Tuesday, August 21, 2012

wd's Solution to the Impending Doctor Shortage

Call doctors greedy and pay them less....Yeah, that'll work.

21 comments:

dmarks said...

He's still bitter over that botched lobotomy. And takes it out on the entire profession, it seems.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I cannot wait for the retort to that one.

w-dervish said...

I'm not at all bitter that dmarks' lobotomy was botched. I didn't even know he had one, I just thought he was dumb.

And your post title is a lie. That isn't my "solution" at all.

dmarks said...

I'm just waiting for evidence of the overpay. Is there indeed some outside agency, outside of the clinic or hospital, demanding that administration/managers/etc pay the doctors a higher amount than the administrators/managers/etc would otherwise pay if the matter were left to just them and the doctors to decide?

w-dervish said...

Doctors Overpaid, Says Study. The study, being published... in the journal Health Affairs, found that the incomes of primary care doctors and orthopedic surgeons were substantially higher in the US than in other countries. ...the difference results mainly from higher fees, not from higher costs of the doctors' medical practice, a larger number or volume of services or higher medical school tuition".

dmarks frequently SAYS he is for "fair pay" but his last comment shows that claim is a lie. He wants to force down pay for lower and middle imcome workers, and keep pay for workers who are already highly paid as high as possible. It's an essential component of the Conservative's class warfare agenda.

I support cuts on the provider side to bring these fees in line with what doctors in other countries are charging. This isn't a solution to the doctor shortage problem; it is a part of the solution to the "costs to damn much for people to be able to afford it" problem.

Obviously Will and dmarks don't give a damn about that problem. If you can't afford health care, no doubt it's because you're a loser, so who give a damn if you die due to a lack of health care?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Another bald-faced lie. I came out months ago with a plan to break up the MD and DO cartel in regards to health-care and to allow for patients to see nurse practitioners, doctoral level therapists, people with doctorates in kinesiology and exercise science, etc.. And I also put forth months ago a health-care reform proposal that achieves 100% coverage. I mean, really, dude, do you EVER get tired of mischaracterizing people.

Jerry Critter said...

How do you bring the Increase in healthcare costs (which is much greater than the rate of inflation) under control without bringing the cost of healthcare services (wages) under control?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The plan that I put forth several months ago (which you guys poo-pooed because it had vouchers as ONE of its component) would institute competition and I think that that would definitely help. And I also think that we have to look at some forms rationing and soon. Right now, we're spending ridiculous sums of money during the last 2 months of life that are doing absolutely NOTHING to prolong that life and which are bankrupting the system before our very eyes. Somebody has to show the political courage here.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And $186,000 for a general practitioner is NOT an outrageous amount for somebody who has had to prepare 11-12 years and who is probably still paying off his student loan as we speak. If frigging France wants to pay their doctors less than 6 figures and they think that that is working for them, viva la differance'.

w-dervish said...

Will: I came out months ago with a plan to break up the MD and DO cartel in regards to health-care...

I assumed you changed your position, as this would result in lower incomes for doctors. If the supply of doctors increased, competition would force down their wages.

But you JUST SAID you're against lowering doctor salaries. Which is it?

Jerry Critter said...

"Right now, we're spending ridiculous sums of money during the last 2 months of life that are doing absolutely NOTHING to prolong that life..."

Last time a solution for that was proposed it was poo pooed by the republicans as "death "panels".

Rational Nation USA said...

Doctor's salaries are not the problem.

dmarks said...

WD: Your summary of my view is entirley incorrect. I don't want to 'force down' anyone's wages. I want them all to be the fair free market value, whether or not that means wages currently set by outsiders with no regards to what the worth is work go up or down. I have always been consistent on this. And yes, even if this means making sure doctors are paid a fair value (instead of something set higher due to illegitimate government intrusion) and doctor pay goes down. And of course if this means pay for good workers goes up and pay for bad workers goes down.

dmarks said...

Jerry: I completely agree with your death panel point. Rationing is pure evil. I am not sure if Will intended this, but he sounds like he wanted to save money by 'tweaking' health care to kill off people a couple of years early. To echo a little what RN said, trying to help people is not the problem either.

Well, Jerry, I am assuming you are opposing any death panels and snuffing the ill elderly to save a few bucks, but I am not 100% sure of the tone of your comment.

w-dervish said...

Will: ...we're spending ridiculous sums of money during the last 2 months of life that are doing absolutely NOTHING to prolong that life...

I agree with this. We need end of life counseling to get people to accept that their life is near it's end, instead of encouraging doctors to give people false hope by making them think expensive procedures can prolong their life significantly.

dmarks says "snuffing the ill elderly to save a few bucks". Reasonable people say "death with dignity". And NOBODY is advocating "snuffing", only allowing people to die naturally... although I am for assisted suicide also (but that's another discussion).

FYI, we already have rationing! The rationing we currently have is based on ability to pay. Those who can't pay die. And I bet dmarks is just fine with that rationing.

Also, my summary of your view is 100 percent accurate. You oppose everything that would increase wages for working people (the minimum wage, unions and tariffs, for example).

dmarks said...

Incorrect. The minimum wage laws reduce wages for very low earners from a low value to $0, when the company has to fire people because it can't afford the burden of handing out unearned money. Unions lower wages by forcing companies to fire workers... their money goes to $0. For those wtill in the union, they are hundreds of dollars poorer as the union literally steals large sums of money from workers each year to waste on political causes that go against the union's interests. Check out Flint, Michigan sometime to see the effect of forced unionization. And tariffs reduce wages to $0 also when the export sector vanishes due to the resulting trade wars... and those still getting money see it go less far due to the tariffs forcing them to buy inferior products at inflated prices.

Want to see wages go up? Stop forcing companies to fire people.... a change from $0 a year to anything at all is a big difference. Stop trying tp wipe out jobs via tariffs. Get rid of the minimum wage, because being paid that is better than being paid $0.

dmarks said...

And no you completely misread. I completely oppose rationing.

w-dervish said...

All the things I listed are PROVEN to increase wages, not lower them to zero. dmarks' claims are all completely false.

And if you completely oppose rationing, then what is your proposal to get everyone health care coverage? You say no to single payer, and no to raising taxes (which would allow us to pay to get more people covered).

It sounds like dmarks wants the most expensive health care system possible, but he doesn't want to pay for it.

dmarks said...

Single payer is horrible because monopolies are somethin to move away from, not toward. Raising taxes is not necessary, with tax revenues close to an all-time high.

I want much lower costs. Increase competition (many more players). Ban frivolous lawsuits.

As for 'paying for it' we already pay more than most.

All of your claims are the opposite of reality, and certainly not my views.

Jerry Critter said...

Costs are lowered by lower wages and profits. You say competition, but the actual result of competition is lower wages and prices (profits). Increased efficiency can help, but in the past 20 or 30 years, increases in productivity (efficiency), has gone primarily to profits, not lower prices or higher wages.

dmarks said...

Jerry: And contained in the above was your claim that competition lowers prices. Good thing, right?