Presidents bipartisan fiscal commision

Dixie said:
Whether price controls are constitutional or not, the real question should be, do they work? In most non-Socialist empires, the free market determines what people make, not the government. When you start talking about cutting doctor's pay, and they'll put up with it because you've put them between a rock and a hard place, you sound like an idiot who doesn't comprehend how free enterprise works. What are you going to do when the majority of doctors decide it's better to spend their lives writing that book they always wanted to do, or go around to college campuses giving lectures, or just tool around in their vintage convertible sports cars, visiting their other doctor buddies at the yacht club? How are you going to provide this free health care for 30 million new patients, without any doctors?

Do you think, if there were a cap on what doctors could make, this would create any incentive for people to become doctors? Why would you bother with years of education and med school, for a career where the government will decide your income for you? I actually think, just the mere notion that some fools are talking such nonsense, is causing thousands of would-be doctors to reconsider their career paths. Not exactly what you'll need to happen if you expect this system to work.
Click to expand...
There's overwhelming evidence that they work Dixie. They have been used for a long time now by all other modern industrialized nations except the US to help control health care cost and most nations spend far less then we do.

And you hit on a key central point though, is it fair to Doctors. As for the incentive for people to become Doctors? Oh that would certainly remain. First, the numbers of physicians in our nation are kept artificially low so as to keep incomes high (ya know, that supply and demand thing?). Creating greater capacity, i.e. supply, meaning creating more doctors by expanding existing medical schools and creating more schools, if neccessary, is one way to control cost as there is a very large pool of qualified persons who would like the opportunity. Currently most qualified candidates are turned away by medical schools with the end result that we have a serious shortage or primary care physicians in our nation and they are the most important physicians at improving outcomes, not specialist. More available physicians would mean more competition in the market place and thus lower cost. So eliminating these artificial barriers to access to education would certainly help. Also, in most nations, the cost of a medical education is borne by the state, as most individuals cannot afford the cost, subsequently they must agree to work for a fixed wage (which is still far more then the average Joe makes, for example, in the UK the average primary care physician makes around $150,000 USD/year). That method has been used in our nation to place physicians in rural areas where there is a critical shortage as physicians can earn substantially more in urban areas.

Besides Dixie, if your goal is to get rich, don't become a physician. There's not a practicing physician out there that makes what Bill Gates does, unless they are in business too. Most physicians I know are motivated by helping people more so then making money (though they certainly like that too).
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
It's quite interesting to note, after all the acrimony over health care reform that the bipartisan commision has suggested the following 3 principles of health care reform all other modern nations have adopted.

Universal coverage
A single payer system
Cost controls

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf
Click to expand...

wouldn't an "all payer" system be completely different than a "single payer system"?........because an all payer system is what the plan calls for.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top