QUOTE(Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Jun 16 2009, 04:36 AM) [snapback]1508128[/snapback]
And here lies the problem. A system where the end is not the treatment of disease (the machinations required for which you seem to wildly underestimate) but rather the generation of profit, only loosely correlating with the treatment of disease.
You think doctors don't want to make a profit? Also, i disagree with your analysis of the US health care system...
How much is a life worth? Some say a lot of money. If your providing a life saving treatment, isn't it reasonable to expect the same value in return?
I mean, how much is a hamburger worth? It provides food and entertainment value. You pay 3.00 for it because the three dollars you pay has the same value as the value the hamburger provides.
You arguing that although the hamburger is worth 3.00 you should only have to pay 30cent for it, because McDonalds has the responsibility to feed the hungry. And they don't.
People lived to the ripe old age of about 35 before modern health care, now they live till they are 80 on average.. how much money is doubling your lifespan worth?
I know this is a corny argument but as far as capitalism goes, you pay for what you get.. and in this case you get twice as many years added on to your life. Sure there are other factors to play in life span, but you'd have to admit that health care is one of the single most important factors.
Medicine is not a system which can fully be defined in terms of INPUT (patient presenting pathology) PROCESS 1 (monkey in a white coat defines problem) PROCESS 2 (appropriate pharmaceutical applied) OUTPUT (patient no longer presenting pathology).
Yes, so? What?
The doctors are the thinkers, the people that understand how medicine functions as a concept and as a reality.
Don't know about that.. who came up with Penicillin, not a MD, that was a biologist... who comes up with almost all the life-saving medicine now days? Doctors? No... chemists and bimedical scientists.
All doctors do is diagnose. Congratulations, you have an infection. Lets keep it clean and hope for the best!
Thats all a doctor could do without pharmacologists.
Most importantly, they don't do their job just to increase turnover.
Having them run things wouldn't result in better outcomes. A life with no antibiotics wouldn't result in a better outcome...
Hard as it is for the callous to believe, I went into this line of work to help people. Much as it requires a financial base to do so, you have to recognise that keeping people alive is not cheap,
Yes, so stop complaining about high health care prices.
lancing boils for good money doesn't save lives like expensive heart surgery does.
That's the doctors who you want to run things doing that... Sure some doctors work for hospitals and don't have control over what stuff costs, but its not like doctors with private offices are doing this stuff for free.
Therefore more profit does not lead to better medical care.
Where do you think Drug companies get money to finance there research from?
I'll gladly concede that in a world where we can assume the worst of everyone, businessmen are the lesser of two evils. But given we're priviliged by being human, there is a third way. I hope that the free marketeers can see past the dollar signs in their eyes, and the British politicians can peer around the pillars of pomp and circumstance for long enough to see that in terms of medicine it's better to put reduction of suffering before their personal views on free enterprise.
Canada's health care system works great.
Although what do I know? I'm only 80% of the way to a joint degree in medicine and surgery, I can't even find a disease. Maybe if I take a freshman economics class I'll know enough to talk down to people who've only been polite about it.
You don't know to much about it, obviously. Theory is nice, isn't it. I'm not an expert on but my opinion is that self interest always produces the best results in the long run. (and i'll defend this point if you bring up counter examples)
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Jun 18 2009, 05:38 PM) [snapback]1508512[/snapback]
The medical system the US's is no where near the best and if you can't see why that is there is no point in you discussing this topic as you really have no concept of how the medical system works in the US or other countries.
Your logic is outstanding. Thanks for playing.
The point that mello makes but for some reason didn't seem to pick up on, is that if businessmen run the medical industry to maximise profit, which by definition is finding the price level that profit maximises this isn't the one that makes the product or service available to the most people.
But that is the point where value in = value out.
Why it would be better if the doctors run the medical system is that they can make it more efficient as they would understand the problems therefore saving money without reducing patient care and in some cases increasing patient care.
Why can't they do that now? I'm sure that if their was a will by Doctors to make things more efficient, businessmen would be all over it BECAUSE IT WOULD REDUCE COST (and increase profit). Revenue - cost = profit.
They don't have to decrease the revenue just because they decreased the cost.
To be fair there is vast differences in areas of the medical systems and lumping them all together as one really makes no sense anyway, drug development is a far flight from invasive surgery.