Friday, February 3, 2012
A Cartel, Unquestioned
There's one aspect to the health-care problem that nobody, NOBODY, is talking about. And that's the fact that medical doctors (M.D.s and D.O.s) have a virtual monopoly on providing health-care to people. I mean, yes, you can see a chiropractor for a bad back, an optometrist for a vision exam, and a podiatrist for bunions but for most basic medical issues you still have to see a doctor............................................................................................So, why is that a bad thing, you ask? It's bad because for the vast, vast, majority of ailments (colds, backaches, etc.) that you're presently going to a doctor for, you could just as easily (not to mention, effectively) go to a nurse-practitioner, a physicians assistant, a physical therapist, a person trained in in kinesiology and exercise science, etc.. This is especially true when these individuals have doctorates and multiple years of patient experience UNDER A DOCTOR........................................................................................I mean, I know that we're conditioned to think that doctors are gods and that only doctors can cure us but, I'm telling you here, I have worked in human services and health-related fields for my entire career and some of the smartest people in the galaxy are nurse practitioners and doctoral level therapists. I would have absolutely zero qualms about seeing either of them for my medical needs. Seriously........................................................................................P.S. This obviously dovetails into another serious medical issue; i.e., the doctor shortage, a shortage that will clearly become even more pronounced once the health-care bill really kicks in. Hopefully the stars will all align some day and officials connect the dots.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
A friend belongs to Group Health. She has talked about calling a nurse practioner for medical advice. However, I suspect nurse practioners cannot prescribe medications.
I agree that a lot of medical,situations could be handled just as well by someone other that a doctor.
A doctor once told me that being a general practitioner was the easiest job. He said that 90% of the people you see will get better no matter what you do, and the other 10% you refer to a specialist.
Actually, they can (at least in CT) prescribe meds (and so can physicians assistants). But they always have to be under the tutelage of a doctor.......And, speaking of medicine, thanks for the laugh.
In our rural area, family physicians have become scarce.
So, for the last few years, my
'provider' has been a nurse practioner. Yes, they can prescribe, can refer to specialists, take more time with a patient....and they are much
better listeners!
I don't think I can disagree with this post. We need a single-payer bill that includes provisions to accomplish what you describe. I'd support that.
We need many payers.
The fascist solution of the ruling elites having monopoly control (single payer) would make things far worse.
There's no need, WD, to use this as excuse for a destructive power grab by those who already have too much power.
Strike out "single payer" or anything like it, Will, and I will support you fully.
I'm in favor of putting more power in the hands of the people, which is why I support single-payer. It cuts out the corporations and provides health care on a not-for-profit basis, thereby lower costs.
We need to reverse this destructive power grab by the corporations (who already have too much power) by turning health care insurance over to the people. Single-payer is the exact opposite of the fascist system we now have.
""We need to reverse this destructive power grab by the corporations (who already have too much power) by turning health care insurance over to the people."
If you really mean what you say, push for decentralization. Many players. Turning control over to unaccountable ruling elites is a step in the wrong direction.
"Single-payer is the exact opposite of the fascist system we now have."
Actually, having the government control all healthcare decisions is a step in the direction of fascism.
From the definition: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism..
Taking control of all healthcare decisions and turning them over to the ruling elites in Washington as you keep demanding doesn't meet all definitions of fascism, but it sure does meet the "centralization of authority" one.
We don't live in a dictatorship dmarks, we live in a democracy. The government is "we the people". That's what I mean when I say we should turn health care insurance over to the people. I mean "we the people" (ie our government).
btw, the US has no "ruling elites", we have elected representatives. Also, they are accountable. The primary way they are held accountable is via elections.
dmarks doesn't seem to know a lot about democracy. He keeps confusing it with fascism.
FORGET THIS NONSENSE....ITS SUPER BOWL WEEKEND!!!!!
America will bet 10 BILLION DOLLARS on tomorrows game...yes BILLION with a B.
Las Vegas sports books will be mobbed.
Indianapolis will make 150 million in tourist money.
A 30 second TV commercial will cost 3.5 million during the game.
This is america at its best my friends....everybody wins in one way or another.Capitalism at its very best.
BTW...the Patriots are favored by 3 points and the over/under is 54.5.
Rusty: ITS SUPER BOWL WEEKEND!!!!!
Is it? I heard something about that, but wasn't sure when it was. Anyway, I thought there was just one game on one day (I don't know which day). Apparently there are multiple football games all weekend long?
Rusty: This is america at its best my friends... everybody wins in one way or another. Capitalism at its very best.
IMO it's America at it's worst. Obsessing over something so meaningless (and spending so much money on it) isn't a good thing. Also Gambling isn't capitalism.
And what about the people that lose? Not everyone wins. For there to be winners, there has to be losers. I guess by "everybody" Rusty means the gambling industry... and who gives a sh!t about the suckers they fleece.
Rusty: the Patriots are favored...
Favored against whoever they're playing against... I don't know and I don't care.
wd said - "btw, the US has no "ruling elites", we have elected representatives. Also, they are accountable. The primary way they are held accountable is via elections."
LMFAO at his naivete. Remembering the lifetime elitist politicians that have hoodwinked a dumb electorate in to reelecting them time and time again. Both frigging parties are part of the charade............................
So, RN, are advocating a new system of government, since you seem to dislike our current one? If so, what does it look like? Maybe we can get something better started here.
Never thought you would care WD.I'm guessing you'll be curled up with a hot cocoa watching a chick flick on Sun. evening while the vast and I mean vast majority of america will be doing something with a bit more fun attached to it.
We'll raise a toast to you at halftime WD......halftime,thats the middle of the game.
WD said: "We don't live in a dictatorship dmarks"
Yes. Government control of private business meets some, but not all, of the definition of fascism. I am well aware of that.
"The government is "we the people". That's what I mean when I say we should turn health care insurance over to the people."
The Founding Fathers rightfully recognized that the government was not the people. That is why we have the Bill of Rights and other limitations on what the ruling elites can do.
"I mean "we the people" (ie our government)."
I would accept "We The People" (tm) as the government. Something separate from the people. Which is what we have.
"btw, the US has no "ruling elites""
In every nation in the world there are ruling elites. You are naive and too trusting of authority to deny this.
"we have elected representatives."
That merely states that some of our ruling elites are elected. So?
"dmarks doesn't seem to know a lot about democracy."
It's all Civics 101 about the necessity to limit the predations of the rulers. I know more about this than you do.
As for accountability, in the private sector, if you don't want to do business with a company, you can do business with another one. But if the "company" is a government monopoly, it can do violence against you or incarcerate you merely for refusing to do business with it. That is a total lack of accountability.
If you choose to refused to participate in "Priority Health", they will not come after you. But if you refuse to participate in "single payer", the enforcers will come after you. And you might get harmed or die.
"He keeps confusing it with fascism."
A fascist government that is democratically elected is still fascist. Fascism is how the government rules, not how it is chosen.
And the trademarked "We The People" (tm) taking away control of personal healthcare decisions from every American and put it in the hands of the actual rulers fits with the
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority .... stringent socioeconomic controls"
part of the definition of fascism. I'd much rather have a society that meets NO parts of the definition, thank you.
Single payer healthcare is fascist?
Poor Britain, Finland, Switzerland,
Norway, Denmark, France, Canada ad infinitum...under the jackboot
of fascist tyranny? Seems a bit of a stretch.
An exciting weekend and you boring fruitbowls are talking about this inconsequential bullshit.
Save a few bucks....and buy a friggin life. Talk about the ugly american...you certainly fit the bill.
.you certainly fit the bill.
One of rusty's personal pot kettle moments
BB: The ruling elites controlling an entire industry is a step in the direction of fascism, and fits part of the definition. But only part.
"under the jackboot of fascist tyranny?" is a stretch... until these countries start to meet the rest of the definition.
Rusty: An exciting weekend...
You're talking about the Superbowl again? That's one of the boringest things I could possibly imagine.
Rusty: Talk about the ugly american.
I don't know what could be unglier then an industry that produces nothing, but sustains itself by fooling real working folks into throwing their money away. And Rusty thinks it's capitalism at it's finest. I find that incredibly ugly.
dmarks: ...until these countries start to meet the rest of the definition.
Poor dmarks... you can't help but feel sorry for someone so deluded by Rightwing ideology that they don't know the difference between Socialism and Fascism (which are on opposite ends of the political spectrum).
Socialism is nothing more than the economic aspect of fascism. They are on the same end of the spectrum: on the oppression end of the freedom vs oppression scale.
I'm not the deluded one, but you are easily fooled any time the ruling elites say "We're from the government we're here to help you".
Time for you to start questioning authority, and take being an informed and aware citizen seriously.
dmarks: Socialism is nothing more than the economic aspect of fascism. ... I'm not the deluded one...
You're not the deluded one? I beg to differ. I'm not the one making up my own word definitions.
Thanks for he comments, folks. Been having problems with my provider and hope to have them corrected in short order.
I am not making up word definitions. The central government control part of the definition of fascism dovetails with the part of socialism about the state controlling the means of production. I am merely sticking with the definitions.
WD, you said: "I support single-payer. It cuts out the corporations and provides health care on a not-for-profit basis, thereby lower costs."
What if we required these companies to all be non profits? No profit problem, no centralization "one size fits few" problem.
Fair enough?
dmarks: What if we required these companies to all be non profits?
I'd possibly be onboard. But it wouldn't be my preference. Also, I think it would be harder to accomplish that. The health insurance companies would fight it. It would be easier just to open Medicare for anyone who wanted to buy in.
That's the way Switzerland handles their health insurance, I believe. Maybe Germany, too. I'm too lazy to check right now.
Post a Comment