When Government Plays Doctor

[SOCALHUSKER]

When Government Plays Doctor

 

This week, concerns about swine flu have dominated the media and many government officials. While the American people should be made aware of infectious diseases and common sense preventative measures, much of the hysterical reaction from government only serves to remind us how detrimental to your health it can be when government plays doctor.

 

As a physician, I have yet to see any evidence that justifies the current level of alarm. Influenza typically kills around 36,000 people every year in this country and hospitalizes a couple hundred thousand. So far there are only a handful of confirmed deaths attributable to this strain, and most of those sickened have or will fully recover. Every death is tragic, but I see no reason to deal with this flu outbreak any differently than we typically deal with any other flu season. Instead, government in its infinite wisdom is performing even more invasive screening at airports, closing down schools and sporting events, and causing general panic.

 

We had a similar outbreak in 1976, with only 1 death from the flu, but mandatory vaccinations killed at least 25 before the program was abandoned.

 

When government gets involved in healthcare decisions, the cure is so often worse than the illness. And yet, this administration will likely consolidate the government's power over your health with sweeping new reforms that are already being discussed in the Senate.

 

Government has not improved healthcare, and has not made it cheaper. Quite the opposite; costs have skyrocketed, and quality has gone down in many ways. Gone are the days of the country doctor making house calls, or of voluntarily giving away medical services at charity hospitals. The bureaucratization of healthcare these past 45 years has made things worse. It saddens me as a doctor that physicians are less and less accountable to patients, but more and more accountable to government red tape, insurance companies and attorneys. It seems so perverse to me that important medical decisions that will directly affect the lives of all or nearly all Americans are being hashed out behind closed doors in Washington rather than between doctors and patients.

 

There is perhaps nothing more valuable to a human being than his or her health, which is why I've always considered the practice of medicine so crucial to our well-being. Any intrusion by government into the privacy and trust between doctor and patient is detrimental to the art of medicine. It distorts the whole dynamic of who the client really is when doctors must answer more to government or insurance companies than to their patients. The best solutions to improving quality and lowering costs of healthcare would be measures that put decisions back into the hands of patients and doctors, where they rightfully belong. I have introduced HR 1495 The Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act, which promotes health savings accounts and tax deductibility of healthcare costs as an important step in this direction.

 

The unfortunate reality of this recent health crisis, as with any crisis, is that it presents opportunities that the unscrupulous will take advantage of, while the fearful become more compliant.

[carlfense]

When Government Plays Doctor

 

This week, concerns about swine flu have dominated the media and many government officials. While the American people should be made aware of infectious diseases and common sense preventative measures, much of the hysterical reaction from government only serves to remind us how detrimental to your health it can be when government plays doctor.

 

As a physician, I have yet to see any evidence that justifies the current level of alarm. Influenza typically kills around 36,000 people every year in this country and hospitalizes a couple hundred thousand. So far there are only a handful of confirmed deaths attributable to this strain, and most of those sickened have or will fully recover. Every death is tragic, but I see no reason to deal with this flu outbreak any differently than we typically deal with any other flu season. Instead, government in its infinite wisdom is performing even more invasive screening at airports, closing down schools and sporting events, and causing general panic.

 

We had a similar outbreak in 1976, with only 1 death from the flu, but mandatory vaccinations killed at least 25 before the program was abandoned.

 

When government gets involved in healthcare decisions, the cure is so often worse than the illness. And yet, this administration will likely consolidate the government's power over your health with sweeping new reforms that are already being discussed in the Senate.

 

Government has not improved healthcare, and has not made it cheaper. Quite the opposite; costs have skyrocketed, and quality has gone down in many ways. Gone are the days of the country doctor making house calls, or of voluntarily giving away medical services at charity hospitals. The bureaucratization of healthcare these past 45 years has made things worse. It saddens me as a doctor that physicians are less and less accountable to patients, but more and more accountable to government red tape, insurance companies and attorneys. It seems so perverse to me that important medical decisions that will directly affect the lives of all or nearly all Americans are being hashed out behind closed doors in Washington rather than between doctors and patients.

 

There is perhaps nothing more valuable to a human being than his or her health, which is why I've always considered the practice of medicine so crucial to our well-being. Any intrusion by government into the privacy and trust between doctor and patient is detrimental to the art of medicine. It distorts the whole dynamic of who the client really is when doctors must answer more to government or insurance companies than to their patients. The best solutions to improving quality and lowering costs of healthcare would be measures that put decisions back into the hands of patients and doctors, where they rightfully belong. I have introduced HR 1495 The Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act, which promotes health savings accounts and tax deductibility of healthcare costs as an important step in this direction.

 

The unfortunate reality of this recent health crisis, as with any crisis, is that it presents opportunities that the unscrupulous will take advantage of, while the fearful become more compliant.

 

Medical costs will continue to rise regardless of government involvement. New technologies and drugs are expensive by themselves, plus the more effective medicine becomes, the more we will have to spend to treat people. (As medicine increases the average life span we are adding years to the most medically expensive segment of people's lives . . . old age.)

 

And finally, the decline of the general practice physician (As RP quaintly refers to as a "country doctor") has far less to do with governmental involvement and far more to do with the capitalistic impulse to earn money. (This is something R. Paul should be well familiar with.) After graduation most doctors have approximately $250,000 in school debt. Starting salaries for general practice physicians are roughly half that of specialists. For example, pathologists starting salaries are around $250,000, while general practice physicians start out at around $120,000. When you are staring down the barrel of $250,000 in school debt, it's easy to see why specializing is a more attractive option than general practice.

 

One option to increase the numbers of general practice physicians would be to institute some program of loan forgiveness for doctor's who choose to go the general practice route. (Unfortunately this requires governmental intervention and tax dollars.) Another option would be to increase the salaries of general practice doctors to match or exceed those of specialists. This increase in cost would of course be passed on to the patients.

 

It's interesting to me that RP as a physician and a crusader against governmental intrusion would complain about something (the lack of general practice physicians) that can probably only be changed by governmental intrusion of one sort or another. I suppose that is why he just complains and doesn't offer any suggestions as to what to do about it. That would force him to contradict himself.

 

 

(I have a very personal view of this whole scenario playing out. My girlfriend is entering her second year of medical school, and I don't think she will be able to turn down the $$$ of specializing to go the general practice route. I can't say that I blame her.)

[carlfense]

Also should add that the hours of a general practice doc are TERRIBLE . . . while pathologists (as one example) work only 50 hours a week and earn twice as much money.

[rawhide]

Give all male nurses BIG, and I mean HUGE raises. That'll cure my ills.

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with President Obama and a national healthcare plan. Prescription drug costs and over the border purchases are what many people have concerns about. As far as government intrusion on the doctor/patient relationship I don't think the goverment goes far enough to weed out the incompetent/unscrupulous md's and on the other hand reduce the logjam for the skilled physicians, whether GP's or specialists. .02

 

 

 

GBR

[carlfense]

Give all male nurses BIG, and I mean HUGE raises. That'll cure my ills.

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with President Obama and a national healthcare plan. Prescription drug costs and over the border purchases are what many people have concerns about. As far as government intrusion on the doctor/patient relationship I don't think the goverment goes far enough to weed out the incompetent/unscrupulous md's and on the other hand reduce the logjam for the skilled physicians, whether GP's or specialists. .02

 

 

 

GBR

 

Don't limit that to just doctors. I'd apply it across the board in medicine. Such as the nurses in Fremont who reused needles and spread hepatitis. (I realize the Dr. told them to do it that way, but they KNOW better than that or they should not be nurses. As a side note the nurse that was the most responsible was hired by an Omaha hospital the next month. Yikes.)

[rawhide]

wow, I wholeheartedly agree with you. whiskey tango foxtrot reusing needles no matter who tells you to do it is irresponsible and they should have lost their license. 'Nuff said. no excuses. I've seen may things wrong in the medical field and have taken other nurses and doctors to task for their inexcusable acts. Unless the AMA and the applicable state nursing board take action it can and will continue. The medical profession should always view each patient as if they were one of their own family( 'cept inlaws j/k) and be proactive patient advocates.

 

 

GBR

[SOCALHUSKER]

When Government Plays Doctor

 

This week, concerns about swine flu have dominated the media and many government officials. While the American people should be made aware of infectious diseases and common sense preventative measures, much of the hysterical reaction from government only serves to remind us how detrimental to your health it can be when government plays doctor.

 

As a physician, I have yet to see any evidence that justifies the current level of alarm. Influenza typically kills around 36,000 people every year in this country and hospitalizes a couple hundred thousand. So far there are only a handful of confirmed deaths attributable to this strain, and most of those sickened have or will fully recover. Every death is tragic, but I see no reason to deal with this flu outbreak any differently than we typically deal with any other flu season. Instead, government in its infinite wisdom is performing even more invasive screening at airports, closing down schools and sporting events, and causing general panic.

 

We had a similar outbreak in 1976, with only 1 death from the flu, but mandatory vaccinations killed at least 25 before the program was abandoned.

 

When government gets involved in healthcare decisions, the cure is so often worse than the illness. And yet, this administration will likely consolidate the government's power over your health with sweeping new reforms that are already being discussed in the Senate.

 

Government has not improved healthcare, and has not made it cheaper. Quite the opposite; costs have skyrocketed, and quality has gone down in many ways. Gone are the days of the country doctor making house calls, or of voluntarily giving away medical services at charity hospitals. The bureaucratization of healthcare these past 45 years has made things worse. It saddens me as a doctor that physicians are less and less accountable to patients, but more and more accountable to government red tape, insurance companies and attorneys. It seems so perverse to me that important medical decisions that will directly affect the lives of all or nearly all Americans are being hashed out behind closed doors in Washington rather than between doctors and patients.

 

There is perhaps nothing more valuable to a human being than his or her health, which is why I've always considered the practice of medicine so crucial to our well-being. Any intrusion by government into the privacy and trust between doctor and patient is detrimental to the art of medicine. It distorts the whole dynamic of who the client really is when doctors must answer more to government or insurance companies than to their patients. The best solutions to improving quality and lowering costs of healthcare would be measures that put decisions back into the hands of patients and doctors, where they rightfully belong. I have introduced HR 1495 The Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act, which promotes health savings accounts and tax deductibility of healthcare costs as an important step in this direction.

 

The unfortunate reality of this recent health crisis, as with any crisis, is that it presents opportunities that the unscrupulous will take advantage of, while the fearful become more compliant.

 

Medical costs will continue to rise regardless of government involvement. New technologies and drugs are expensive by themselves, plus the more effective medicine becomes, the more we will have to spend to treat people. (As medicine increases the average life span we are adding years to the most medically expensive segment of people's lives . . . old age.)

 

And finally, the decline of the general practice physician (As RP quaintly refers to as a "country doctor") has far less to do with governmental involvement and far more to do with the capitalistic impulse to earn money. (This is something R. Paul should be well familiar with.) After graduation most doctors have approximately $250,000 in school debt. Starting salaries for general practice physicians are roughly half that of specialists. For example, pathologists starting salaries are around $250,000, while general practice physicians start out at around $120,000. When you are staring down the barrel of $250,000 in school debt, it's easy to see why specializing is a more attractive option than general practice.

 

One option to increase the numbers of general practice physicians would be to institute some program of loan forgiveness for doctor's who choose to go the general practice route. (Unfortunately this requires governmental intervention and tax dollars.) Another option would be to increase the salaries of general practice doctors to match or exceed those of specialists. This increase in cost would of course be passed on to the patients.

 

It's interesting to me that RP as a physician and a crusader against governmental intrusion would complain about something (the lack of general practice physicians) that can probably only be changed by governmental intrusion of one sort or another. I suppose that is why he just complains and doesn't offer any suggestions as to what to do about it. That would force him to contradict himself.

 

 

(I have a very personal view of this whole scenario playing out. My girlfriend is entering her second year of medical school, and I don't think she will be able to turn down the $$$ of specializing to go the general practice route. I can't say that I blame her.)

 

You are completely wrong on the point highlighted. As technology and medicine improve, the cost will not rise but will instead be substantially lower. Basic economics proves that. Supply and demand controls price, they don't rise just because they can. If there's a high demand and low supply, yes, the prices rise. If supply is high and demand is low, then prices fall. An improvement in technology and medicine would undoubtedly create more supply and would therefore lead to lower prices.

 

Without government intervention we would also see an increase in competition, which also leads to lower prices. Government regulation of pharmaceuticals, research and procedures is what leads to the high costs of medicine. If there wasn't as much unnecessary regulation in place you would see more people/companies entering the medical field, leading to more competition, better service, better ideas/technology and of course, lower prices.

 

I'll address the rest of your points later. I gotta run.

[carlfense]

When Government Plays Doctor

 

This week, concerns about swine flu have dominated the media and many government officials. While the American people should be made aware of infectious diseases and common sense preventative measures, much of the hysterical reaction from government only serves to remind us how detrimental to your health it can be when government plays doctor.

 

As a physician, I have yet to see any evidence that justifies the current level of alarm. Influenza typically kills around 36,000 people every year in this country and hospitalizes a couple hundred thousand. So far there are only a handful of confirmed deaths attributable to this strain, and most of those sickened have or will fully recover. Every death is tragic, but I see no reason to deal with this flu outbreak any differently than we typically deal with any other flu season. Instead, government in its infinite wisdom is performing even more invasive screening at airports, closing down schools and sporting events, and causing general panic.

 

We had a similar outbreak in 1976, with only 1 death from the flu, but mandatory vaccinations killed at least 25 before the program was abandoned.

 

When government gets involved in healthcare decisions, the cure is so often worse than the illness. And yet, this administration will likely consolidate the government's power over your health with sweeping new reforms that are already being discussed in the Senate.

 

Government has not improved healthcare, and has not made it cheaper. Quite the opposite; costs have skyrocketed, and quality has gone down in many ways. Gone are the days of the country doctor making house calls, or of voluntarily giving away medical services at charity hospitals. The bureaucratization of healthcare these past 45 years has made things worse. It saddens me as a doctor that physicians are less and less accountable to patients, but more and more accountable to government red tape, insurance companies and attorneys. It seems so perverse to me that important medical decisions that will directly affect the lives of all or nearly all Americans are being hashed out behind closed doors in Washington rather than between doctors and patients.

 

There is perhaps nothing more valuable to a human being than his or her health, which is why I've always considered the practice of medicine so crucial to our well-being. Any intrusion by government into the privacy and trust between doctor and patient is detrimental to the art of medicine. It distorts the whole dynamic of who the client really is when doctors must answer more to government or insurance companies than to their patients. The best solutions to improving quality and lowering costs of healthcare would be measures that put decisions back into the hands of patients and doctors, where they rightfully belong. I have introduced HR 1495 The Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act, which promotes health savings accounts and tax deductibility of healthcare costs as an important step in this direction.

 

The unfortunate reality of this recent health crisis, as with any crisis, is that it presents opportunities that the unscrupulous will take advantage of, while the fearful become more compliant.

 

Medical costs will continue to rise regardless of government involvement. New technologies and drugs are expensive by themselves, plus the more effective medicine becomes, the more we will have to spend to treat people. (As medicine increases the average life span we are adding years to the most medically expensive segment of people's lives . . . old age.)

 

And finally, the decline of the general practice physician (As RP quaintly refers to as a "country doctor") has far less to do with governmental involvement and far more to do with the capitalistic impulse to earn money. (This is something R. Paul should be well familiar with.) After graduation most doctors have approximately $250,000 in school debt. Starting salaries for general practice physicians are roughly half that of specialists. For example, pathologists starting salaries are around $250,000, while general practice physicians start out at around $120,000. When you are staring down the barrel of $250,000 in school debt, it's easy to see why specializing is a more attractive option than general practice.

 

One option to increase the numbers of general practice physicians would be to institute some program of loan forgiveness for doctor's who choose to go the general practice route. (Unfortunately this requires governmental intervention and tax dollars.) Another option would be to increase the salaries of general practice doctors to match or exceed those of specialists. This increase in cost would of course be passed on to the patients.

 

It's interesting to me that RP as a physician and a crusader against governmental intrusion would complain about something (the lack of general practice physicians) that can probably only be changed by governmental intrusion of one sort or another. I suppose that is why he just complains and doesn't offer any suggestions as to what to do about it. That would force him to contradict himself.

 

 

(I have a very personal view of this whole scenario playing out. My girlfriend is entering her second year of medical school, and I don't think she will be able to turn down the $$$ of specializing to go the general practice route. I can't say that I blame her.)

 

You are completely wrong on the point highlighted. As technology and medicine improve, the cost will not rise but will instead be substantially lower. Basic economics proves that. Supply and demand controls price, they don't rise just because they can. If there's a high demand and low supply, yes, the prices rise. If supply is high and demand is low, then prices fall. An improvement in technology and medicine would undoubtedly create more supply and would therefore lead to lower prices.

 

Without government intervention we would also see an increase in competition, which also leads to lower prices. Government regulation of pharmaceuticals, research and procedures is what leads to the high costs of medicine. If there wasn't as much unnecessary regulation in place you would see more people/companies entering the medical field, leading to more competition, better service, better ideas/technology and of course, lower prices.

 

I'll address the rest of your points later. I gotta run.

 

Sorry man, I'm not wrong on that point. Ask rawhide for first hand information. Current drug prices and medical technology will decline in prices, you are correct there. However, developmental costs for new drugs and new technologies will continue to rise.

 

Check it out from business week: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/con...8079_279097.htm

 

Procedures and technologies are becoming exponentially more expensive, and will very likely continue to skyrocket. It's not like the costs of DVD players and VHS players going down over time, because unlike those household technologies, in medicine some entirely new technology comes along in years, not decades. That new technology is extremely expensive.

 

"Technological advances go hand in hand with productivity gains in most industries, but in medicine, better technology almost always means higher expenses. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that medical costs will rise 9.9% this year and 9.6% in 2009, even though the overall inflation rate for the most recent quarter was 4.2%. " (quote from the business week article)

 

As far as my other point that the more effective treatment is, the more costs overall will rise, I'll refer you to a quote from the article: "Rising costs could be seen as a sign of progress: The cheapest medical outcome, after all, is death. Major advances in the treatment of heart disease, cancer, pulmonary disorders, and a broad range of once-fatal diseases have prolonged life, but the longer the life, the higher the medical costs."

 

Also, if you are truly advocating for the removal of government regulations on all drugs . . . wow . . . I don't even know where to go with that. There is a reason why drugs must be extensively tested and approved by the FDA. The reason is when those safeguards aren't in place we ALL pay the price. (for a current example, health supplements are hardly regulated at all, Hydroxycut was an extremely popular weight loss pill that was NOT regulated by the FDA . . . Hydroxycut was actively marketed and sold . . . and now we've discovered that it causes liver failure.) Drug regulation is one area where the free market will absolutely, 100%, NOT work. Unless you are ok with wondering whether the next prescription you take will kill you I guess....

 

You need to look a little further into the subject before you throw around such strong opinions about it. If you have any sources that back up anything you are saying there, I'd be happy to look through them.

 

(and for the record, I don't think even Ron Paul calls for the removal of regulations on pharmaceuticals.)

[huskerjack23]

jeez...can i die when i'm 40 then?

[carlfense]

jeez...can i die when i'm 40 then?

 

Sure . . . it was just making the point that by definition more effective medicine is more expensive medicine. I'm sure you got that though.

[sarge87]

When Government Plays Doctor

 

This week, concerns about swine flu have dominated the media and many government officials. While the American people should be made aware of infectious diseases and common sense preventative measures, much of the hysterical reaction from government only serves to remind us how detrimental to your health it can be when government plays doctor.

 

As a physician, I have yet to see any evidence that justifies the current level of alarm. Influenza typically kills around 36,000 people every year in this country and hospitalizes a couple hundred thousand. So far there are only a handful of confirmed deaths attributable to this strain, and most of those sickened have or will fully recover. Every death is tragic, but I see no reason to deal with this flu outbreak any differently than we typically deal with any other flu season. Instead, government in its infinite wisdom is performing even more invasive screening at airports, closing down schools and sporting events, and causing general panic.

 

We had a similar outbreak in 1976, with only 1 death from the flu, but mandatory vaccinations killed at least 25 before the program was abandoned.

 

When government gets involved in healthcare decisions, the cure is so often worse than the illness. And yet, this administration will likely consolidate the government's power over your health with sweeping new reforms that are already being discussed in the Senate.

 

Government has not improved healthcare, and has not made it cheaper. Quite the opposite; costs have skyrocketed, and quality has gone down in many ways. Gone are the days of the country doctor making house calls, or of voluntarily giving away medical services at charity hospitals. The bureaucratization of healthcare these past 45 years has made things worse. It saddens me as a doctor that physicians are less and less accountable to patients, but more and more accountable to government red tape, insurance companies and attorneys. It seems so perverse to me that important medical decisions that will directly affect the lives of all or nearly all Americans are being hashed out behind closed doors in Washington rather than between doctors and patients.

 

There is perhaps nothing more valuable to a human being than his or her health, which is why I've always considered the practice of medicine so crucial to our well-being. Any intrusion by government into the privacy and trust between doctor and patient is detrimental to the art of medicine. It distorts the whole dynamic of who the client really is when doctors must answer more to government or insurance companies than to their patients. The best solutions to improving quality and lowering costs of healthcare would be measures that put decisions back into the hands of patients and doctors, where they rightfully belong. I have introduced HR 1495 The Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act, which promotes health savings accounts and tax deductibility of healthcare costs as an important step in this direction.

 

The unfortunate reality of this recent health crisis, as with any crisis, is that it presents opportunities that the unscrupulous will take advantage of, while the fearful become more compliant.

 

Medical costs will continue to rise regardless of government involvement. New technologies and drugs are expensive by themselves, plus the more effective medicine becomes, the more we will have to spend to treat people. (As medicine increases the average life span we are adding years to the most medically expensive segment of people's lives . . . old age.)

 

And finally, the decline of the general practice physician (As RP quaintly refers to as a "country doctor") has far less to do with governmental involvement and far more to do with the capitalistic impulse to earn money. (This is something R. Paul should be well familiar with.) After graduation most doctors have approximately $250,000 in school debt. Starting salaries for general practice physicians are roughly half that of specialists. For example, pathologists starting salaries are around $250,000, while general practice physicians start out at around $120,000. When you are staring down the barrel of $250,000 in school debt, it's easy to see why specializing is a more attractive option than general practice.

 

One option to increase the numbers of general practice physicians would be to institute some program of loan forgiveness for doctor's who choose to go the general practice route. (Unfortunately this requires governmental intervention and tax dollars.) Another option would be to increase the salaries of general practice doctors to match or exceed those of specialists. This increase in cost would of course be passed on to the patients.

 

It's interesting to me that RP as a physician and a crusader against governmental intrusion would complain about something (the lack of general practice physicians) that can probably only be changed by governmental intrusion of one sort or another. I suppose that is why he just complains and doesn't offer any suggestions as to what to do about it. That would force him to contradict himself.

 

 

(I have a very personal view of this whole scenario playing out. My girlfriend is entering her second year of medical school, and I don't think she will be able to turn down the $$$ of specializing to go the general practice route. I can't say that I blame her.)

You're forgetting about the cost of medical malpractice insurance which is not cheap.

[carlfense]

When Government Plays Doctor

 

This week, concerns about swine flu have dominated the media and many government officials. While the American people should be made aware of infectious diseases and common sense preventative measures, much of the hysterical reaction from government only serves to remind us how detrimental to your health it can be when government plays doctor.

 

As a physician, I have yet to see any evidence that justifies the current level of alarm. Influenza typically kills around 36,000 people every year in this country and hospitalizes a couple hundred thousand. So far there are only a handful of confirmed deaths attributable to this strain, and most of those sickened have or will fully recover. Every death is tragic, but I see no reason to deal with this flu outbreak any differently than we typically deal with any other flu season. Instead, government in its infinite wisdom is performing even more invasive screening at airports, closing down schools and sporting events, and causing general panic.

 

We had a similar outbreak in 1976, with only 1 death from the flu, but mandatory vaccinations killed at least 25 before the program was abandoned.

 

When government gets involved in healthcare decisions, the cure is so often worse than the illness. And yet, this administration will likely consolidate the government's power over your health with sweeping new reforms that are already being discussed in the Senate.

 

Government has not improved healthcare, and has not made it cheaper. Quite the opposite; costs have skyrocketed, and quality has gone down in many ways. Gone are the days of the country doctor making house calls, or of voluntarily giving away medical services at charity hospitals. The bureaucratization of healthcare these past 45 years has made things worse. It saddens me as a doctor that physicians are less and less accountable to patients, but more and more accountable to government red tape, insurance companies and attorneys. It seems so perverse to me that important medical decisions that will directly affect the lives of all or nearly all Americans are being hashed out behind closed doors in Washington rather than between doctors and patients.

 

There is perhaps nothing more valuable to a human being than his or her health, which is why I've always considered the practice of medicine so crucial to our well-being. Any intrusion by government into the privacy and trust between doctor and patient is detrimental to the art of medicine. It distorts the whole dynamic of who the client really is when doctors must answer more to government or insurance companies than to their patients. The best solutions to improving quality and lowering costs of healthcare would be measures that put decisions back into the hands of patients and doctors, where they rightfully belong. I have introduced HR 1495 The Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act, which promotes health savings accounts and tax deductibility of healthcare costs as an important step in this direction.

 

The unfortunate reality of this recent health crisis, as with any crisis, is that it presents opportunities that the unscrupulous will take advantage of, while the fearful become more compliant.

 

Medical costs will continue to rise regardless of government involvement. New technologies and drugs are expensive by themselves, plus the more effective medicine becomes, the more we will have to spend to treat people. (As medicine increases the average life span we are adding years to the most medically expensive segment of people's lives . . . old age.)

 

And finally, the decline of the general practice physician (As RP quaintly refers to as a "country doctor") has far less to do with governmental involvement and far more to do with the capitalistic impulse to earn money. (This is something R. Paul should be well familiar with.) After graduation most doctors have approximately $250,000 in school debt. Starting salaries for general practice physicians are roughly half that of specialists. For example, pathologists starting salaries are around $250,000, while general practice physicians start out at around $120,000. When you are staring down the barrel of $250,000 in school debt, it's easy to see why specializing is a more attractive option than general practice.

 

One option to increase the numbers of general practice physicians would be to institute some program of loan forgiveness for doctor's who choose to go the general practice route. (Unfortunately this requires governmental intervention and tax dollars.) Another option would be to increase the salaries of general practice doctors to match or exceed those of specialists. This increase in cost would of course be passed on to the patients.

 

It's interesting to me that RP as a physician and a crusader against governmental intrusion would complain about something (the lack of general practice physicians) that can probably only be changed by governmental intrusion of one sort or another. I suppose that is why he just complains and doesn't offer any suggestions as to what to do about it. That would force him to contradict himself.

 

 

(I have a very personal view of this whole scenario playing out. My girlfriend is entering her second year of medical school, and I don't think she will be able to turn down the $$$ of specializing to go the general practice route. I can't say that I blame her.)

You're forgetting about the cost of medical malpractice insurance which is not cheap.

 

I just touched on a few subjects that l thought should be clarified. What are your thoughts on malpractice insurance?

[strigori]

When Government Plays Doctor

 

This week, concerns about swine flu have dominated the media and many government officials. While the American people should be made aware of infectious diseases and common sense preventative measures, much of the hysterical reaction from government only serves to remind us how detrimental to your health it can be when government plays doctor.

 

As a physician, I have yet to see any evidence that justifies the current level of alarm. Influenza typically kills around 36,000 people every year in this country and hospitalizes a couple hundred thousand. So far there are only a handful of confirmed deaths attributable to this strain, and most of those sickened have or will fully recover. Every death is tragic, but I see no reason to deal with this flu outbreak any differently than we typically deal with any other flu season. Instead, government in its infinite wisdom is performing even more invasive screening at airports, closing down schools and sporting events, and causing general panic.

 

We had a similar outbreak in 1976, with only 1 death from the flu, but mandatory vaccinations killed at least 25 before the program was abandoned.

 

When government gets involved in healthcare decisions, the cure is so often worse than the illness. And yet, this administration will likely consolidate the government's power over your health with sweeping new reforms that are already being discussed in the Senate.

 

Government has not improved healthcare, and has not made it cheaper. Quite the opposite; costs have skyrocketed, and quality has gone down in many ways. Gone are the days of the country doctor making house calls, or of voluntarily giving away medical services at charity hospitals. The bureaucratization of healthcare these past 45 years has made things worse. It saddens me as a doctor that physicians are less and less accountable to patients, but more and more accountable to government red tape, insurance companies and attorneys. It seems so perverse to me that important medical decisions that will directly affect the lives of all or nearly all Americans are being hashed out behind closed doors in Washington rather than between doctors and patients.

 

There is perhaps nothing more valuable to a human being than his or her health, which is why I've always considered the practice of medicine so crucial to our well-being. Any intrusion by government into the privacy and trust between doctor and patient is detrimental to the art of medicine. It distorts the whole dynamic of who the client really is when doctors must answer more to government or insurance companies than to their patients. The best solutions to improving quality and lowering costs of healthcare would be measures that put decisions back into the hands of patients and doctors, where they rightfully belong. I have introduced HR 1495 The Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act, which promotes health savings accounts and tax deductibility of healthcare costs as an important step in this direction.

 

The unfortunate reality of this recent health crisis, as with any crisis, is that it presents opportunities that the unscrupulous will take advantage of, while the fearful become more compliant.

 

Medical costs will continue to rise regardless of government involvement. New technologies and drugs are expensive by themselves, plus the more effective medicine becomes, the more we will have to spend to treat people. (As medicine increases the average life span we are adding years to the most medically expensive segment of people's lives . . . old age.)

 

And finally, the decline of the general practice physician (As RP quaintly refers to as a "country doctor") has far less to do with governmental involvement and far more to do with the capitalistic impulse to earn money. (This is something R. Paul should be well familiar with.) After graduation most doctors have approximately $250,000 in school debt. Starting salaries for general practice physicians are roughly half that of specialists. For example, pathologists starting salaries are around $250,000, while general practice physicians start out at around $120,000. When you are staring down the barrel of $250,000 in school debt, it's easy to see why specializing is a more attractive option than general practice.

 

One option to increase the numbers of general practice physicians would be to institute some program of loan forgiveness for doctor's who choose to go the general practice route. (Unfortunately this requires governmental intervention and tax dollars.) Another option would be to increase the salaries of general practice doctors to match or exceed those of specialists. This increase in cost would of course be passed on to the patients.

 

It's interesting to me that RP as a physician and a crusader against governmental intrusion would complain about something (the lack of general practice physicians) that can probably only be changed by governmental intrusion of one sort or another. I suppose that is why he just complains and doesn't offer any suggestions as to what to do about it. That would force him to contradict himself.

 

 

(I have a very personal view of this whole scenario playing out. My girlfriend is entering her second year of medical school, and I don't think she will be able to turn down the $$$ of specializing to go the general practice route. I can't say that I blame her.)

 

You are completely wrong on the point highlighted. As technology and medicine improve, the cost will not rise but will instead be substantially lower. Basic economics proves that. Supply and demand controls price, they don't rise just because they can. If there's a high demand and low supply, yes, the prices rise. If supply is high and demand is low, then prices fall. An improvement in technology and medicine would undoubtedly create more supply and would therefore lead to lower prices.

 

Without government intervention we would also see an increase in competition, which also leads to lower prices. Government regulation of pharmaceuticals, research and procedures is what leads to the high costs of medicine. If there wasn't as much unnecessary regulation in place you would see more people/companies entering the medical field, leading to more competition, better service, better ideas/technology and of course, lower prices.

 

I'll address the rest of your points later. I gotta run.

Not true. The nature of patent law prevents it. And as the companies are trying to make a profit, and care nothing if someone lives or dies, as long as their stock prices go up, how do you think prices would go down? Hell, drug companies dont even want to cure people, or prevent illness or disease, they want to find longterm or permanent treatments to keep a steady flow of overpriced drugs.

 

And furthermore, supply and demand really shouldnt be applied to the things that keep people alive.

[sarge87]

When Government Plays Doctor

 

This week, concerns about swine flu have dominated the media and many government officials. While the American people should be made aware of infectious diseases and common sense preventative measures, much of the hysterical reaction from government only serves to remind us how detrimental to your health it can be when government plays doctor.

 

As a physician, I have yet to see any evidence that justifies the current level of alarm. Influenza typically kills around 36,000 people every year in this country and hospitalizes a couple hundred thousand. So far there are only a handful of confirmed deaths attributable to this strain, and most of those sickened have or will fully recover. Every death is tragic, but I see no reason to deal with this flu outbreak any differently than we typically deal with any other flu season. Instead, government in its infinite wisdom is performing even more invasive screening at airports, closing down schools and sporting events, and causing general panic.

 

We had a similar outbreak in 1976, with only 1 death from the flu, but mandatory vaccinations killed at least 25 before the program was abandoned.

 

When government gets involved in healthcare decisions, the cure is so often worse than the illness. And yet, this administration will likely consolidate the government's power over your health with sweeping new reforms that are already being discussed in the Senate.

 

Government has not improved healthcare, and has not made it cheaper. Quite the opposite; costs have skyrocketed, and quality has gone down in many ways. Gone are the days of the country doctor making house calls, or of voluntarily giving away medical services at charity hospitals. The bureaucratization of healthcare these past 45 years has made things worse. It saddens me as a doctor that physicians are less and less accountable to patients, but more and more accountable to government red tape, insurance companies and attorneys. It seems so perverse to me that important medical decisions that will directly affect the lives of all or nearly all Americans are being hashed out behind closed doors in Washington rather than between doctors and patients.

 

There is perhaps nothing more valuable to a human being than his or her health, which is why I've always considered the practice of medicine so crucial to our well-being. Any intrusion by government into the privacy and trust between doctor and patient is detrimental to the art of medicine. It distorts the whole dynamic of who the client really is when doctors must answer more to government or insurance companies than to their patients. The best solutions to improving quality and lowering costs of healthcare would be measures that put decisions back into the hands of patients and doctors, where they rightfully belong. I have introduced HR 1495 The Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act, which promotes health savings accounts and tax deductibility of healthcare costs as an important step in this direction.

 

The unfortunate reality of this recent health crisis, as with any crisis, is that it presents opportunities that the unscrupulous will take advantage of, while the fearful become more compliant.

 

Medical costs will continue to rise regardless of government involvement. New technologies and drugs are expensive by themselves, plus the more effective medicine becomes, the more we will have to spend to treat people. (As medicine increases the average life span we are adding years to the most medically expensive segment of people's lives . . . old age.)

 

And finally, the decline of the general practice physician (As RP quaintly refers to as a "country doctor") has far less to do with governmental involvement and far more to do with the capitalistic impulse to earn money. (This is something R. Paul should be well familiar with.) After graduation most doctors have approximately $250,000 in school debt. Starting salaries for general practice physicians are roughly half that of specialists. For example, pathologists starting salaries are around $250,000, while general practice physicians start out at around $120,000. When you are staring down the barrel of $250,000 in school debt, it's easy to see why specializing is a more attractive option than general practice.

 

One option to increase the numbers of general practice physicians would be to institute some program of loan forgiveness for doctor's who choose to go the general practice route. (Unfortunately this requires governmental intervention and tax dollars.) Another option would be to increase the salaries of general practice doctors to match or exceed those of specialists. This increase in cost would of course be passed on to the patients.

 

It's interesting to me that RP as a physician and a crusader against governmental intrusion would complain about something (the lack of general practice physicians) that can probably only be changed by governmental intrusion of one sort or another. I suppose that is why he just complains and doesn't offer any suggestions as to what to do about it. That would force him to contradict himself.

 

 

(I have a very personal view of this whole scenario playing out. My girlfriend is entering her second year of medical school, and I don't think she will be able to turn down the $$$ of specializing to go the general practice route. I can't say that I blame her.)

 

You are completely wrong on the point highlighted. As technology and medicine improve, the cost will not rise but will instead be substantially lower. Basic economics proves that. Supply and demand controls price, they don't rise just because they can. If there's a high demand and low supply, yes, the prices rise. If supply is high and demand is low, then prices fall. An improvement in technology and medicine would undoubtedly create more supply and would therefore lead to lower prices.

 

Without government intervention we would also see an increase in competition, which also leads to lower prices. Government regulation of pharmaceuticals, research and procedures is what leads to the high costs of medicine. If there wasn't as much unnecessary regulation in place you would see more people/companies entering the medical field, leading to more competition, better service, better ideas/technology and of course, lower prices.

 

I'll address the rest of your points later. I gotta run.

Not true. The nature of patent law prevents it. And as the companies are trying to make a profit, and care nothing if someone lives or dies, as long as their stock prices go up, how do you think prices would go down? Hell, drug companies dont even want to cure people, or prevent illness or disease, they want to find longterm or permanent treatments to keep a steady flow of overpriced drugs.

 

And furthermore, supply and demand really shouldnt be applied to the things that keep people alive.

The same could be said for dental industry, but yet they aren't demonized.

[sarge87]

When Government Plays Doctor

 

This week, concerns about swine flu have dominated the media and many government officials. While the American people should be made aware of infectious diseases and common sense preventative measures, much of the hysterical reaction from government only serves to remind us how detrimental to your health it can be when government plays doctor.

 

As a physician, I have yet to see any evidence that justifies the current level of alarm. Influenza typically kills around 36,000 people every year in this country and hospitalizes a couple hundred thousand. So far there are only a handful of confirmed deaths attributable to this strain, and most of those sickened have or will fully recover. Every death is tragic, but I see no reason to deal with this flu outbreak any differently than we typically deal with any other flu season. Instead, government in its infinite wisdom is performing even more invasive screening at airports, closing down schools and sporting events, and causing general panic.

 

We had a similar outbreak in 1976, with only 1 death from the flu, but mandatory vaccinations killed at least 25 before the program was abandoned.

 

When government gets involved in healthcare decisions, the cure is so often worse than the illness. And yet, this administration will likely consolidate the government's power over your health with sweeping new reforms that are already being discussed in the Senate.

 

Government has not improved healthcare, and has not made it cheaper. Quite the opposite; costs have skyrocketed, and quality has gone down in many ways. Gone are the days of the country doctor making house calls, or of voluntarily giving away medical services at charity hospitals. The bureaucratization of healthcare these past 45 years has made things worse. It saddens me as a doctor that physicians are less and less accountable to patients, but more and more accountable to government red tape, insurance companies and attorneys. It seems so perverse to me that important medical decisions that will directly affect the lives of all or nearly all Americans are being hashed out behind closed doors in Washington rather than between doctors and patients.

 

There is perhaps nothing more valuable to a human being than his or her health, which is why I've always considered the practice of medicine so crucial to our well-being. Any intrusion by government into the privacy and trust between doctor and patient is detrimental to the art of medicine. It distorts the whole dynamic of who the client really is when doctors must answer more to government or insurance companies than to their patients. The best solutions to improving quality and lowering costs of healthcare would be measures that put decisions back into the hands of patients and doctors, where they rightfully belong. I have introduced HR 1495 The Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act, which promotes health savings accounts and tax deductibility of healthcare costs as an important step in this direction.

 

The unfortunate reality of this recent health crisis, as with any crisis, is that it presents opportunities that the unscrupulous will take advantage of, while the fearful become more compliant.

 

Medical costs will continue to rise regardless of government involvement. New technologies and drugs are expensive by themselves, plus the more effective medicine becomes, the more we will have to spend to treat people. (As medicine increases the average life span we are adding years to the most medically expensive segment of people's lives . . . old age.)

 

And finally, the decline of the general practice physician (As RP quaintly refers to as a "country doctor") has far less to do with governmental involvement and far more to do with the capitalistic impulse to earn money. (This is something R. Paul should be well familiar with.) After graduation most doctors have approximately $250,000 in school debt. Starting salaries for general practice physicians are roughly half that of specialists. For example, pathologists starting salaries are around $250,000, while general practice physicians start out at around $120,000. When you are staring down the barrel of $250,000 in school debt, it's easy to see why specializing is a more attractive option than general practice.

 

One option to increase the numbers of general practice physicians would be to institute some program of loan forgiveness for doctor's who choose to go the general practice route. (Unfortunately this requires governmental intervention and tax dollars.) Another option would be to increase the salaries of general practice doctors to match or exceed those of specialists. This increase in cost would of course be passed on to the patients.

 

It's interesting to me that RP as a physician and a crusader against governmental intrusion would complain about something (the lack of general practice physicians) that can probably only be changed by governmental intrusion of one sort or another. I suppose that is why he just complains and doesn't offer any suggestions as to what to do about it. That would force him to contradict himself.

 

 

(I have a very personal view of this whole scenario playing out. My girlfriend is entering her second year of medical school, and I don't think she will be able to turn down the $$$ of specializing to go the general practice route. I can't say that I blame her.)

You're forgetting about the cost of medical malpractice insurance which is not cheap.

 

I just touched on a few subjects that l thought should be clarified. What are your thoughts on malpractice insurance?

Malpractice insurance many times is a deciding factor in what field a practitioner decides to take up. When you are paying in upwards of $20,000-$30,000 depending upon the field of expertise, it takes a huge bite out of your salary.