Doctors support universal health care: survey

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Ok generally doctors, patients, politicians all agree that the healthcare system needs to change. Healthcare is expensive and it is something that no one wants to pay for out of their own pocket. It should be made mandatory for peoples own good. If i had a choice not to pay for my car insurance i wouldnt. I and many other americans would assume im not going to get into an accident and save myself the money. Well that is the case with health insurance right now, people assume that nothing major is going to happen so why pay the extra money. People will keep assuming that until its too late.

I can agree with you here.
Thats why the government needs to step in. Universal healthcare is not going to force young doctors to switch fields or keep new doctors from coming in. This hasnt happened in any other country, medicine is still one of the most competitive and highest paid fields in Canada and Europe.

Ever lived in Europe? Their outlook on life and lifestyle is 180 degrees the opposite of people in the states.

US physician salaries will never go below these countries because US physicians have greater education debt.

You are correct. However, I don't want US physicians' salaries to come even close to Canadian or European salaries

If it were ever to go below that of Canadian physician salaries than many US physicians will immigrate to Canada, which would make our shortage even more severe.

Physicians will not leave the US to practice elsewhere. The reason they would leave medicine is because of the setting in which they practice. Most physicians in my life that I have worked with and talked to do not enjoy practicing medicine because of managed care. This will only get worse under a socialized system.

The government is not stupid; they will not let this happen.

This is a fairly naive statement.

And as for quality of care is concerned, I think the best solution is to have private and public medicine. If you can pay for private care than youll recieve the best quality. If not than you will have to wait and be provided with mediocre quality. I know this seems unfair but like I said earlier healthcare is expensive and someone has to pay for it, it cannot just be provided.

This practice was illegal in Canada until several years ago. It was also illegal under Hillary's healthcare plan in the early 1990's (one of the reasons it was so heavily ridiculed).

Members don't see this ad.
 
I really enjoy watching Pseudoknot absolutely destroy the piss-poor arguments people are presenting here. Keep up the good work!
 
US physician salaries will never go below these countries because US physicians have greater education debt. If it were ever to go below that of Canadian physician salaries than many US physicians will immigrate to Canada, which would make our shortage even more severe.
You have NO guarantees that physician salaries won't continue to decline, and about as many physicians will head to Canada as there were Democrats headed there after Kerry lost. Meaning: none.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I know mass. has made healthcare mandatory recently. Does anyone have any idea of what effect this has had on their patients and physicians? Are their long wait times? What are the taxes like over there? Are physicians reimbursed any differently? How is Mass. getting money to pay for this? They have some of the top hospitals in that state and it doesn't seem like that is going to change because of this new healthcare plan.
 
You have NO guarantees that physician salaries won't continue to decline, and about as many physicians will head to Canada as there were Democrats headed there after Kerry lost. Meaning: none.

Yea obviously i don't any guarantees, there are no guarantees in life. I am just looking at the fact that in every 1st world country physicians are top 3 when it comes to salary. Lets compare physicians to other careers.
Engineering- outsourcing
PhD- will never be as well off as physicians unless they come up with a research breakthrough
Investment banking- very slim chances of getting into the field no matter how hard you try, high burnout, can lose your job very easily
Lawyers- Again like investment banking luck plays a factor

Physicians are the only ones who will have a job no matter what and a salary higher than any field that requires a degree (by that i mean to exclude fields that require a degree and amount of luck like law and IB)
 
How many teachers, plumbers, police officers, etc. do you know that dropped a half million on their medical degree alone--cause I don't know any.

For the less economically inclined: (($50,000 in loans X 4 years) X Interest) + Opportunity cost of not having a job (($50,000 X 4 years) X Interest) = About a half million without breaking a sweat.
 
How many teachers, plumbers, police officers, etc. do you know that dropped a half million on their medical degree alone--cause I don't know any.

For the less economically inclined: (($50,000 in loans X 4 years) X Interest) + Opportunity cost of not having a job (($50,000 X 4 years) X Interest) = About a half million without breaking a sweat.
Don't forget residency. If I had a phd (or even a masters), I would be making a lot more than $40k/yr for those 3-7 years of residency, so add another $40-50k*4 to that
 
Don't forget residency. If I had a phd (or even a masters), I would be making a lot more than $40k/yr for those 3-7 years of residency, so add another $40-50k*4 to that

Plus PhD's don't pay tuition and get a living allowance, plus residency is like any normal person working two jobs (60-80 hrs/week) with about as ultimate a responsibility as you can have with maybe the exception of an airline pilot or military commander or something to that effect.
 
Plus PhD's don't pay tuition and get a living allowance, plus residency is like any normal person working two jobs (60-80 hrs/week) with about as ultimate a responsibility as you can have with maybe the exception of an airline pilot or military commander or something to that effect.
Living allowance? My friend in Atlanta is getting $35,000 a year to be a PhD student. She couldn't get paid that much right out of college if she had a job with her bachelor's degree.
 
Yea i understand doctors have to pay a debt but half million is a huge exaggeration. Say i decided to become an engineer with a bachelors degree and start at 70K. No loans or anything. So i basically have a 4 year head start and about 150k less in debt. In my first 4 years of work I would not have saved any more than about 30K, the rest will likely have been consumed. So I am 180K ahead of medical students 4 years in. Then medical student starts residency say for 5 years making about 50K. So now I am 280K ahead of the medical student. Now the medical student gets a job for 200K and my salary gets bumped up to 90K. With taxes factored I am probably bringing in 65K and medical student is probably at 130K cash. So if medical student lives off of 65K a year like me and puts the rest in his loan it will take him 4 years and then we'll be even. At that rate Medical student will be around 36-37 years old without a loan and earning double the money I earn. Point i am trying to make is no matter how much high the loans may seem any doctor who plays his cards right will be the richest person in his neighborhood by 40. And even in this scenario 90K was an exaggeration of an engineer with a bachelors degreen and average salary for a doctor is actually about 220K.
 
I don't think making mistakes in one's past makes a person worthy to die. I support the way decisions are made now, based on immediacy of need and likelihood of success. Not that the current method isn't somewhat arbitrary as well, but I don't think it's that easy to define which characteristics make someone more worthy to live or die.

Actually, one of the worst scenarios that I've seen much too often is when a kidney transplant recipient undergoes a successful transplant, then is noncompliant with their immunosuppressive meds and thus soon rejects their new organ. So what happens? They zoom right back up to the top of the list. Where's the justice in that?

Don't get me started on the flaws of UNOS.

Don't forget residency. If I had a phd (or even a masters), I would be making a lot more than $40k/yr for those 3-7 years of residency, so add another $40-50k*4 to that

Or, in my case, $40-50k * 10. :(
 
Yea i understand doctors have to pay a debt but half million is a huge exaggeration. Say i decided to become an engineer with a bachelors degree and start at 70K. No loans or anything. So i basically have a 4 year head start and about 150k less in debt. In my first 4 years of work I would not have saved any more than about 30K, the rest will likely have been consumed. So I am 180K ahead of medical students 4 years in. Then medical student starts residency say for 5 years making about 50K. So now I am 280K ahead of the medical student. Now the medical student gets a job for 200K and my salary gets bumped up to 90K. With taxes factored I am probably bringing in 65K and medical student is probably at 130K cash. So if medical student lives off of 65K a year like me and puts the rest in his loan it will take him 4 years and then we'll be even. At that rate Medical student will be around 36-37 years old without a loan and earning double the money I earn. Point i am trying to make is no matter how much high the loans may seem any doctor who plays his cards right will be the richest person in his neighborhood by 40. And even in this scenario 90K was an exaggeration of an engineer with a bachelors degreen and average salary for a doctor is actually about 220K.
No, here's a very specific breakdown written by a resident I know:

It's quite easy to explain. My best friend John and I graduated from high school together. We both went to college..... me to USC, him to UCLA. We both graduated at 22. I had a B.S. in Kinesiology. He had a B.S. in computer science. I then went to medical school for four years until I was 26. The tuition and fees and expenses came out to $50,000 a year. John started working for Northrop. $55,000 a year starting, but with raises he average $65,000 a year over those four years.

So John made $260,000 dollars salary in his first four years out of college. I paid $220,000. That puts me $480,000 in the hole.

Now, at 26.... I entered internship.. where I got paid $35,000 a year. John got security clearance and promoted.... $90,000 a year...... PLUS his company paid for his masters degreee. Another $55,000 in the hole.

During my residency....... I make on average $45,000 a year for 3 more years...... That is another $135,000 in the hole IF John doesn't get any more pay raises.

So....... I think when I leave residency, I will be $670,000 in the hole compared to my buddy with a 4 year degree. We will both be 30 years old. The thing is........ I have spent ALL of my 20s working my *** OFF....... studying, cramming, doing scut, getting reamed as a resident. I have spent all my days and nights working..... all my free time studying for board exams.... and my time above that in the research labs. Meanwhile, John has been hanging out with our other friends on weekends.... enjoying life way more than me.

So, I am down $670,000. I have traded my youth for my profession. I still have a lifetime of studying to keep up in this ever changing science based field. And now they decrease physician salaries by 10% a year, EVERY YEAR, for the past 8 years? And when they go to socialized healthcare, they want to "contain" physican costs further? Sorry, but that makes me want to go postal. Especially when EVERYONE knows that physician salaries are only a VERY VERY small part of the healthcare budget and that most of the cost goes towards medication, technology, and running hospitals.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
No, here's a very specific breakdown written by a resident I know:

All i can say is the % of doctors driving lexus's is much greater than software engineers. Even in universal healthcare countries like Canada and Europe. Its because stories like these, the government will always keep our salary high.
 
All i can say is the % of doctors driving lexus's is much greater than software engineers. Even in universal healthcare countries like Canada and Europe. Its because stories like these, the government will always keep our salary high.

Amen to that. People also have to see that insurance companies are very powerful son I think a lot of time will pass before universal healthcare but it really worries me that such companies are so powerful since basically they control healthcare. While in principle I'm not very fond of universal healthcare the situation with insurance companies seems unbearable, so I dont know which is worse.
 
Yea i understand doctors have to pay a debt but half million is a huge exaggeration.

When you interview at medical schools they have presentations throughout the day. One of the presentations is financial aid. At one of the medical schools in Boston they said that if we took out the max amount every year (you would have to to afford it in Boston) and paid your loans off in ten years you would end up paying a little more than $500,000. And that is if you paid it off in 10 years...most physicians do not.

It is very apparent from your posts that you trust the government a lot. I have no idea why.
 
but it really worries me that such companies are so powerful since basically they control healthcare.

What in the hell do you think the government is going to do?
 
When you interview at medical schools they have presentations throughout the day. One of the presentations is financial aid. At one of the medical schools in Boston they said that if we took out the max amount every year (you would have to to afford it in Boston) and paid your loans off in ten years you would end up paying a little more than $500,000. And that is if you paid it off in 10 years...most physicians do not.

You hit the nail on the head. It's not the final loan amount that gets you, sure it's often below 500,000. It's the amount you end up paying on top of that due to interest and such. Heck that doesn't even factor in the possibility of having to get PMI without a large down-payment on a house after/during residency that many 30 year old professionals would be able to avoid.

Back on topic, I definitely do not support universal health care. What I do support is a catastrophic care fund paid for by tax dollars which would kick in after say 150,000 of insurance money had been paid out in a given year on a patient. The government could offer this to insurance companies on the condition they provide low-cost rates. Heck the AMA could even lobby for an increase in physician compensation built in to the government's conditions for insurance companies to buy into the program.
 
There seems to be a lot of talk about Universal Healthcare, especially with the dems still contesting the primaries.

I work in public health right now at a top school as an epidemiologist. I think the point that often gets lost is that the end goal should be universal access to care.

Universal Healthcare probably won't improve our current system dramatically, but it will cost a lot of money. What we should be focusing on is establishing a system that emphasizes healthy living and primary care for all. A lot of expense can be avoided with proper up front treatment (ie. late stage cancer/developed resp illness), diagnosing before they progress.

Why insure everyone? It would be far more efficient to cut insurance companies out of the game and to set up government run primary care clinics, where Doc's salaries were subsidized by the government. I'm sure that there are many incentives out there that could be offered to encourage docs to go into these clinics...we should be thinking out of the box on this one.

Seems to me the problem exists in part because doctors gave up autonomy of billing to insurance agencies, lets not increase the role of these companies and compound the problem!

In short, there are a few solutions that both sides should be able to agree on, and they start by emphasizing lifestyle changes and a tiered healthcare system where more people get treated before they wind up in ERs.

IMHO


Look this over WWW.Simplecare.com
 
It is very apparent from your posts that you trust the government a lot. I have no idea why.[/QUOTE]

In all honesty, I would much rather have a free market system, but by the time I become a physician that will be unlikely, I mostly hear negativity about universal healthcare on these boards, I was just trying to find some positives and see how you guys respond to them
 
And even in this scenario 90K was an exaggeration of an engineer with a bachelors degreen and average salary for a doctor is actually about 220K.

Actually for a Chem Eng 70K at graduation is pretty standard now and if you do petro you can get 100+ right out of the gate. I have several friends in my ChemE graduating class making over 100+ now and that will continue to increase the previous CEO of Exxon is a chemical engineer so I guess maybe those guys do catch up. Bottom line there are many other money making fields without the hassle of the government messing their biz.
 
One nice thing about our government is that it is relatively accountable to the public, unlike corporations. I know you'll vehemently disagree with this, of course.

I think the key word you used is relatively. My response was not that I don't trust the government, I do to an extent...it just isn't a blind trust. I was asking premed why he would advocate for socialized medicine (which apparently he is not) if he didn't like people controlling the healthcare system, i.e. insurance companies. Now if there is any organized/governing body that likes to control things that it is involved in, especially when it is invested financially, it is the US government. If you do not agree, just open a history book or read a recent newspaper.
 
In all honesty, I would much rather have a free market system, but by the time I become a physician that will be unlikely, I mostly hear negativity about universal healthcare on these boards, I was just trying to find some positives and see how you guys respond to them

That is a respectable and honest answer. Thank you.
 
That is a respectable and honest answer. Thank you.

Thank you, It kinda sucks that I have to study organic chemistry for the rest of the night knowing that it is for a career that is declining in salary and job satisfaction. Kills all my motivation.
 
Thank you, It kinda sucks that I have to study organic chemistry for the rest of the night knowing that it is for a career that is declining in salary and job satisfaction. Kills all my motivation.

It ain't that bad. Physician salaries in general are not declining in actual dollars and I do think things will probably get better at some point. There will certainly not be any radical changes in our system for many years due to inertia, entrenched interests, and the fact that no one (including Hillary) is proposing any sort of centralized system.

People on this board talk a lot of crap about the money and job satisfaction, but doctors still make a lot of money, have incredible job security, and do work that is meaningful and important. Most doctors I've met wouldn't trade it for anything.

Now I'd better get back to my own all-nighter, as I have phys and immuno exams in five hours...
 
Yea i understand doctors have to pay a debt but half million is a huge exaggeration. Say i decided to become an engineer with a bachelors degree and start at 70K. No loans or anything. So i basically have a 4 year head start and about 150k less in debt. In my first 4 years of work I would not have saved any more than about 30K, the rest will likely have been consumed. So I am 180K ahead of medical students 4 years in. Then medical student starts residency say for 5 years making about 50K. So now I am 280K ahead of the medical student. Now the medical student gets a job for 200K and my salary gets bumped up to 90K. With taxes factored I am probably bringing in 65K and medical student is probably at 130K cash. So if medical student lives off of 65K a year like me and puts the rest in his loan it will take him 4 years and then we'll be even. At that rate Medical student will be around 36-37 years old without a loan and earning double the money I earn. Point i am trying to make is no matter how much high the loans may seem any doctor who plays his cards right will be the richest person in his neighborhood by 40. And even in this scenario 90K was an exaggeration of an engineer with a bachelors degreen and average salary for a doctor is actually about 220K.
For a fair comparison, you should be saving $50k/yr as an engineer. I have $20k/yr in spending money from my loans, so for a fair comparison they can only spend $20k/yr also.

Therefore, by 4 years out, you are $350k ahead as an engineer.
 
It ain't that bad. Physician salaries in general are not declining in actual dollars and I do think things will probably get better at some point. There will certainly not be any radical changes in our system for many years due to inertia, entrenched interests, and the fact that no one (including Hillary) is proposing any sort of centralized system.

People on this board talk a lot of crap about the money and job satisfaction, but doctors still make a lot of money, have incredible job security, and do work that is meaningful and important. Most doctors I've met wouldn't trade it for anything.

Now I'd better get back to my own all-nighter, as I have phys and immuno exams in five hours...
I agree with you on this one pseudoknot. Doctors will always be in the top earners, and if you as a doctor instead of blowing your residual in expensive cars, a rolex, fancy jewels and cell phones, actually save some of it and INVEST you'll be alright. Long term investment, be it in real estate or stocks or bonds will always win you money, if you give it time. You cant expect to invest in the stock market and double your money in a couple of months. Yes some people have doubled in a month but it sure ain't the common thing to happen. Besides doctors will always have a job. So if you are smart about your money and think long term you should be alright. Although we all must admit that it is student loans that are the real bitch and what sets everyone back. Because face it, 150K a year if we didn't have loans to pay is a lot of money, at least for me.
 
One nice thing about our government is that it is relatively accountable to the public, unlike corporations. I know you'll vehemently disagree with this, of course.
So that war over in Iraq....is it popular with the American public? Is our government - which is relatively accountable to us - in the process of withdrawing our troops?


average salary for a doctor is actually about 220K.
No, it's not. You just added about $70,000 to the average salary.
 
So that war over in Iraq....is it popular with the American public? Is our government - which is relatively accountable to us - in the process of withdrawing our troops?

I said relatively, didn't I? And yes, because of the war we are either going to have a democrat or a moderate republican in the white house next year. Not as soon as I'd like, but not never.
 
Therefore, by 4 years out, you are $350k ahead as an engineer.

Not that I don't agree that being an engineer is more profitable and less stressful we must consider the inescapable fact that their training involves a lot of math. That right there is worth $350k to avoid. ;)
 
I said relatively, didn't I? And yes, because of the war we are either going to have a democrat or a moderate republican in the white house next year. Not as soon as I'd like, but not never.
Thanks, I didn't catch it the first time. :rolleyes: I used a significant outlier because I relatively disagree with you.
 
What does everyone think about turning the control over to the individual states? I honestly trust my state government to look out for me a hell of a lot more than the federal government. I personally think that it should be run like auto insurance where it is mandatory but the state government sets the mandatory coverage for everyone. There would also be a combination physician-state government commision that sets standarrs of care and enforces these similar to the joint commission but in a way that actually makes sense and is not just some pointless search to find something wrong no matter how mundane or insignificant. As far as the federal governments role, I think they should only step in where a person is truly an incapacitated or has an insurance expense that exceeds a certain amount ($200,000 perhaps). This would essentially create something close to a free market system and there would be more competition between insurance companies since they no longer would have medicare to base the reimbursements off of.

Perhaps something a little less radical could be to dissolve medicare/medicaid into 50 individual state-run programs. I feel physicians in a particular state could influence the state government somewhat more than they could the federal government. Let each state set up the system that works best for that particular state.
 
What does everyone think about turning the control over to the individual states?
I hope it happens somewhere, because I would be very interested to see how it worked out. If it failed, it would be much easier to reverse than a nation-wide failure.
 
Not that I don't agree that being an engineer is more profitable and less stressful we must consider the inescapable fact that their training involves a lot of math. That right there is worth $350k to avoid. ;)
I was a chemistry major, I have no pity.
 
Lets assume that the article which kicked of this thread is accurate and there is a majority of docs that want to switch to universal care. One tricky issue that I have wondered about is how those with current schools debt can switch to a system that does not easily allow them to overcome this debt.
I feel that the lifetime earnings could be equalized with either system (free market or single payer), the single payer system may yield lower annual salary but lower med school costs and eliminating liability costs could yield similar lifetime earnings to a system based on higher annual salary with greater debts.
I would argue that the single payer results in a lot less frustration and more egalitarian attitude from physicians (less the system owes me attitude).
The only problem I can't resolve is transitioning, individuals that would come out of the market based system with its related debts would have difficulty with a system that now limited their annual salary (though they would at least not have to deal with liability costs).
 
Lets assume that the article which kicked of this thread is accurate and there is a majority of docs that want to switch to universal care. One tricky issue that I have wondered about is how those with current schools debt can switch to a system that does not easily allow them to overcome this debt.
Easy. They would change the systems and tell all the docs with high debt to get bent. They are not changing the system to help docs or because they care about docs. They don't. They are doing it to pander to a segment of voters. The voters don't care about docs or their debt either. They want "free" health care and if docs take it in the shorts so much the better. And telling them that quality people won't go into medicine after such a change won't work either. They do want the best health care but they mean the best health care they can get for free.
I feel that the lifetime earnings could be equalized with either system (free market or single payer), the single payer system may yield lower annual salary but lower med school costs and eliminating liability costs could yield similar lifetime earnings to a system based on higher annual salary with greater debts.
I disagree. If you figure the average debt for graduating docs, lets say it's $300,000, and lets say the average doc makes $150,000 now. And lets say that under the socialized system we all take a 20% pay cut which is conservative. That means that you're making about $2500 less per month. Now if you were paying off your $300,000 debt with that $2500 per month you'd have it paid off in about 13 years. So every year after that your still just losing that $2500. If you have a 30 year career that's $500,000 plus what ever interest you could have made from it.

The thing is that everyone's med school debt seems like the biggest thing in the world and the defining issue for their careers when they're fresh out. Once you get it paid down some it becomes less of an issue. Remeber that your debt will not last any where near as long as your career unless something weird happens.

I would argue that the single payer results in a lot less frustration and more egalitarian attitude from physicians (less the system owes me attitude).
The only problem I can't resolve is transitioning, individuals that would come out of the market based system with its related debts would have difficulty with a system that now limited their annual salary (though they would at least not have to deal with liability costs).
The part about the attitude change might be true. We'll see. the part about not having any liability is debatable. I agree with you that liability would have to be eliminated for the system to have any chance of viability but there are many who disagree with us.
 
Easy. They would change the systems and tell all the docs with high debt to get bent. They are not changing the system to help docs or because they care about docs. They don't. They are doing it to pander to a segment of voters.

The government cannot simply impose a new system, tell physicians to deal with it, and expect efficiency and cooperation as an outcome. When Medicare was initiated fees had to be negotiated in order to get the physicians to buy into the system and accept Medicare patients.

On a different note, I went back and read many of the past posts and there is one trend that sort of bothers me. Many people refer to situations in our current system and then simply state how things would be worse with "socialized medicine"...first, this is a charged term that shouldn't even be used in an informed argument and second, even if we look at other countries applying single payer systems, there is no way to know what would happen if a single payer system was employed in the US. In fact, there is no way to even know what this system would look like.

Without considering the intricacies (because doing so is almost impossible), I favor the single payer system for the following reason: I could buy groceries by walking around to 12 different stores and paying with different forms of currency/bartering each week or I could walk directly to the market and buy everything I want with one currency. To me, the single payer system has the POTENTIAL to be the direct walk to the market but the market based system can only hope to become more convoluted.
 
The government cannot simply impose a new system, tell physicians to deal with it, and expect efficiency and cooperation as an outcome.
Sure they can. Look at EMTALA. Look at every other industry that has new regulation levied against it. That's why the government doesn't call it cooperation. They call it compliance.

When Medicare was initiated fees had to be negotiated in order to get the physicians to buy into the system and accept Medicare patients.

That was true initially. But as we fell down the slippery slope CMS became a monolithic entity that decrees rather that negotiates. And it became very difficult to opt out of the CMS system. Just look at medicine right now. Every doc is worried about how much CMS will cut reimbursements next year. Almost none are planning on leaving the system because it's just not viable.

On a different note, I went back and read many of the past posts and there is one trend that sort of bothers me. Many people refer to situations in our current system and then simply state how things would be worse with "socialized medicine"...first, this is a charged term that shouldn't even be used in an informed argument...

Saying that it shouldn't be called "socialized medicine" in favor of some other euphemism like "single payor healthcare" is disingenuous. Yes it's a charged term but it's a charged issue. If you want it call it what it is and argue for it on it merits. Otherwise it's just political correctness.

and second, even if we look at other countries applying single payer systems, there is no way to know what would happen if a single payer system was employed in the US. In fact, there is no way to even know what this system would look like.

The fact that we don’t know exactly what such a system would look like is not a reason to quietly submit to the creation of that system. Many of us are comfortable in our opposition to the philosophy behind increased socialization, government involvement and regulation. Based on that and the outlines put forward by those in favor of such plans I am quite sure I will not approve of what they come up with.

Without considering the intricacies (because doing so is almost impossible), I favor the single payer system for the following reason: I could buy groceries by walking around to 12 different stores and paying with different forms of currency/bartering each week or I could walk directly to the market and buy everything I want with one currency. To me, the single payer system has the POTENTIAL to be the direct walk to the market but the market based system can only hope to become more convoluted.

So you advocate having one grocery store for the sake of efficiency and simplicity? You say that’s because having many stores will just get more and more convoluted. That’s just the opposite of the free market model. A free marketer would argue that you will be very unhappy when your store, the one with the monopoly, suddenly raises the price of chips. But since you have no where else to turn you just have to live with it. If you had other options, i.e. competition, you could just go to another store. The threat of that would keep all the stores in line.

I grant you that healthcare is not a free market and is quite complex but that’s why many of us argue for less regulation and government involvement rather than going the central control and efficiency route toward more government control.
 
Sure they can. Look at EMTALA.


Saying that it shouldn't be called "socialized medicine" in favor of some other euphemism like "single payor healthcare" is disingenuous. Yes it's a charged term but it's a charged issue. If you want it call it what it is and argue for it on it merits. Otherwise it's just political correctness.

I took for granted that people would know the history of the term and didn't bother to explain why it shouldn't be used. See the following and you'll understand why it is not just a matter of political correctness http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16962482 the term was coined to promote a negative emotion towards single payer systems. Further, by saying single payer system I am being much more descriptive, that is why I did not use the term universal health care.

As for your disagreements with my other comments, I cannot actually reply because they do not address the points I was trying to make. Especially in regards to my supermarket example (I admit it sucks, so I don't blame anyone for misinterpreting my intended point). Such is the difficulty of having forum discussions.
 
As for your disagreements with my other comments, I cannot actually reply because they do not address the points I was trying to make.

I just reread this and realized it might be interpreted as insulting. This is not my intent, I don't think that my original arguments really conveyed the ideas I was trying to express. Doc's reply to them is very justified based on how he read them.
 
Ladies,

Like it or not, the current state of affairs in medicine is more akin to a "socialized" system than a "free market system". The single greatest domino to this transition fell in 1992 with the institution and widespread acceptance of the RBRVU system. Prior to this physician fees were (too high) based upon "usual and customary charges". Since that time physician payments have been largely based upon the costs associated with providing the care multiplied by a dollar amount. The vast majority of private insurers determine their own fee schedules based upon local provider pools, HMO penetration, etc, but the underlying formula remains the same AMA developed RVU system.

A single payer system would simplify medical billing, etc -- but many problems are likely to result. First off, to believe that an entire, multi-multi-billion dollar industry will simply be legislated away is a stretch. There are no simple solutions to healthcare reform, and every proposed plan will have painful consequences, unfortunately.
 
Socialized medicine or a single payer system unification will be resisted heavily by the industry that will die from this.... malpractice insurance... worse, they will get the support of the malpractice attornies.

Physician resistance to single payer system will continue to decrease as we watch physicians in UK and Australia make more than the US (and currently average wise, they are comparable in Australia and they make more in the UK).
 
Top