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: Lane3 who wrote (7216)6/26/2009 6:47:51 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 42652
 
Could that be because installing stents is more profitable than, say, making diet recommendations?

I suspect that installing a stent is more effective than diet recommendations (my physicians is after me about what I eat every time I go in, and I haven't changed a thing yet).

Or that lesser interventions are not worthy of their great education, skill, expertise, and perceived role in the world?

Or because the stent business is so good and the peer pressure is so strong that they never stop and consider the viability of investigate less extreme interventions?

Again, I think this is a highly cynical view. The cardiologists I know come across to me as very interested in patient care and the best possible solutions to their problems. Of course, I'm not a patient, so I can't say for sure.

From my POV they get the benefit of the doubt.

As a CPA I watched my own profession -- under so-called "self-regulation" -- literally self-destruct with the Enron fiasco. I was personally embarrassed to admit being a member of the AICPA after it happened, because a once highly respect profession had suffered an absolute lack of integrity.

I just don't think physicians are there. I don't see them putting their own interests ahead of those of patients. I know it happens, but I'm not convinced it is widespread.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but there is really fairly scant evidence to suggest it.