treated too.
Try googling "price of dairy." There actually are tons of interesting issues around dairy, and there are a lot of price issues currently. Prices of dairy have been falling, btw, not rising.
This "entitlement" comes from a lot of places, including our Declaration of Independence in the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. What good is government if it can't grant people basic things like having personal freedoms, education, and life?
Do you guys get worked up about public school? It's not a perfect system, but it's a whole lot better than allowing some people to be educated while questioning others' inconvenient "sense of entitlement" when they are upset that they don't have the means to be educated. It's not a dissimilar situation with health care. Things won't be perfect with government health care, but is it really right to have a group of millions of people with real illnesses that we, as a society, refuse to treat because they can't afford it? No way.
If you feel that way, then go volunteer your time for free.
Or better yet, I would be happy to hire you into my business and pay you minimum wage for your medical services.
The government has no right to dictate prices and incomes to physicians.
Milk, not dairy in general. Gas is also no longer at $4/gallon as well. Milk actually tends to follow the price of the low end unleaded gas. Maybe not all the time. But there is a trend.
I don't think anyone here wants to turn away patients who need a break. Volunteering 1 to 2 evenings a month can helps those strapped. Student ran free clinics happen and are a great way to help these people as well as learn through practice under the guidance of physicians.
Thing is, why are those who work, pay taxes, and cannot afford health insurance getting screwed while those who refuse to work or are working under the table (tax free) are getting handouts paid for by the aforementioned hard working citizens via Medicaid? Sorry, but I am not an advocate of said system.
👍👍
It amazes and annoys the living hell out of me the ease with which many of my classmates are willing to surrender the independence and the ability to get compensated fairly in their future profession to some governmental dim wit because they are in it to help patients and they don't care about $$$
Seems like we have a debate brewing....hopefully we can all behave ourselves... 
Dermguy... "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has no implication whatsoever to healthcare issue. The right to life and liberty means that the government will no hang you or stick you in prison without just cause. The right to the pursuit of happiness means that the government will not actively impair your abilities of acheiving personal happiness and success for yourself. Remember, the Declaration was a document created to declare independance, not to ensure the government provided services for the common man. If anything, part of its goal of the document was to get government out of everyday life as much as possible. The closest thing I can think of that "empowers" the government to become involved in so many issues would be the "elastic clause" in the constitution.
Secondly, the suggestion that allowing for universal healthcare will "cut administrative costs big time" seems unreasonable to me... It seems to me that the government itself is infamous for its massive administrative costs...
Why can we not create some form of hybrid, free-market system of providing healthcare, with some form of a government subsidized "safety net" ensuring that immediately necessary care is able to be provided by all?
Dermguy... "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has no implication whatsoever to healthcare issue. The right to life and liberty means that the government will no hang you or stick you in prison without just cause. The right to the pursuit of happiness means that the government will not actively impair your abilities of acheiving personal happiness and success for yourself. Remember, the Declaration was a document created to declare independance, not to ensure the government provided services for the common man. If anything, part of its goal of the document was to get government out of everyday life as much as possible. The closest thing I can think of that "empowers" the government to become involved in so many issues would be the "elastic clause" in the constitution.
Secondly, the suggestion that allowing for universal healthcare will "cut administrative costs big time" seems unreasonable to me... It seems to me that the government itself is infamous for its massive administrative costs...
Why can we not create some form of hybrid, free-market system of providing healthcare, with some form of a government subsidized "safety net" ensuring that immediately necessary care is able to be provided by all?
Dermguy... "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has no implication whatsoever to healthcare issue. The right to life and liberty means that the government will no hang you or stick you in prison without just cause. The right to the pursuit of happiness means that the government will not actively impair your abilities of acheiving personal happiness and success for yourself. Does that mean to you that we should close all public schools because we should be providing our education for ourselves? I appreciate your opinion, and I recognize your position, but I agree with all other western countries and not you in the fact that the government needs to do more to ensure good healthcare for its peopleRemember, the Declaration was a document created to declare independance, not to ensure the government provided services for the common man. If anything, part of its goal of the document was to get government out of everyday life as much as possible. The closest thing I can think of that "empowers" the government to become involved in so many issues would be the "elastic clause" in the constitution. Does this mean we should go back to a government of the 18th century? They didn't provide public education, highway/road maintenance (there was not even a single gravel highway south of Washington D.C. until after 1800), national parks, public health services, etc., etc., etc. Government's role has changed through the centuries, and I reject the idea that laissez faire is the ultimate policy for everything--look at what deregulation did to our economy over the last two years? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree
Secondly, the suggestion that allowing for universal healthcare will "cut administrative costs big time" seems unreasonable to me... Really? Really? Every other first-world country provides much better healthcare with much better outcome measurements at much cheaper costs--ESPECIALLY IN ADMINISTRATIVE COSTSIt seems to me that the government itself is infamous for its massive administrative costs... It may seem like that to you, but the date do not support your assumption.
Why can we not create some form of hybrid, free-market system of providing healthcare, with some form of a government subsidized "safety net" ensuring that immediately necessary care is able to be provided by all?And then you say this, and it seems like we agree on a lot. I'm all for compromise, and a hybrid system may be pretty darn good. It's heartening to hear people recognize that people without insurance aren't just lazy people who just want a government handout. I honestly respect your opinions, and we'll just have to agree to disagree about some of the roles of government in the end, I guess. I have more of a European view of the role of government in health care because I think in the long run it's cheaper, better, less anxiety-provoking, less bankruptcy-producing (60% of bankruptcies are healthcare-related), and fairer to primary care people, who deserve to make a BUNCH more money than they do. You posters/readers who support pure laissez-faire economics for healthcare should realize how screwed primary care gets and re-think your position.[/QUOTE]
Secondly, the suggestion that allowing for universal healthcare will "cut administrative costs big time" seems unreasonable to me... Really? Really? Every other first-world country provides much better healthcare with much better outcome measurements at much cheaper costs--ESPECIALLY IN ADMINISTRATIVE COSTSIt seems to me that the government itself is infamous for its massive administrative costs... It may seem like that to you, but the date do not support your assumption.
Why can we not create some form of hybrid, free-market system of providing healthcare, with some form of a government subsidized "safety net" ensuring that immediately necessary care is able to be provided by all?And then you say this, and it seems like we agree on a lot. I'm all for compromise, and a hybrid system may be pretty darn good. It's heartening to hear people recognize that people without insurance aren't just lazy people who just want a government handout. I honestly respect your opinions, and we'll just have to agree to disagree about some of the roles of government in the end, I guess. I have more of a European view of the role of government in health care because I think in the long run it's cheaper, better, less anxiety-provoking, less bankruptcy-producing (60% of bankruptcies are healthcare-related), and fairer to primary care people, who deserve to make a BUNCH more money than they do. You posters/readers who support pure laissez-faire economics for healthcare should realize how screwed primary care gets and re-think your position.[/QUOTE]
You think your classmates going into primary care will get compensated fairly? Primary care gets screwed, and those docs going into it deserve subsidization of their incomes for all the crap they have to put up with. They government should step in and increase primary care income.
I'm sorry to hear your impression of the uninsured. It sounds like you really haven't had any experience working with the uninsured. I have spent medical school mostly at a large county hospital and in my experience most of the uninsured pay taxes but have no opportunity for tax refunds because of their immigration status. In other words, they are in tax brackets that should get 100% of their tax money refunded, but because of ignorance or immigration status, most of them get 0% of their taxes back. They wait 24+ hours for both routine and serious issues including (as I have seen personally) appendicitis, the worst tophaceous gout you could imagine, stroke, MI, the biggest strangulated hernia you've ever seen, wet gangrene, etc., etc., etc. The uninsured I have seen tend to be people who risk life and limb to provide the most meager of existences for themselves and their family, can't afford health insurance, and yet, in the end, by using the ER for everything put tremendous pressure on our system by the consumption of time, money, and all kinds of other resources. If we provided preventative health care to people like this we would save money in the long run, fulfill (what I see as) a moral obligation, and allow providers in the ER to treat disease that actually should go to the ER and give primary care doctors the opportunity to provide more and better primary care to whomever walks through their door.
I can see we'll just have to agree to disagree, and I respect your opinion. I do, however, take exception to your characterization of the typical uninsured patient.
While this is true, it's not without compromise. There is a rationing of care that I just don't see how Americans could accept. (e.g. During my last rotation, the 98 year old lady with the acute right-sided hemiparetic stroke would not have been sent to the ICU)
I'm not saying I want to work for free. Thanks, but I don't want you to pay me minimum wage either. Do you think primary care docs make a good amount of money? Do you like what the free market has done to them? You don't want the government to try and help them to make ends meet? I'm sorry you feel that way.
I think the government has a responsibility, a moral obligation, to help people living in the U.S. to get access to healthcare, just like exists in every other country. Other countries have much better outcomes than we do while spending TONS less. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I'm not sure that I agree that the 98-year-old would not have been sent to the ICU. I guess it depends on the particulars of the case and which country we're talking about.
As far as the "rationing argument" goes, it's a common one. I think we all support "rationing" of health care, at least on some level. Should everybody that wants full-body MRI and can pay for it in cash get one? Hell, no. That would lead to a lot more problems than benefits. Likewise, lots of physicians do things that have been demonstrated to be ineffective, expensive, and just plain wrong. We should stop doing those things.
Likewise, we actually ration more in the U.S. than a lot of other countries do. We do not have the access that other countries do. Here's an article if you want to read about it. Essentially, the U.S. has fewer physicians, nurses, hospitals, and imaging machines per capita that the mean of other western countries. If anything, we have rationing already going on and we need to fix it.
What about waiting lists? Yeah, some countries have waiting lists. Others don't. Do waiting lists have a positive effect on cost control? I don't think we know. What we do know is that they don't have a negative effect on certain procedures like elective cholecystectomy. We don't have to use them, but it's an option and I think it's incorrect to assume that the use of a waiting list automatically equals inferior healthcare.
I guess it probably does depend on which country. In speaking with my senior resident (an IMG who had completed an IM residency back in England), it appears there was an age cutoff for ICU admissions in England. This is all 2ndhand info of course so I'm not sure how accurate this is. I too find it hard to believe someone who really does need admission to the ICU and is 2 months (for argument's sake) past this arbitrary cutoff would have to suffer without adequate care.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I agree with you that stupid stuff like a precise age cutoff does not belong anywhere in healthcare. No system is perfect, so I would not be surprised at all to find such BS in some systems. Thanks for sharing the anecdote. It's definitely something to think about.
I find it extremely wasteful that we have a "stay alive at all costs" attitude when it comes to patients of any age or comorbidity.
A 98 year old in the ICU is essentially a long drawn-out death waiting to happen. What is the probability of a 98 year old stroke victim leaving the hospital? Probably very low. Compare that to the probability of them ending up ventilator dependent and septic, and dying weeks later. The latter option, while obviously fiscally wasteful, is also inhumane.
I can agree with an "age-cutoff" if the data shows that such a cutoff is beneficial.
Death and dying is hard for both patients and their families, but there comes situations where physicians cannot aid recovery, and can instead only hope to lessen the pain of dying.
Hey,
Saw Obongo/Obama today yes it is derogatory!!!!! Talking in my small town...... He really wants national health care and guess who else was there? No other than the sick fat basturd Michael Moore......
I worked a student ran free clinic throughout my 4 years of medical school. I actually know a bit about working with the uninsured.
What I said regarding the uninsured American is truth. They pay their taxes/dues and get screwed in the end, left with no insurance. I am not sure I am following what it is about my view of the uninsured working American you don't see eye to eye with me on. There is a certain level of income where one is no longer eligible for Medicaid and yet unable to afford private health insurance. It is these hard working people who are getting hurt big time. Am I wrong?
Furthermore, no one is saying we shouldn't put more towards prevention. I am all for that. It would save our country tons of money. Not as much as congress has wasted on another unmentioned industry (billions). But it would save some.
Last edited:
From what I understand, it isn't the free market that has done this too them. It is the government, e.g. Medicare/Medicaid coding and billing... The government has a responsibility to stop screwing over the physician thinking that the patients won't in turn get screwed. This is what has happened, from what I know. Am I wrong?
We would all love to help all patients. I don't think anyone here would disagree with this. And I hope we will be able to do this. But I am sorry, the government had its shot at this and it has failed miserably. Private insurance companies are now trying to use the Medicare/Medicaid schedules as their measure of fees. How well do you think this is going to go over?
It was nice to see that the AMA thinks that what congress is trying to pull is suspect...
All in all, I am glad we are having this discussion. It is a REALLY hard topic and I do not claim to have all of the answers for how exactly to improve our current situations. Are there even any physicians involved in the current legislation?
There are several reasons why US healthcare is more expensive than other countries without better outcomes:
1. The US population is older, sicker, more obese and less likely to take care of health problems early.
2. Medical school education is by FAR the most expensive to personally fund in the US; thus it is natural physician here demand higher compensation.
3. Litigation is more costly, more frequent and less efficient than other countries. Defensive medicine is more rampant and ingrained into our training.
4. The US has more (illegal) immigration than other industrialized nations.
5. I agree administration costs with separate computer systems and separate insurance processes is out of hand.
6. The US develops more new drugs, more new technology and more new healthcare innovations than any other industrialized nation. Inventing is expensive. Copying is cheap.
It is academically weak to say that our increased costs are due to non-adoption of socialized medicine just because we are more expensive than other nations that have socialized medicine. Thats like saying "people who get CT scans die 10% of the time while people who dont get scanned die 1% of the time -- therefore CT scans are killing people."
1. The US population is older, sicker, more obese and less likely to take care of health problems early.
2. Medical school education is by FAR the most expensive to personally fund in the US; thus it is natural physician here demand higher compensation.
3. Litigation is more costly, more frequent and less efficient than other countries. Defensive medicine is more rampant and ingrained into our training.
4. The US has more (illegal) immigration than other industrialized nations.
5. I agree administration costs with separate computer systems and separate insurance processes is out of hand.
6. The US develops more new drugs, more new technology and more new healthcare innovations than any other industrialized nation. Inventing is expensive. Copying is cheap.
It is academically weak to say that our increased costs are due to non-adoption of socialized medicine just because we are more expensive than other nations that have socialized medicine. Thats like saying "people who get CT scans die 10% of the time while people who dont get scanned die 1% of the time -- therefore CT scans are killing people."
Bingo!
The US health system is ranked so poorly not because we have poorer physicians or less effective medicines, etc but because we have a disgusting and unhealthy lifestyle. People eat McDonalds 7 times a week, don't exercise, smoke, drink, don't manage their diabetes, etc. It's not our health care that's at fault, it's the American sense of entitlement that we should be able to do whatever we want and then doctors should be able to fix the consequences with a one time pill.
Now with that said, I'm a strong supporter of one payer healthcare because I think it can cut out the huge amount of waste that goes on in medicine and is largely responsible for the huge cost in healthcare. If you've ever worked in a VA hospital, you know that they have 100% electronic medical records: progress notes, prescriptions, orders, etc. This helps streamline healthcare delivery and I believe cuts down on errors because there's never any issue of not being able to read what someone wrote. The greatest thing about the VA EMR is that it's universal. So if someone gets a CT in CA and then comes to the VA in Massachusetts, you can look at that CT, you don't need to repeat it. So much money is wasted repeating tests and labs that patients already had done at other hospitals and this could be avoided with universal healthcare records.
Also, a onepayer system means medicine won't be run for profit and therefore a lot of the BS paperwork that currently exists, and the huge office staff that's needed to hound insurance companies for reimbursement will cease to exist. Furthermore, if the government and consequently tax payers are the ones picking up the tab, it is likely that malpractice will get severely curtailed.
I'm not a strong believer in the abilities of our government, but I do see it as the only way to cut out the parasites that are ruining medicine by inflating its cost.
Now with that said, I'm a strong supporter of one payer healthcare because I think it can cut out the huge amount of waste that goes on in medicine and is largely responsible for the huge cost in healthcare. If you've ever worked in a VA hospital, you know that they have 100% electronic medical records: progress notes, prescriptions, orders, etc. This helps streamline healthcare delivery and I believe cuts down on errors because there's never any issue of not being able to read what someone wrote. The greatest thing about the VA EMR is that it's universal. So if someone gets a CT in CA and then comes to the VA in Massachusetts, you can look at that CT, you don't need to repeat it. So much money is wasted repeating tests and labs that patients already had done at other hospitals and this could be avoided with universal healthcare records.
Also, a onepayer system means medicine won't be run for profit and therefore a lot of the BS paperwork that currently exists, and the huge office staff that's needed to hound insurance companies for reimbursement will cease to exist. Furthermore, if the government and consequently tax payers are the ones picking up the tab, it is likely that malpractice will get severely curtailed.
I'm not a strong believer in the abilities of our government, but I do see it as the only way to cut out the parasites that are ruining medicine by inflating its cost.
4. The US has more (illegal) immigration than other industrialized nations.
Not true. Many other "1st world" countries have an immigration problem- UK, France, Germany. The difference is that they have a socialist healthcare system which plugs these immigrants in & takes care of them. Drs are not overpaid. Judges give fair decisions on malpractice issues & clinical medicine is practiced in hospitals with rational decisions-not a CT/MRI for every headache without clinical findings or abdominal pain. Yes things are rationed based on clinical problems. You may end up witing 6-8 months for a hip replacement. But even that is partially due to physician mischief. They delay operations & do not train sufficient Fellows to keep an artificial shortage of their specialties. If you calculated it per capita, the European "1st World" has more issues with immigration than the US as it is close to the 3rd World & more accessable.
This is like saying, America is the leader of the "Free World"; a delusion created by the US media & representatives/White House for the underinformed US citizens. Please go out in the Free World & ask them if they even care what the US does. Most of them (barring the UK & Europeans who indirectly benefit from US foreign policy) detest US policy & interference in their countries. Besides what is the "leader of the Free World" doing playing hand in glove with despots like- the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Emiratis, Pinochet, Noriega, Stroessner, the Argentine military junta, Baby Doc, Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam, Bin Laden (before he turned against the US), Pakistan (a terrorist beehive solely supported by US aid & will collapse in 6 months if the aid is stopped) to name a few.
What I mean is if healthcare as it is today is not rectified, it will come to bite us within 5 years. It has driven behemoth like Chrysler & GM to bankrupcy & driven most US companies to China & India. It has (partially in conjunction with the housing crisis & the stock market collapse) created a 10-12% joblessness in the country. The US has been a net debter to the World since the late 1970s (mainly to the Chinese & the Arabs-about a trillion dollars) who support all the loans taken by this country. They will start asking for their pound of flesh soon.One can take a drive from Milwaukee to Buffalo to see how the economy is hit. This is just because anything made here is made in Asia 3-4 times cheaper than in the US. If you are someone who doesnt have a job or food to put on the table, would you go to the local clinic to have youe BP & cholesterol checked for $150!!! Just like Al Qaida & Bin Ladin (US props made for US foreign policy self interests) came back to harm this country, this kind of blind pursuit of self-interest is coming to bite back the healthcare industry in the future. A readjustment is needed & coming soon-whether you like it or not.
5. I agree administration costs with separate computer systems and separate insurance processes is out of hand.
6. The US develops more new drugs, more new technology and more new healthcare innovations than any other industrialized nation. Inventing is expensive. Copying is cheap.
These statements are true.
Not true. Many other "1st world" countries have an immigration problem- UK, France, Germany. The difference is that they have a socialist healthcare system which plugs these immigrants in & takes care of them. Drs are not overpaid. Judges give fair decisions on malpractice issues & clinical medicine is practiced in hospitals with rational decisions-not a CT/MRI for every headache without clinical findings or abdominal pain. Yes things are rationed based on clinical problems. You may end up witing 6-8 months for a hip replacement. But even that is partially due to physician mischief. They delay operations & do not train sufficient Fellows to keep an artificial shortage of their specialties. If you calculated it per capita, the European "1st World" has more issues with immigration than the US as it is close to the 3rd World & more accessable.
This is like saying, America is the leader of the "Free World"; a delusion created by the US media & representatives/White House for the underinformed US citizens. Please go out in the Free World & ask them if they even care what the US does. Most of them (barring the UK & Europeans who indirectly benefit from US foreign policy) detest US policy & interference in their countries. Besides what is the "leader of the Free World" doing playing hand in glove with despots like- the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Emiratis, Pinochet, Noriega, Stroessner, the Argentine military junta, Baby Doc, Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam, Bin Laden (before he turned against the US), Pakistan (a terrorist beehive solely supported by US aid & will collapse in 6 months if the aid is stopped) to name a few.
What I mean is if healthcare as it is today is not rectified, it will come to bite us within 5 years. It has driven behemoth like Chrysler & GM to bankrupcy & driven most US companies to China & India. It has (partially in conjunction with the housing crisis & the stock market collapse) created a 10-12% joblessness in the country. The US has been a net debter to the World since the late 1970s (mainly to the Chinese & the Arabs-about a trillion dollars) who support all the loans taken by this country. They will start asking for their pound of flesh soon.One can take a drive from Milwaukee to Buffalo to see how the economy is hit. This is just because anything made here is made in Asia 3-4 times cheaper than in the US. If you are someone who doesnt have a job or food to put on the table, would you go to the local clinic to have youe BP & cholesterol checked for $150!!! Just like Al Qaida & Bin Ladin (US props made for US foreign policy self interests) came back to harm this country, this kind of blind pursuit of self-interest is coming to bite back the healthcare industry in the future. A readjustment is needed & coming soon-whether you like it or not.
5. I agree administration costs with separate computer systems and separate insurance processes is out of hand.
6. The US develops more new drugs, more new technology and more new healthcare innovations than any other industrialized nation. Inventing is expensive. Copying is cheap.
These statements are true.
Last edited:
