Posted under Chuck Baldwin & Conservatism
I got a chance to listen to the debate between Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader and enjoyed it very much.
However, I thought Baldwin could have given a better answer on health care policy. He’s in a bind because from Consitutional perspective there should be no government intereference in the health care system, which we would all agree on, yet you don’t want to look callous either which doesn’t leave you with a good answer.
Being long-time physician, Dr. Paul had some good ideas during the primaries for returning the system back to where it was affordable for persons with just out-of pocket expenses and I think states and local governments and companies should be allowed to expirament and come up with solutions for insurance coverage on their own free from the necessity of getting government permission or “waivers”.
To me, the best argument one can make against universal healthcare is that once you make getting health care a right, you can’t take it away, nor can you deny it or say it costs too much. In socialist systems the government is the one that denies care if it costs too much instead of the insuranace companies. But the difference is, such socialist counties do not have our Constituion nor are they as litigous as we are. A Canadian court said rationing violated Canada’s Charter of Rights so one can imagine the same would be true in the U.S. And when U.S. court rules that you cannot deny or delay a person’s right to healthcare,  you’ll be paying for every Hollywood starlots botox operation and breast implants just as we’re paying to give Donald Trump Social Security. Enjoy.
roho on 26 Oct 2008 at 1:49 am #
It’s a complex issue, but more tied to “Tort Reform” than the average citizen can grasp………..IMHO physicians in America generate far more income than any doctors in the world. (So much for the hypocratic oath and refering to it as a “calling”.)………..Throw the greed and jealousy of the “Legal Community” in the mix, and we now have “Defensive Medicine” requiring doctors to make every decision based on “Liabilty Issues” and the requirements of their malpractice insurance gaurd dogs.
Much of this is driven by a “NATIONAL CULTURE” that sees the road to riches through litigation and opportunitism. (Much like the lottery system.)
My deceased stepmother was in a retail store when an associate accidently shattered some display glass, causing a sliver to barely miss my stepmother’s eye, creating a laceration on her face that did not even require stitches………………….While using a paper towel to clot the insignificant cut, two different black ladies approached her with business cards of ATTORNEYS, claiming that they were witnesses and that she should contact “THEIR” lawyers…………………Ha-Ha.
Almost all of our societal problems trace back to “Failed Cultural Issues” tied to marxist citizens that always want something for free through “Legalistic Opportunities”!
BMWRider on 26 Oct 2008 at 1:19 pm #
The only problem is that while American doctors make “far more income than any doctors in the world,” they also pay huge amounts of said generated income into malpractice insurance. I spoke with a physician last summer who said fifty percent of his charge was the cost of his insurance. The mess we deal with in American medicine is the result of having too many lawyers looking to make a fast buck, a government that regulates much of the industry while providing no benefit, and a people that expect instantaneous results.
Weaver on 27 Oct 2008 at 1:20 am #
OBGYNs in certain states pay so much they can barely make any money.
However, plastic surgeons and brain surgeons do well I think, and some professions allow for 9-5 hours. So, it depends on what type of doctor you’re talking about, and where said doctor is working.
My family is full of doctors, and I know my father is paid less per hour than someone working at Ford factory line. He’s not an OBGYN though.
He works about 70hrs a week I bet (incl. weekends and ER call), and it’s nearly killing him due to his age (he’s always worked this much, and my grandfather before him worked about the maximal amount possible due I guess to great depression ethics.) Older doctors are forced to quit due to malpractice expenses: they can’t work the hours necessary to pay it all, and socialised medicine will force them to quit en masse leaving a huge shortage. 10 years from now roho, you’ll struggle to find a native born doctor haha.
There’s a reason I didn’t go on to med school – I’ve seen the Hell doctors deal with, though again I realise now that this doesn’t apply to all of them.
—
One additional point: there are many no pays and partial pays, and their expenses must come from somewhere.
Death Bredon on 01 Nov 2008 at 6:23 am #
Any system that keeps Courtney Cox in Botox is fine by me!
Weaver on 01 Nov 2008 at 10:24 pm #
The list btw was of malpractice amounts.
So, on top of paying staff and hospital fees, a doctor in Florida must make $270,000 to break even with just malpractice. Adding staff and hospital fees, this would be much higher.
—
Sometimes the guy you think you’re handing the money to isn’t the guy who’s pocketing the money.
That said, some doctors do probably make too much, e.g. plastic surgeons. In our market economy, there seems to be a lot of variation.