Commentary: "Coronavirus shows again why 'Medicare for all' is a bad idea"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Buks said:
Don’t you see the huge gap between what you say that you want your doc to have, and that which many, many have which
is so far above that level of comfort and security which you state?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t see a gap. Do you have any authoritative data that shows the distribution of income among professionals that is skewed toward M.D. or O.D. showing higher incomes?

Greed is a sin. A presumption that others are sinners is evil in itself. If not detraction, at least a rash judgement.
 
Last edited:
You must not remember what you wrote. Here it is:
“dependable auto, a safe, comfortable home to refresh in, a family whose financial security allows the doc/nurse to be on call 24/7…”

Now, if you have not noticed a gap, I don’t know what to say to you. IMO, many doctors should have a lifestyle that is higher than your description. Especially as the level of responsibility is greater (surgeons, etc.).
The original point, of a different poster to whom you replied, was that reducing the profit available in healthcare would lead to having more purely altruistic motivations.
 
Last edited:
Buks said:
IMO, many doctors should have a lifestyle that is higher than your description. Especially as the level of responsibility is greater (surgeons, etc.).
The original point, of a different poster to whom you replied, was that reducing the profit available in healthcare would lead to having more purely altruistic motivations.
Click to expand...
Confusing post. Are you reversing your position and admit that you have no evidence that a …
Buks said:
… huge gap between what you say that you want your doc to have, and that which many, many have …
Click to expand...
… exists?
 
I was looking for common ground. I’ll assume we have it. Your earlier post suggests that the poster you replied to doesn’t want a decent income for healthcare providers, and I had to take issue.
 
jeannetherese said:
if I am understanding you correctly with the majority of physicians public, but some physicians choosing to hold private practices and also some public physicians able to charge over and above the fees set by the state.
Click to expand...
There is
  • physicians (and nurses, and midwifes) that are employees of a public health estalishment, such as an hospital, so paid directly by public money.
  • physicians and health professionals that are in “liberal” practice. So they are their own employeer with their own health office, or in a house that belongs to a community or in a private hospital. They are self employed but they are indirectly paid by public money because the patients’s consultations are paid by the State. Some of these health charges patients with more money out of their pocket such as in private hospitals.
The two solutions are what constitute the vast majority of the health care in France.

To oversimplify, when you are little ill you go to a liberal doctor in the city, and when you need special care, or an operation or to deliver a baby you go to an hospital. (of course it doesn’t work always like that).
  • but *very small minority (less than 1,000 for more than 110 000 liberal physians) choose to be completely liberal, so the patients have to paid all the consultation and the price is by far higher than the price that is fixed by the State.
jeannetherese said:
I wonder why the state would want to set the limit it has set on the number of physicians, if there seems to be a greater demand then can be met by the physicians who are available. Could you share some of the reasoning for this.
Click to expand...
the system was born after 1968, with the wishes share by the physicians associations and the State to control the public health expenses (including the price of the studies) to keep enough place in hospitals for medical students’s intership to guarantee enough income for the physicians and at the same time to offer enough medical coverage for the population. At the time France was considered to be over-quip in hospitals beds for eg by the Governement.

At the beginning the numerus clausus was high but since the 1980’s medical deserts appears and it had become critical now! The worst is in more rural areas and in difficult cities because nodoby want to go there.
The succesive Governements don’t anticipate the age of the physians and their future retirements, and don’t make the numbers of students higher, even if everybody is aware of the situation and complain for at least 20 years…

That’s why the numerus clausus will be suppressed in 2020.

www.sudouest.fr

Vidéos. Dans le rétro : d’où vient le numerus clausus des médecins ?

L'Assemblée nationale a voté la fin du "numerus clausus" en études de médecine. Retour sur l’histoire d’un système hérité du début des années 70.
www.sudouest.fr www.sudouest.fr
 
Last edited:
I am usually the conservative voice, but as far as healthcare goes, there should be some form of universal health care available in any nation that can afford it. There are nations who have it that don’t wait years for a knee replacement and so on.

I thought that obamcare had answered the problem in the US. What happened with that? The problem with healthcare in the US I think revolves around greed, kickbacks, pork at the state and federal levels and bloated bureaucracy. An ER visit can cost someone 35,000. Crazy. I plan on retiring in a country with an affordable healthcare system and buy private insurance there. There are actual countries that can provide quality healthcare at reasonable prices.

My parents paid a fortune for their healthcare and thats with medicare. I love my country but at 62, Im headed for the tropics.
 
Thank you for your insightful analysis and the fascinating article.(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
A bit. It’s embarrassing how much I’ve lost, but I can read over the article and get the gist of it. I’ve not used my language skills in a while-but I still have my enormous Larousse Dictionary and a bit of background in other Romance languages to lean on.
I love words!
 
Some data on acute care (ICU) beds available in different countries in the EU and the US.

In 2009 the US had a nationwide average of 34.7 ICU beds per 100 000 population. There is a great variability here as areas with older populations could have as high as 257.5 ICU beds per 100 000 and other areas with young populations as low as 28.9.


In 2012, another study detailed the numbers of ICU beds across the EU.
Germany had the highest. These numbers include IMCU (Intermediate Care Beds) and not merely ICU (Intensive Care Beds), so there isn’t an exact equivalence.

Germany — 29.2 / 100 000 pop
Italy — 12.5 / 100 000 pop
UK — 6.6 / 100 000 pop
Austria — 21.8 / 100 000 pop
Spain — 9.7 / 100 000 pop
Sweden — 5.8 / 100 000 pop

link.springer.com

The variability of critical care bed numbers in Europe - Intensive Care Medicine

Purpose To quantify the numbers of critical care beds in Europe and to understand the differences in these numbers between countries when corrected for population size and gross domestic product. Methods Prospective data collection of critical care bed numbers for each country in Europe from...
link.springer.com link.springer.com

So compare 34.7 / 100 000 actual ICU beds in the US to the relative numbers of ICU and IMCU beds in Europe above.

This partially explains why the countries in Europe (with varying levels of socialized medicine) are currently having the difficulties they are. Compare Germany, for example, with Italy or Spain.

Statistics for access to ventilators would also be revealing in terms of response capacities.
 
Last edited:
The nice thing about the Provincial Health care system in Canada is the fact that it can mobilize very quickly to combat any health threat because it comes from a single source instead of dozens of individual health care providers. And in the province British Columbia it’s free.
 
Harry Stotle noted that The U.S. has on average about 34.7 beds per 100,000 persons.
According to this Ontario doctor, acute care beds are much more limited in Canada.
Dr. Lougheed of Ontario states: " Canada has about 10 to 12 ICU beds per 100,000 people, depending on the region. In comparison, Italy has about 12 and its health-care system was quickly overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases. It’s argued that Italy has been hit hard by COVID-19 because of a higher median age of 45.5, but Canada isn’t far off that with a median age of 42.2.

If we don’t flatten the curve of COVID-19 infections in Canada, we will far exceed the capacity of our already overburdened health-care system."
source:

 
Last edited:
Anicette said:
There is some appointment where you wait for a year, such as to controlled your eyes/vision. But they are due to a lack of physicians not state health care!
Click to expand...
The number of eye doctors available is controlled by your govt
 
StJames said:
The nice thing about the Provincial Health care system in Canada is the fact that it can mobilize very quickly to combat any health threat because it comes from a single source instead of dozens of individual health care providers.
Click to expand...
I am not clear that it can “mobilize very quickly.” Certainly not clear that it could mobilize more quickly than a less government controlled system. This may be a cherished notion that gives some comfort because we have been convinced that the state can and will look after us.

That is treading very tenuous ground vis a vis the power of the state.
StJames said:
And in the province British Columbia it’s free.
Click to expand...
It’s free if you don’t pay taxes, but it isn’t free absolutely.
 
The Provincial/Federal health care system has already proven to be vastly superior in its response to the pandemic as well as our banking system has been already able to mobilize because its a centralized system and doesn’t have to wait for agreement between hundreds of private banks that we see in other countries who are or are becoming epicentres of the coronavirus.
 
esieffe said:
I thought that obamcare had answered the problem in the US. What happened with that?
Click to expand...
The Affordable Care Act legislation was written by health insurance industry lobbyists. It was an improvement over what we had before but doesn’t do anything to really reduce costs in the long run. Now some analysts are projecting a 40% increase in insurance premiums next year due to the costs of coronavirus treatment.

The only way to reform our health care system is to remove the profit motive.
 
Balto1 said:
The only way to reform our health care system is to remove the profit motive.
Click to expand...
A lot easier said than done wouldn’t you agree? The only way to do that is to nationalize the healthcare system. The SCOTUS would have to rule on that. If your thinking non-profit, that helps but the bottom line doesn’t seem to be that big a difference between the two. The quality seems to be better with not for profit, but the bills look the same.
 
Balto1 said:
The only way to reform our health care system is to remove the profit motive.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that’s not realistic. There will always be a profit motive whether it’s an individual doctor, a private company, or the state choosing to cut things. It’s just a question of who profits.
 
Anicette said:
40.png
Anicette:
There is some appointment where you wait for a year, such as to controlled your eyes/vision. But they are due to a lack of physicians not state health care!
Click to expand...
The number of eye doctors available is controlled by your govt
Click to expand...
Yes, the successive governements are responsible of the number of physicians thar are formed. So it has nothing to do with the price of health care that is partly taken in charge y the State.

But as I wrote it in another post above this numerus clausus for medical studies will be suppress starting this year in the hope to correct the situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top