Insuring the millions who are not...

[chattkis]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What is your answer when an adcom asks, "How do you propose to help the 40 million uninsured americans?"

Am I suppose to have the answer?!

 

[C.P. Jones]

i think it's more to see if you choose an answer and stick to it even when they begin to fire secondary questions at you, you still have reasons to back up your idea....even if it is faulty as most will be anyway

it's also to see how well versed you are in issues that plague the medical field such as insurance....which i need to do some work on

 

[Labslave]

Am I suppose to have the answer?!

Yes.

 

[Mutt]

What is your answer when an adcom asks, "How do you propose to help the 40 million uninsured americans?"

Am I suppose to have the answer?!

First of all, an "adcom" is not going to ask you such a ridiculous question.
.....a rogue interviewer might - but it won't be phrased like that.

But for the sake of something constructive:

Question: "How do you propose to help the 40 million uninsured americans?"

My answer: I don't. 😀

 

[C.P. Jones]

First of all, an "adcom" is not going to ask you such a ridiculous question.
.....a rogue interviewer might - but it won't be phrased like that.

But for the sake of something constructive:

Question: "How do you propose to help the 40 million uninsured americans?"

My answer: I don't. 😀

actually, looking at the interview forum for the EVMS interview...this is basically the exact question repeated by many many different people...a panel of 2 or 3, one is an adcom

and i don't know what you're trying to say by your answer...if it's a joke, i don't get it, and if not, that's just sad

 

[bwells46]

First of all, an "adcom" is not going to ask you such a ridiculous question.
.....a rogue interviewer might - but it won't be phrased like that.

But for the sake of something constructive:

Question: "How do you propose to help the 40 million uninsured americans?"

My answer: I don't. 😀

I'd say "Well, I guess if I worked 24/7, never stopped to eat, drink, sleep, have sex, etc. then I could personally make a unnoticeable dent in the problem that would easily resemble a statistical anomoly.. But seriously, as a policy issue, I would blah blah blah..."

 

[Faust]

What is your answer when an adcom asks, "How do you propose to help the 40 million uninsured americans?"

Am I suppose to have the answer?!

This is easy. First the question would not be asked in that fashion. They would ask it the following way: "How would you propose to help the 40 million uninsured americans?" Take some time. Pause, Think, and then answer the damm question. You could say, well, lets take california for example. One cannnot attempt to institute something drastic nationally so we would start at the state level. We could create an emergency state plan whereby all those in the state have access to basic health care, then you would define basic health care. The emergency state plan could be used in times of dire needs or state emergencies or perhaps be instituted as a pilot program for five years to understand the pros and cons of this reality: everyone has access to basic health care. If this works, you could then use this as evidence to institute it for a longer period of time. Then you would go into how this social health care undermines the tenets of capitalism and would seem impossible to the majority of people. Then you go could into the philosophical explantations and speak about individual responsibility versus social responsibility and on and on.

The point of questions like this is not to see whether you know the content of what they are asking you rather they want to see how you unravel yourself and how you navigate yourself through the thinking process--this is essential not only for diagnosis but for prognosis as well.

They could easily tell and ask you this as well. A medical student who excelled in all her courses and rotations decided to become a butcher after graduating medical school. Why? Why do you think she became a butcher? Here again they are asking not because should know why, but because they want to see what options you go through in your head, how you reason, and what you assume given the little information they gave you. If you want a good answer to this let me know or ya'll can practice by answering this.

Peace
😀

 

[g3pro]

40 million is around 10% of the population. In other words, it's negligable.

 

[kalenakai]

40 million is around 10% of the population. In other words, it's negligable.

Negligable... I'm sure the interviewer/adcom wouldn't appreciate that remark.

 

[Faust]

40 million is around 10% of the population. In other words, it's negligable.

You meant negligible. Not neg li gable. 😛

 

[tacrum43]

40 million is around 10% of the population. In other words, it's negligable.

10% of anything is hardly "negligable". 😡 For example, if 10% of airplane flights crashed, would that still be negligible.

g3pro is definitely not right in this case.

 

[Faust]

g3pro is definitely not right in this case.

This is funny. Then, is g3pro doubly wrong? Maybe g3pro learned spelling out on the streets and social dynamics out in space. 😱

 

[SanDiegoSOD]

I love how g3pro gets under your skins so easily. This must be a premed forum. 😉

 

[g3pro]

You guys want to destroy our health system and implement socialized medicine which would surely decrease the quality of care in the long term ofr the entire population... so that 10% of the population can get a piece of socialized health care at the cost of the rest of the population.

Wow. That's really smart! I suppose that when you triage in a disaster, you go to save the ones who are likely to die first rather than save the ones who have a chance to live. Or you put too many people on a life raft and the raft sinks killing everyone else. To satisfy your need to "feel good about yourself," regardless of the consequences or logic used to evaluate the situation, you would go with your "heart."

This idiotic notion that socialized health carae must be implemented to help so few of people is not something that ADCOMs would expect from applicants to medical school. It's something you would expect from the AMSA listserve or a rally for the Socialist Party. It shows that you have no understanding of the economics of healthcare, or the psychology of users in a subsidized system, or the dynamics of the healthcare costs in the future.

If you want an ADCOM to think that you're an idiot, go ahead and tell him you want to socialize medicine because 10% of the population, many of which choose not purchase insurance because they have the money in the bank to pay any medical bill, do not have the benefits of insurance.

There are smart remedies for the "10% problem" which do not involve socialist principles. I'll leave that up to you to figure out what I'm talking about. 🙂

 

[Aristotle]

I think the interviewer, if he/she asks this, is going to be only looking for the reasoning behind your answer. I would think that it doesn't really matter to the interviewer what your answer to the question is as long as you stand by your answer and back it up by showing how you arrived at your answer.

 

[Nakhrewali]

You guys want to destroy our health system and implement socialized medicine which would surely decrease the quality of care in the long term ofr the entire population... so that 10% of the population can get a piece of socialized health care at the cost of the rest of the population.

Wow. That's really smart!...

Hmmm the idea of socialized medicine has been debated for a long, long time. It's difficult not to look at Canada and Europe for lessons in health care because they adopted the notion of health care as a right a long time ago. I definitely agree that the quality of health care will decrease if we shift to a single-payer system like Canada. I think there are three bedrock reasons for why national health insurance similar to that of Europe and Canada is difficult in the U.S. :

1) Strong opposition from organized groups--insurance companies, organized medicine, small & big businesses (employers because they could eventually have a mandate to provide more insurance to employees; they do lots of skillful lobbying. And if smaller businesses are going to cut income to provide coverage, I'm sure the employee would rather have the $100/month.).

2) Fragmented political support--The government can't even decide how to start and what should be the focus. Some want to shift from a third-party payer system to a single-payer system so we have managed care with alliances but no mandate. This is when we would look to Canada to establish a rationing system, which is hard because we ration health care very differently--rationing would connote waiting and traveling to get care. It's difficult to propose an answer to universal health coverage since there's no active involvement on the government's part. Universal health coverage won’t come from a demographic initiative (say if states decided to expand Medicaid to provide coverage to more people) but a large shift in the electoral process where the government takes a more active role. It could happen because it HAS happened in the past. The only trouble is that nobody knows where and when.

3) The absence of ringing powerful moral purpose--Americans have a hard time visioning insurance as a right.

The five ways to achieve universal coverage seem to be:
1. Medicare for all
2. Single-payer system
3. Employer mandates (Hawaii is the only state that has an ERISA waiver and an empoyer mandate since 1974. Their health care system is working great.)
4. A tax expenditure policy-- changes in tax treatment of health insurance premiums
5. Medicaid expansions.

And what sucks is that all five of them face significant obstacles.

Anyways, to the OP, I say that you don't need to be this well-versed in options to insure the 45 million, but as a physician, you MUST be aware of what's going to happen to medicine in the future. The number of uninsured is going to skyrocket and the cost of health care will increase dramatically as well. Best of luck if you do get this question. 🙂

 

[MiesVanDerMom]

You guys want to destroy our health system and implement socialized medicine which would surely decrease the quality of care in the long term ofr the entire population... so that 10% of the population can get a piece of socialized health care at the cost of the rest of the population.

Wow. That's really smart! I suppose that when you triage in a disaster, you go to save the ones who are likely to die first rather than save the ones who have a chance to live. Or you put too many people on a life raft and the raft sinks killing everyone else. To satisfy your need to "feel good about yourself," regardless of the consequences or logic used to evaluate the situation, you would go with your "heart."

This idiotic notion that socialized health carae must be implemented to help so few of people is not something that ADCOMs would expect from applicants to medical school. It's something you would expect from the AMSA listserve or a rally for the Socialist Party. It shows that you have no understanding of the economics of healthcare, or the psychology of users in a subsidized system, or the dynamics of the healthcare costs in the future.

If you want an ADCOM to think that you're an idiot, go ahead and tell him you want to socialize medicine because 10% of the population, many of which choose not purchase insurance because they have the money in the bank to pay any medical bill, do not have the benefits of insurance.

There are smart remedies for the "10% problem" which do not involve socialist principles. I'll leave that up to you to figure out what I'm talking about. 🙂

I'm in favor of the single-payer healthcare system myself which I don't think could accurately be called "socialist." However, to state that socialism doesn't work and capitalism does is quite inaccurate. Consider some of the results of the Modern Era: increased famine, increased gap between rich and poor, environmental damage that cannot be reversed, an ever-increasing number of deaths due to military conflict, etc. One can hardly call capitalism a success. If one is a rich priveleged American one might, but that would be very short-sighted. We are all connected and although the plunderers think they are benefitting from this parasitic and violent system, they are not.

I also enjoy your dehumanizing of the "10%". It's a great attitude for a doctor to have. Your use of words such as "idiot" are ironic when you consider that your moral development is severely delayed, your inability to consider others' suffering is almost autistic. Given the doctors I've seen in the world though, I doubt adcoms will mind this. And that's all that matters anyway, right?

 

[CTSballer11]

The majority of people who do not have healthcare, desperately need it. Anyone that tells you different is full of it. I do not know why ADCOMS would ask such a question anyway, I want to be a doctor not reform the healthcare system.

 

[Nakhrewali]

The majority of people who do not have healthcare, desperately need it. Anyone that tells you different is full of it. I do not know why ADCOMS would ask such a question anyway, I want to be a doctor not reform the healthcare system.

Hmmm...so you don't think you want to be your patients' advocate? You don't want to actually contribute any effort to help your patients get quality care? I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just saying that students who want to be physicians should get a broader view of health care and their position within the system. For example, if you work at an academic health center doing research, or teaching then you could stand at the forefront of it all. Imagine taking part in collaborations with other academic health centers so there's not as much competition but more of a joint effort in approaching medicine. This is why I'm such a huge advocate for more classes in the social side of medicine so students can get exposed to things that go beyond the pharmacology and treatment. Most physicians probably don't even know how to bill once they start practicing. Sigh... Too bad med school is only four years. You gotta cram all the book stuff in two years and clinical stuff in another two.

 

[bwells46]

The majority of people who do not have healthcare, desperately need it. Anyone that tells you different is full of it. I do not know why ADCOMS would ask such a question anyway, I want to be a doctor not reform the healthcare system.

I would hope that most adcoms want future physicians to see the big picture and have a broad view of the health care system. Of course, most people applying are in their early to mid-20's so the big picture probably looks blurry but you should be able to see the forest through the trees.

 

[will8570]

Thats actually a fantastic defense. I would give you high marks if I asked you that question and that was the defense you gave, even if I disagreed with you. Its def. a legitimate point of view, albeit pretty raw in terms of compassion.

We've gotten too comfortable with this notion that we live in a welfare state and not to worry, that the gov't will take care of us. There SHOULD be some level of personal liability in this country.You want to know whats wrong with the healthcare system in the US? Start there. Eat in moderation, don't smoke, don't become an alcoholic, and exercise. WOW I've just made half of the country healthy.

Why don't we just ban cigarettes? They are the only thing that, if nothing else does, will certainly kill you somehow, and yet they're still around? If not for banning them to save lives, why not just do it for the economic release on the system and all the money it would save? I guess thats too simple?

You guys want to destroy our health system and implement socialized medicine which would surely decrease the quality of care in the long term ofr the entire population... so that 10% of the population can get a piece of socialized health care at the cost of the rest of the population.

Wow. That's really smart! I suppose that when you triage in a disaster, you go to save the ones who are likely to die first rather than save the ones who have a chance to live. Or you put too many people on a life raft and the raft sinks killing everyone else. To satisfy your need to "feel good about yourself," regardless of the consequences or logic used to evaluate the situation, you would go with your "heart."

This idiotic notion that socialized health carae must be implemented to help so few of people is not something that ADCOMs would expect from applicants to medical school. It's something you would expect from the AMSA listserve or a rally for the Socialist Party. It shows that you have no understanding of the economics of healthcare, or the psychology of users in a subsidized system, or the dynamics of the healthcare costs in the future.

If you want an ADCOM to think that you're an idiot, go ahead and tell him you want to socialize medicine because 10% of the population, many of which choose not purchase insurance because they have the money in the bank to pay any medical bill, do not have the benefits of insurance.

There are smart remedies for the "10% problem" which do not involve socialist principles. I'll leave that up to you to figure out what I'm talking about. 🙂

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Consider this article: http://www.infinityhealthsolutions.org/content/view/17/1/

Preventative medicine is the most effective way to help the uninsured. As physicians, we need to learn and educate people to help them stay healthy.

 

[SeventhSon]

You guys want to destroy our health system and implement socialized medicine which would surely decrease the quality of care in the long term ofr the entire population... so that 10% of the population can get a piece of socialized health care at the cost of the rest of the population.

Wow. That's really smart! I suppose that when you triage in a disaster, you go to save the ones who are likely to die first rather than save the ones who have a chance to live. Or you put too many people on a life raft and the raft sinks killing everyone else. To satisfy your need to "feel good about yourself," regardless of the consequences or logic used to evaluate the situation, you would go with your "heart."

This idiotic notion that socialized health carae must be implemented to help so few of people is not something that ADCOMs would expect from applicants to medical school. It's something you would expect from the AMSA listserve or a rally for the Socialist Party. It shows that you have no understanding of the economics of healthcare, or the psychology of users in a subsidized system, or the dynamics of the healthcare costs in the future.

If you want an ADCOM to think that you're an idiot, go ahead and tell him you want to socialize medicine because 10% of the population, many of which choose not purchase insurance because they have the money in the bank to pay any medical bill, do not have the benefits of insurance.

There are smart remedies for the "10% problem" which do not involve socialist principles. I'll leave that up to you to figure out what I'm talking about. 🙂

g3pro, I've always been very ignorant about the specifics beyhind the arguments for us to move towards national healthcare and the arguments against it. There was a class at my undergrad university about this but i didn't know about it. Do you have any reading recommendations for me to get informed about this? (not a bill oriley website, please)

 

[medicomel]

Right on! I'm in agreement with preventative measures first, which will hopefully keep people from having to undergo more expensive forms of treatment later on. Starting with the obese kids -- how to you educate them to eat right and exercise when there are soda/snack machines in the school, and crappy lunches?

As for banning cigarettes...it will never happen. The best we can do is outlaw it in all public establishments.

Oh, and as for the increasing cost of meds...how about banning all forms of advertisements? To me, that's such a waste of money that could be funneled into more research. As it is, patients walk into the doctor's office demanding this new form of medication; this could be fatal in the long run, given the fact that the FDA is becoming increasingly pressured to give the thumbs up.

I think we need to start at the bottom instead of trying to create a Universal Health Care system. The US has the means of providing superior health care because we have the technology and superbly (and well-paid) trained physicians. The gov't just needs to learn how to figure out proper billing procedures and make patient information more accessible (i.e., PAPERLESS)...

my thoughts are scattered....but i've been thinking about this too.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Right on! I'm in agreement with preventative measures first, which will hopefully keep people from having to undergo more expensive forms of treatment later on.

One of the leading causes of death in this country is iatrogenesis, that is, manifestations from treatments, medicines, and surgeries. In a country where we're approaching a crisis in medical funding, why is it that more people are dying and harmed from our treatments?

It seems to me that preventative care is the most feasible.

I treat many diabetics as an ophthalmologist. I've used this example before, and feel free to use it during your interview. As an ophthalmologist, I can laser an eye with diabetic retinopathy until it turns into a prune; but the best ways to prevent ocular damage from diabetes are: diet, nutrition, excercise, and weight control.

I did my residency in Iowa where many patients are overweight, and they are diagnosed with diabetes type II. Preventative care will spare them from limb amputations, chronic ulcers, kidney failure, heart disease, and blindness.

 

[Minion677]

One of the leading causes of death in this country is iatrogenesis, that is, manifestations from treatments, medicines, and surgeries. In a country where we're approaching a crisis in medical funding, why is it that more people are dying and harmed from our treatments?

It seems to me that preventative care is the most feasible.

I treat many diabetics as an ophthalmologist. I've used this example before, and feel free to use it during your interview. As an ophthalmologist, I can laser an eye with diabetic retinopathy until it turns into a prune; but the best ways to prevent ocular damage from diabetes are: diet, nutrition, excercise, and weight control.

I did my residency in Iowa where many patients are overweight, and they are diagnosed with diabetes type II. Preventative care will spare them from limb amputations, chronic ulcers, kidney failure, heart disease, and blindness.

i agree with you completely. but the problem is that this "preventative medicine" isnt really medicine at all. eating healthy and exercising is something we should have learned in middle school health classes, not something patients are paying us $300,000 a year to tell them. staying healthy takes time and effort and its hard to convince these people to do it when we live in a McDonaldized sociaty and they would rather take the easy way out (medication). what the country needs is more education, tv ads, community programs to promote exercise and healthy living... showing statistics about how just living a healthy lifestyle can prevent so many different illnesses.

 

[AxlxA]

Oh, and as for the increasing cost of meds...how about banning all forms of advertisements?

Uh... how are we, the physicians, to know about the new forms of drugs avialable if drug companies would stop offering free stuff/lunches to us to promote thier products?

Seriously, the only other way to keep up to date with drugs is to be on top of journal articles. Who will have enough time to read through all that stuff on pubmed?!?!

I think advertisement should NOT be banned, even though it is very misleading. Advertisement do serve its purpose: to tell the public(and sometimes physicians) that certain drugs exists and that it may be a better drug than previous treatments.

When a patient comes to you and ask for certain certain drugs, you have the responsibility to tell them what you think of the drug, teach them what the drug does, start going over some general physiology if you must, but you are ultimately in control in the distribution of drugs. If you seriously do not believe the drug will work, then dont use it. You patient may say screw you and go for another opinion but you served your purpose. I think educating the public is the best solution to our health care problem. Therefore i agree with preventive healthcare as the best solution.

 

[AxlxA]

i agree with you completely. but the problem is that this "preventative medicine" isnt really medicine at all. eating healthy and exercising is something we should have learned in middle school health classes, not something patients are paying us $300,000 a year to tell them. staying healthy takes time and effort and its hard to convince these people to do it when we live in a McDonaldized sociaty and they would rather take the easy way out (medication). what the country needs is more education, tv ads, community programs to promote exercise and healthy living... showing statistics about how just living a healthy lifestyle can prevent so many different illnesses.

lol, from this, I will conclude that Americans are lazy people who are always looking for cheap meals and quick fixes.

 

[jonsir]

😉

 

[troszic]

I definitely agree; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

All the education that can be done has been done. Everybody knows that eating healthy and exercising are the key to good health; no one even needs high school health to tell them that much. TV ads and community programs would accomplish absolutely nothing; they would be a waste of money. Pretty much everyone who leads an unhealthy lifestyle recognizes it as such. They simply don't care.
Look how effective the campaign against cigarette smoking has been. Anti-smoking messages were relentlessly hammered into our heads as children, and some idiots still do it.
The absolute root of the problem is that people in modern day society don't fear the consequences of their actions. They have an unwavering faith that things will turn out OK in the end.

Poor lifestyle choices are a social problem. What people don't understand is that neither the government nor the healthcare infrastructure can solve a social problem. The only, and I mean ONLY, way to solve a social problem is with a social solution. That is a fundamental shift in the way society perceives or understands an issue. This can only come about through the interactions of individuals. Parents must set good examples for their children. The children must set good examples for their peers, and so on and so on.
The government simply doesn't have the ability to change people's minds, and it certainly doesn't have the responsibility to. If a person is leading an unhealthy lifestyle, it is the responsibility of his friends and family to set him straight. That is what I mean by a social solution. Only people can change people.

 

[medicomel]

money is a powerful motivator...how about tax breaks for people who lower their cholesterol, blood sugar, or high BP? what if they lose weight and keep it off for X amt of time (using diet and exercise)? maybe then they will make better choices, and their children will follow suit.

also, we need to convince state govts to help fund the placement of more grocery stores in underserved areas. on the south side of chicago, you're hard pressed to find a lot of healthy choices... Philadelphia did it.

 

[troszic]

Hyde Park has a fantastic produce store on 53rd street. It has the cheapest, best quality fruit you can find. It also has the best selection.

 

[madi]

Oh, and as for the increasing cost of meds...how about banning all forms of advertisements? To me, that's such a waste of money that could be funneled into more research. As it is, patients walk into the doctor's office demanding this new form of medication; this could be fatal in the long run, given the fact that the FDA is becoming increasingly pressured to give the thumbs up.

What happened to the first amendment?

 

[drmota]

I'm in favor of the single-payer healthcare system myself which I don't think could accurately be called "socialist." However, to state that socialism doesn't work and capitalism does is quite inaccurate. Consider some of the results of the Modern Era: increased famine, increased gap between rich and poor, environmental damage that cannot be reversed, an ever-increasing number of deaths due to military conflict, etc. One can hardly call capitalism a success. If one is a rich priveleged American one might, but that would be very short-sighted. We are all connected and although the plunderers think they are benefitting from this parasitic and violent system, they are not.

i'm sorry but you are way, way off. i'm not trying to put you down but please take a class on political theory or socialism. and also, just cuz capitalism is not perfect does not mean that socialism is.
-mota

 

[drmota]

Why don't we just ban cigarettes? They are the only thing that, if nothing else does, will certainly kill you somehow, and yet they're still around? If not for banning them to save lives, why not just do it for the economic release on the system and all the money it would save? I guess thats too simple?

two words: big tobacco.
-mota

 

[drmota]

lol, from this, I will conclude that Americans are lazy people who are always looking for cheap meals and quick fixes.

that actually sounds pretty accurate, don't you think? we're definitely the laziest people: note obesity rates and your average schmo at walmart who goes out of his way to not do ANYTHING unless he absolutely has to, and we are definitely looking for cheap meals: go to the inner cities and tell me how many restaurants you find other than mcdonalds, burger king, JITB. quick fixes is more human nature in general. having a sense of delayed gratification is pretty rare in the world, period.
-mota

 

[tacrum43]

You guys want to destroy our health system and implement socialized medicine which would surely decrease the quality of care in the long term ofr the entire population... so that 10% of the population can get a piece of socialized health care at the cost of the rest of the population.

Wow. That's really smart! I suppose that when you triage in a disaster, you go to save the ones who are likely to die first rather than save the ones who have a chance to live. Or you put too many people on a life raft and the raft sinks killing everyone else. To satisfy your need to "feel good about yourself," regardless of the consequences or logic used to evaluate the situation, you would go with your "heart."

This idiotic notion that socialized health carae must be implemented to help so few of people is not something that ADCOMs would expect from applicants to medical school. It's something you would expect from the AMSA listserve or a rally for the Socialist Party. It shows that you have no understanding of the economics of healthcare, or the psychology of users in a subsidized system, or the dynamics of the healthcare costs in the future.

If you want an ADCOM to think that you're an idiot, go ahead and tell him you want to socialize medicine because 10% of the population, many of which choose not purchase insurance because they have the money in the bank to pay any medical bill, do not have the benefits of insurance.

There are smart remedies for the "10% problem" which do not involve socialist principles. I'll leave that up to you to figure out what I'm talking about. 🙂

If you view healthcare as a right and not a privilege, then the economics of the situation don't matter. How is it that we're entitled to a lawyer, but not a doctor again?

 

[troszic]

How is it that we're entitled to a lawyer, but not a doctor again?

The lawyers that are publicly provided are, generally speaking, of the poorest quality, like the shoes at the bowling alley. Having a ****ty lawyer is one thing, but would you really want to go under the knife of a ****ty doctor, or even have a diagnosis from one?

It would be nice to work out a similar system, where low quality doctors are provided "free" to the poor people at the cost of the government (taxpayers). In law, a ****ty lawyer is better than no lawyer. In medicine, however, a ****ty doctor is just as bad as, or worse, than no doctor.

Now you might say, "Well, why can't the government just provide high-priced doctors." If you put those doctors on the government pay roll, the government will try to micromanage how that doctor does his job. Whenever the government is in control of something, it tries to have its cake and eat it too. That is, if a government is in control of providing someone's services, it also passes legislation that forces those services to be a lot cheaper than they would be on the free market. Long story short, if goverment controlled medicine, it would remove the economic incentive for becoming a doctor by forcing doctors to work for peanuts, so that the government could afford to pay them to service everybody in the country.

Despite the claims of some of the goof-balls on SDN who act as if your SOLE purpose of going into medicine is to help people, once the economic incentive is gone, none of you would be willing to pay for 4 years of medical school, let alone devote more than half a decade of your life's efforts to medical school and residency.

 

[tacrum43]

The lawyers that are publicly provided are, generally speaking, of the poorest quality, like the shoes at the bowling alley. Having a ****ty lawyer is one thing, but would you really want to go under the knife of a ****ty doctor, or even have a diagnosis from one?

It would be nice to work out a similar system, where low quality doctors are provided "free" to the poor people at the cost of the government (taxpayers). In law, a ****ty lawyer is better than no lawyer. In medicine, however, a ****ty doctor is just as bad as, or worse, than no doctor.

Now you might say, "Well, why can't the government just provide high-priced doctors." If you put those doctors on the government pay roll, the government will try to micromanage how that doctor does his job. Whenever the government is in control of something, it tries to have its cake and eat it too. That is, if a government is in control of providing someone's services, it also passes legislation that forces those services to be a lot cheaper than they would be on the free market. Long story short, if goverment controlled medicine, it would remove the economic incentive for becoming a doctor by forcing doctors to work for peanuts, so that the government could afford to pay them to service everybody in the country.

Despite the claims of some of the goof-balls on SDN who act as if your SOLE purpose of going into medicine is to help people, once the economic incentive is gone, none of you would be willing to pay for 4 years of medical school, let alone devote more than half a decade of your life's efforts to medical school and residency.

I think none is too strong of a word. I mean people become things like teachers all the time. 😉 And some teachers (well, professors) have to go to school for just as long as an MD, and they don't get paid very much. Well again that depends.

Plus, if a doctor is licensed to practice in the U.S., that's a fairly good sign. If they are a bad doctor, they won't be one for long.

 

[C.P. Jones]

Oh, and as for the increasing cost of meds...how about banning all forms of advertisements? To me, that's such a waste of money that could be funneled into more research.

That's the point of an ad...you pay x dollars to make and show the ad to have x + whatever extra dollars in return from ppl who saw the ad....and then you have even more money to go into research for a new drug...which you then show an ad for and so on

 

[dilated]

money is a powerful motivator...how about tax breaks for people who lower their cholesterol, blood sugar, or high BP? what if they lose weight and keep it off for X amt of time (using diet and exercise)? maybe then they will make better choices, and their children will follow suit.

Geez, you people scare me sometimes. How about no, because the job of the government is not to micromanage my life into a Government Approved Mold? This is not Soviet Russia. The US government was not created in order to ensure that I eat my green beans, it was created to protect my rights.

And no, health care is not a right any more than food or shelter is a right. Feel free to demand the government buy you lunch because you are hungry and thus entitled to food, but you are unlikely to get very far. Claiming that health care is a right and thus cannot be disputed is a handy rhetorical device used by people who cannot make an effective argument that socialized health care is economically or philosophically preferable.

 

[CTSballer11]

Consider this article: http://www.infinityhealthsolutions.org/content/view/17/1/

Preventative medicine is the most effective way to help the uninsured. As physicians, we need to learn and educate people to help them stay healthy.

Preventative medicine is the way to go, whether you are insured or not. Someone mentioned earlier that for the most part Americans are lazy and overweight. People know that obesity is unhealthy but Americans are to lazy to make healthy choices like working out, eating healthy etc. Another problem I see with preventative medicine is the hypocrisy of the doctors and the hospitals they work in. Example: Delos Cosgrove MD, Chief of Cardiothoracic surgery at the Cleveland Clinic, wants to close down all the McDonalds and other unhealthy restaurants in the Cleveland Clinic. Guess what? Many doctors are pissed off with Dr. Cosgrove because of this. If Doctors themselves refuse to make healthy choices, why would their patients?

 

[Suppuration]

You guys want to destroy our health system and implement socialized medicine which would surely decrease the quality of care in the long term ofr the entire population... so that 10% of the population can get a piece of socialized health care at the cost of the rest of the population.

Okay, Einstein. Since you have obviously spent so much time researching this issue (cough), let's play a game. It's called "guess which of the countries on this graph is the only one without universal healthcare":

 

[CTSballer11]

Okay, Einstein. Since you have obviously spent so much time researching this issue (cough), let's play a game. It's called "guess which of the countries on this graph is the only one without universal healthcare":

Nice Work. I am curious to see what Einstein has to say about this.

 

[newguy357]

You guys want to destroy our health system and implement socialized medicine which would surely decrease the quality of care in the long term ofr the entire population... so that 10% of the population can get a piece of socialized health care at the cost of the rest of the population.

What a relief! Someone on this site understands.

Socialism doesn't work. But if destroying society helps you people sleep better at night....

 

[Suppuration]

Nice Work. I am curious to see what Einstein has to say about this.

If he's anything like most of the ***** I discuss this with, he'll lapse into vague philosophical proclamations about the evils of wealth redistribution. Never mind that wealth redistribution is the whole point of insurance.

 

[newguy357]

I'm in favor of the single-payer healthcare system myself which I don't think could accurately be called "socialist." However, to state that socialism doesn't work and capitalism does is quite inaccurate. Consider some of the results of the Modern Era: increased famine, increased gap between rich and poor, environmental damage that cannot be reversed, an ever-increasing number of deaths due to military conflict, etc. One can hardly call capitalism a success. If one is a rich priveleged American one might, but that would be very short-sighted. We are all connected and although the plunderers think they are benefitting from this parasitic and violent system, they are not.

Did you type that with a straight face? You do realize that all those problems you listed, supposedly resulting from capitalism, (i.e., famine, environ. damage, military deaths, etc.) were orders of magnitude worse under socialist regimes (like the former Soviet Union and the present Chinese govt.)? Do you have any idea what the USSR did to the environment? What western societies did doesn't even compare. I'm not saying capitalism is without guilt, but if you're proposing we fix these problems by going from capitalism to socialism then all you're going to get is the same problems multiplied by 10 or 100.

 

[Shredder]

wealth redistribution is the whole point of insurance.

insurance is about hedging risks. wealth redistribution is the point of taxation

 

[Shredder]

I'm not saying capitalism is without guilt, but if you're proposing we fix these problems by going from capitalism to socialism then all you're going to get is the same problems multiplied by 10 or 100.

but capitalism is without guilt

i think requiring copayment from every patient will improve the healthcare system. no matter how poor they are, they should have to cough up something relative to what they can. everyone can round up a few dollars they are called for. its not the money itself that will help. its that payment is a powerful incentive for consumers to conduct research, use services scrupulously, and demand cost effective treatment. obviously goading people to eat and live well isnt working, so the only way is to make financial appeals, which everyone is receptive to.

 

[newguy357]

What happened to the first amendment?

Same thing that happened to the second.