SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (6664)4/13/2009 11:04:27 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 42652
 
You do not save money with this "negotiating" power. You simply cut quality.

That has been amply demonstrated in other countries. I believe Britain was the first country to discover they were harboring terrorist doctors due to the lack of supply of native doctors willing to work at the wages under their socialized system.



To: i-node who wrote (6664)4/13/2009 8:53:48 PM
From: skinowski  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42652
 
I think the fight for private medicine was lost in the mid-1980's. when the government introduced the so-called "Relative value scales" and concepts like "maximal allowed charges". The medical profession walked into these innovations, I hate to say it, like a herd of cattle. And political "visionaries" who would be able to clarify the implications were nowhere to be found.

Predictably, this new price control regime kept getting tighter, new fee cuts kept coming every year - and eventually, of course, private practice of Medicine arrived to a point when - in many cases - it was no longer possible.

How many of you heard of any young Internists or family docs hanging out the shingle and starting a new solo practice in recent years? It hardly ever happens. A recent article in JAMA published a few months ago describes a study of 4th year medical students in the US med schools. Only 2% of them expect to have a career as primary care physicians.