Physician Speaks Out, Be Very Scared!

[Bruce]

I have a lot of concerns about the track of HC Reform legislation but I am sorry, a raving anesthesiologist ranting in form and fashion seemingly designed to serve as an audition for a shot on Glen Beck's show isn't very good reason to get anyone's shorts in a knot.

It's pretty obvious he just slapped his name on a form letter provided by a slamming conservative group (They just could not resist sliding in a reference to ACORN).

There is plenty to like about conservatism. And with both doctors and carriers coming out in favor of reform, what we are seeing from the right politically is pretty weak.

Of all medical professions, I really can't think of one discipline that would be more resistant to change than anesthesiologists. They are, I believe, in the top centile of physicians in terms of average compensation and , as a group, would far rather chew off it's hand than sign any negotiated discount contract.

And where are the good Doctor's suggestions for reforming HC? One would think a man, who in his position averages about $500,000 a year in earnings, would actually have some constructive comment.

I think there's ways to express displeasure but this letter ain't one of them.

They say the truth is rarely pure and never simple. But the pure and simple truth is you cannot begin to think you are going to control cost until you figure how to slow the rate of increase in the availability and use of costly advanced treatment.

And that is obviously a conversation people do not want to have.

Personally, I think astute health agents are in great position moving forward.

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

They say the truth is rarely pure and never simple. But the pure and simple truth is you cannot begin to think you are going to control cost until you figure how to slow the rate of increase in the availability and use of costly advanced treatment.

A very cogent post.

There is little doubt that "corporate" health care as we've experienced for the last thirty-five years or so has led to much higher costs and tons of uninsured people, which equals a big failure.

To think that the federal government, in all their wisdom, and based on their track record can somehow reign in cost at the same time expanding coverage is not wishful thinking, it's insanity.

 

[Winter_123]

To think that the federal government, in all their wisdom, and based on their track record can somehow reign in cost at the same time expanding coverage is not wishful thinking, it's insanity.

And if they can, then, well, get going. They already have control over two of the largest public options on earth: Medicare and Medicaid. Why is there all of this talk about getting control over a public option to demonstrate how the government can really do a bang-up job creating an environment that is cost-controlled, free of ugly abuse and unnecessary treatment, etc. Oh, it must be all the commissions agents are making enrolling clients in Parts A and B that have led to all the costs and abuses in Medicare. Maybe we should just let the government take it over....oops.....nevermind.

 

[GonnaFlyNow]

First, learn to spell "venom."

Somehow it is always venom when anyone says something you noe-cons disagree with... but it is always God's gospel when said by Newt, Limbaugh, and Palin... the "right" singing trio of your crowd... of your generation. (Peter, Paul, and Mary were mine. I'll keep mine, thank you.)

Do respond when you get back from church telling Jesus what a good group of people you all are. I'm sure he wants to hear all about it. Even Jesus needs a good laugh every once in a while!

Al,

I'm neither a neo-con, not even a con. I'm an independent and I think you make some valid points.

What I'm saying is that the valid points you are making are getting lost in the noise of your personal attacks and prejudices.

It is possible to make a point without personally attacking someone or some group.

You are guilty of the same things the Rush Limbaughs are doing.

kw
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And if they can, then, well, get going. They already have control over two of the largest public options on earth: Medicare and Medicaid. Why is there all of this talk about getting control over a public option to demonstrate how the government can really do a bang-up job creating an environment that is cost-controlled, free of ugly abuse and unnecessary treatment, etc. Oh, it must be all the commissions agents are making enrolling clients in Parts A and B that have led to all the costs and abuses in Medicare. Maybe we should just let the government take it over....oops.....nevermind.

The funny thing is, Winter, that Obama is saying he can save $500 billion dollars by eliminating "waste" in Medicare.

Why does he have to reform ALL of the healthcare industry? Why not just eliminate the "waste" in Medicare first and realize those savings. Then, after he's proven that can be done, "reform" the rest of the healthcare industry.

 

[Winter_123]

I have a lot of concerns about the track of HC Reform legislation but I am sorry, a raving anesthesiologist ranting in form and fashion seemingly designed to serve as an audition for a shot on Glen Beck's show isn't very good reason to get anyone's shorts in a knot.

It's pretty obvious he just slapped his name on a form letter provided by a slamming conservative group (They just could not resist sliding in a reference to ACORN).

There is plenty to like about conservatism. And with both doctors and carriers coming out in favor of reform, what we are seeing from the right politically is pretty weak.

Of all medical professions, I really can't think of one discipline that would be more resistant to change than anesthesiologists. They are, I believe, in the top centile of physicians in terms of average compensation and , as a group, would far rather chew off it's hand than sign any negotiated discount contract.

And where are the good Doctor's suggestions for reforming HC? One would think a man, who in his position averages about $500,000 a year in earnings, would actually have some constructive comment.

I think there's ways to express displeasure but this letter ain't one of them.

They say the truth is rarely pure and never simple. But the pure and simple truth is you cannot begin to think you are going to control cost until you figure how to slow the rate of increase in the availability and use of costly advanced treatment.

And that is obviously a conversation people do not want to have.

Personally, I think astute health agents are in great position moving forward.

All good points, and of course, on the internet there is always room for the mother of all questions: Does Dr. Stephen Fraser know that a letter with his name attached is circulating like wildifire on the net?

Doesnt matter. These things are all about managing images and creating straw horses to knock down. A few months ago if you took a poll and asked people if they supported a "public" option the majority were in favor. If you reworded it and asked if they wanted a "government" option, no one wanted it. Go figure.

Now we have this new form of capitalism circulating where it is considered to be turbo-capitalism when you have the government in there as one of the competitors. That used to be called government interference. Of course with socialism it does get mushy the further down the road you go. The biggest capitalist pigs on this earth now are the Communist Chinese. Go figure encore.

 

[GreenSky]

What would they be paying without minimum wage laws? right around $1.20/hr.

You can't possibly believe minimum wage laws actually help people? They are one of the causes of unemployment, especially minority unemployment and youth unemployment.

In this case, govt. intervention simply has put people out of work.

Rick

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

I disagree. For example, if it takes 10 people to run a shift at McDonald's then it takes 10 people. If doesn't work with 6, 5 or 4.

McDonald's would be a perfect example of a company that would be paying $2/hr saying "hey, at least we're offering them a job." And what would McDonald's be doing with the difference between the $2/hr they'd pay and the $7 they have to pay? Cheaper food? No, more money for top execs. Let's get real.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Interesting that no one seems to have read The Jungle.

 

[djs]

Al - You can't be serious. Obviously, you don't study history at all.

Why can't the private carriers control costs? It is in their interests to do so, but big pharma just rolls along selling drugs in the USA that you can get in Canada for half or more less.

Why can't private carriers control costs? Well, actually they can. They have tried a lot of what Obama is proposing (do only things that make you healthier), but the courts have ruled that they can't do this. Get government out of the way, they are the problem, not the fix.

Canada? Yes, again, because of the way things work, Americans subsidize drugs to canadians. The drugs won't get developed if the pharma companies have to abide by all of the government restrictions and then can't sell them for what it costs to develop them. Do some studying on this, you'll find out how this works.

Al, when you want to join the healthcare debate to improve it, please feel free to do so. In the meantime, if you are simply going to read somebody's talking point memo, we have already received it.

Dan

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

A wet dream? If they repealed minimum wage tomorrow Walmart execs would be hospitalized for excessive masturbation.