Doctors vs Your Health

[BlackSabbath]

Recently, I've noticed a trend with the medical profession, at least here in Britain, and I was wondering if it happens elsewhere.

Whatever social problem there is, the medical profession recommends that the government solve it through tax, regulation and engineering.

You get chased down the street by 3 Norwegians with a harpoon gun and the problem is not that you're a fat b******d who needs to get his act together. The problem is that the government needs to tax all the burger bars and sweet shops more heavily.

You're only 35 and you were born white but now you look like one of the Simpsons and your breath can peel paint off the walls at 10 feet. The problem is not merely that you are a drunk but that the government doesn't tax you highly enough on your booze.

There has just been a budget delivered by The Chancellor (Finance Minister) here and one of the responses in my favourite paper is :

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=301&id=311942004

GP says he should be paying more tax

PETER Copp was left with mixed feelings following the Budget.

Mr Copp, a medical director at GP-Plus in Edinburgh’s Wemyss Place, said the Chancellor’s measures failed to extract enough taxes from him.

The 42-year-old, who is set to gain £218 a year when the Budget changes come into effect from April, had expected to be paying out several hundred pounds more in tax.

And Mr Copp said he and his wife Gill, 37, felt embarrassed to be given family allowance, which has increased by £54 a year for his family, when he can already afford to feed and clothe their three children.

Speaking from his seven-bedroom detached Victorian home in Murrayfield, on which he pays £350 a month mortgage and £300 council tax, Mr Copp said he remained "unconvinced" by the Budget. "I have mixed feelings because, although it is nice to think that we are slightly better off, I don’t expect to be. I expect to pay more tax so that our public services are better."

The family, which has a total income of some £95,000 a year, will pay £257 less income tax per year, but £52 more on national insurance per annum. They have two cars, which will cost £37 more per year to fuel.

Mr Copp, who buys two bottles of wine a week, added that the increase of 4p on bottles of wine and 1p on pints of lager should have been higher.

"I see the problems that alcohol causes every day at work and therefore I think that it is still too cheap. One way to highlight that alcohol is a killer is to increase taxation on it."

[DavidV]

You get chased down the street by 3 Norwegians with a harpoon gun and the problem is not that you're a fat b******d who needs to get his act together.

LMAO

Mr Copp, a medical director at GP-Plus in Edinburgh’s Wemyss Place, said the Chancellor’s measures failed to extract enough taxes from him.

I think this is indicative of how much further along Britain is down the road to socialism: I don’t think any Americans would express that sentiment. Even the leftists weasel out of demanding tax increases for themselves.

Whatever social problem there is, the medical profession recommends that the government solve it through tax, regulation and engineering.

I was reading an article/survey in the New England Journal of Medicine last month that examined the reasons for professional dissatisfaction among doctors. It seems that more doctors are miserable at their job than ever before. The survey results were blindingly clear about that fact that government programs/regulations were responsible for most or all of the job dissatisfaction. The proposed solutions of the authors ranged from “you had it too good in the first place” to “you owe your suffering to your profession/patients.” What they should have concluded of course, is that no one can be happy in their job, when regarded as a natural resource or a slave to society.

[AshRyan]

I think this is indicative of how much further along Britain is down the road to socialism: I don’t think any Americans would express that sentiment. Even the leftists weasel out of demanding tax increases for themselves.

I think there are some Americans who advocate increased taxation for themselves (e.g., Warren Buffett and probably a lot of the Hollywood crowd?). But probably a lot fewer Americans would do that than Europeans.

[oldsalt]

I have a good perspective on the medical profession in America. I worked in this area from 1962, both before and after Medicare (i.e., the first step on the road to socialize medicine) was instituted. I know firsthand how detrimental to medical care this has been, both as a professional and as a patient. I loved my work too much to stay -- along with many, many others.

We have not gone as far (yet) as Britain has. We have been socializing the field incrementally. You mustn't scare the natives; they must be brought along slowly, so they won't realize what's being done to them. Now, however, we've come far enough, and the government interference in medicine has caused enough problems, that fully nationalized medicine in just around the corner.

As a consequence, the brain-drain has begun.

[y_feldblum]

What, in your analysis, is the cause of surging disability insurance premiums and the dire results of it that have recently appeared?

[oldsalt]

I'm not sure if you were asking me specifically, but I'll offer my two cents, for what it's worth.

The surging costs of all insurance premiums have the same cause: government regulation has instituted a growing number of middlemen into the system, which has caused all medical costs to soar. These middlement dictate a kind of cookbook medicine, which defines the acceptable protocols of treatment to be followed by doctors (regardless of the requirements of individual patients). This is only one factor in rising medical costs. More regulation means more oversight (which costs), more office personel who do nothing but deal with regulations and insurance people (which costs), higher malpractice insurance, higher overhead, etc. These costs have to be paid for. These days, because of the socialization of medicine, the costs are paid for by increased insurance premiums and taxpayers -- whether they actually use the services or not.

When people do not pay directly for most of their medical needs, they tend to use the service more. This "frivolous" use of medical services raise the costs to everyone. The specific costs of disability insurance can be traced to the much greater demand for disability payments -- much of which is unwarranted. Businesses pay most of the cost of disability insurance for their employees (mandated by the government, who also dictates who you buy from), so it doesn't seem to hurt the individual much. It is thus used as just another way to get something for nothing. It's a version of the old "The insurance companies are rich so they can afford it." rationalization.

[y_feldblum]

Yeah, the question was to you, as well as anybody who would know the answer, having "a good perspective on the medical profession in America."

The last line of your post reminds me of the creatio ex nihilo fallacy of economics that I just made up.

[Old Geezer]

Y feldblum

In some of my courses we studied how the history of how insurance came to be this high.... The history I learned is quite similar to how BlackSabbath describes it (people did not pay directly for their services so they were not as cost conscious)

but Id like to add on my understanding of the forces aside from the more direct and obvious government interventions and laws.

1. During the 50's and 60's, with the rise of companies such as Blue Cross, it was sort of a "hay day" for Health Insurance consumers, if general Practititioners werent sure if a particular test was necessarry they would order it... same with refferall to a specialist....

2. Once the "cat was out of the bag" so to speak, consumers came to expect such services... Not only that , but what people began to consider medical care began to expand Not a problem in and of itself, but a problem once the Tort Lawyers got their hands on such precedents. Further it became problematic with the rise of expensive and effective new technologies.

3. Before, (in the twenties for instance) most disease was of the bacteria variety and inexpensive . Nowadays, most people in the US die from diseases of abundance . (cancer, heart disease etc) these tend to be more expensive and require more treatment.

4. the "baby boom" is getting older and an older demographic skews the business model that makes insurance work cheaply.

[y_feldblum]

Ok.

Regarding number four, I thought demographics screw absolutely nothing in the absence of government regulations. Insurance would work fine (you pay us or we don't insure you, and we use your money to invest and maintain your account), but social security wouldn't (you pay us or we throw you in jail, and we use your money to pay for our reckless indulgences), because it falls nowhere near the definition of insurance.

[Old Geezer]

Regarding number four, I thought demographics screw absolutely nothing in the absence of government regulations

IMO the insurance industry would have taken a major hit with or without g regulation. But gov regulation made it a lot worse (sort of like mixing beer and cocaine the interaction was disasterous)

"Insurance would work fine (you pay us or we don't insure you, and we use your money to invest and maintain your account"

Thats not how most insurance works. (even if it was unregulated) imagine fire insurance in a town of 100 people. Every year approximately 1 house catches on fire. Each person pays for the rebuilding of say 2% of a house. The insurance. company keeps the money which it is not obligated to pay to rebuild a house.

[Richard_Halley]

"Insurance would work fine (you pay us or we don't insure you, and we use your money to invest and maintain your account"

Insurence would be nothing but a bank account which you cannot withdraw from except under certian conditions if this was how it worked.