Another Bush idea fails spectacularly. Instead HSAs help out wealthier people:

Full text: http://www.thebell.org/PUBS/IssBrf/2007/08-HSAs.php

Summary: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/81120.php

Health savings accounts linked with high-deductible health plans do not benefit lower-income individuals and have not led to reduced health care costs, according to a report released on Wednesday by the Bell Policy Center, the Denver Post reports. According to the report, although HSAs "have grown rapidly in the last few years, they have missed their mark, attracting enrollees with high incomes who are more likely than low-income people to already have coverage." The report also said that HSAs "do not appear to be making system-wide changes toward lowering costs, as some proponents expected." Blair Woodbury, a public policy fellow at Bell and the author of the report, said that HSAs "may be useful for some consumers" but "are by no means a solution to the major problems in today's health care system" (Raabe, Denver Post, 8/30).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Americans already have universal healthcare(though most don't know it). There just are not enough payers.

HSAs are designed to keep more healthcare moneys in the hands of individuals so that they can control their own costs, and their own healthcare. Instead of in the hands of insurance companies or the government.

Which is kinda the opposite of increasing the numbers of payers, isn't it?

HSAs make perfect sense for people like me. I just have not gotten around to getting mine set up.

If everyone built up their own kitty of savings for their healthcare needs for themselves, it would put insurance companies almost out of business wouldn't it. Which would be a good thing, don't ya think. You would not need that overhead being funneled off, and if your kitty were large enough, no insurance company would be in charge of denying you coverage for ANY service you need, or WANT.

I just don't think than many people know about them, let alone subscribe to them. I just found about them myself, and I am in the healthcare biz.

And it is hardly a Bush idea, this concept has been around for at least 20 years. And hardly a failure, spectacular or otherwise.

The new HSA legislation was promoted by the Bush administration as the solution to getting all Americans insured by allowing them to have high deductibles and "shop around" for price effective health care. But the idea failed in many regards. First of all, lower income people aren't helped by not having to pay taxes on their health care because they can't afford to purchase the insurance in the first place. Even if they could, they don't pay much in the way of the taxes, so how can that help.

Secondly, it is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible to get pricing information from many health care providers. Try to ask a hospital for pricing information sometime. So how can you "shop around"?

At the state and federal levels, policymakers have looked at ways to reform the health care system that would slow the rising cost of health care and allow more people to have meaningful health care coverage. One proposed option for reform is through Health Savings Accounts, which encourage people to pay more of their health care costs out of pocket, instead of having a health insurance company pay for all or most health care costs.

To achieve this goal, President Bush and the Congress passed legislation in 2003 that gives Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) a tax advantage when they are used to pay for health care. An HSA is a special savings account that can be invested like any other tax-advantaged savings account (such as an IRA), but which can only be used to pay for health care. HSAs have favorable tax treatment when paired with a high-deductible health insurance plan. Proponents have touted these plans as a way to lower health care costs. Critics say HSAs are a tax shelter for the wealthy that could increase health insurance premiums for those with traditional coverage.

The link I provided shows that it didn't help any of the stated policy goals of:

1) Limiting rising health care costs
2) Helping the uninsured get coverage

But what it did do is make a nice tax shelter for those who don't really need it.

Instead HSAs help out wealthier people:Of course they help out rich(er) people. Any tax deduction does, because the rich pay a much higher marginal rate. It doesn't even affect social security, the real tax that rapes the poor but not the rich.

HSAs were obviously not designed to benefit the poor, so I don't see what you're complaining about. It's working as intended, giving middle and upper class people an incentive to shift income from insurance companies to savings accounts.The link I provided shows that it didn't help any of the stated policy goals of:
1) Limiting rising health care costsYou can only limit rising health care costs by (a) controlling overspending by doctors/hospitals/staff, drug companies, and malpractice lawyers and (b) stopping people from getting preventable conditions like obesity, lung cancer, and so on. Everything else is just a matter of who spends it, not how much is spent.2) Helping the uninsured get coverageThey do, sort of, because HSA insurance plans are pretty cheap. But then again, there are other better insurance plans that are also pretty cheap, at least here in California (where we have tort reform). So I fail to see much benefit.

What really helps some uninsured get insured is the tax deduction, if you're self-employed. And the rest just go on the EMTALA plan, since it's very cheap and offers infinite coverage if you always go to the ER first.

If everyone built up their own kitty of savings for their healthcare needs for themselves, it would put insurance companies almost out of business wouldn't it.No, we still need them as a collective bargaining tool to prevent you guys from gang raping us on costs and for catastrophic expenses (which, by current hospital rates, means any minor procedure).

Not to mention, insurance companies do not necessarily make less money by offering HSAs. They make even make more.I just don't think than many people know about them, let alone subscribe to them. I just found about them myself, and I am in the healthcare biz.Many people know about them, but in their current implementation, they are impractical for most.

The new HSA legislation was promoted by the Bush administration as the solution to getting all Americans insured by allowing them to have high deductibles and "shop around" for price effective health care.
Your articles linked even admit to a very conservative 2% drop in use. That is a good start.

First of all, lower income people aren't helped by not having to pay taxes on their health care because they can't afford to purchase the insurance in the first place.
Don't confuse having insurance and getting healthcare. Most poor people have Medicare, Medicaid, or in our case Medical. Not only that, but EMTALA requires every hospital(with an ER) to treat every person who comes in; those who don't have insurance and don't pay.

Additionally, as Tudamorf has shown us in the past, 100 dollar a month plans are readily available for those who want to buy them.

It is not so much a matter of affording, as making the decision to get it.

Even if they could, they don't pay much in the way of the taxes, so how can that help.
Maybe, even against my better judgment, they need a little force for this part.

Secondly, it is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible to get pricing information from many health care providers. Try to ask a hospital for pricing information sometime. So how can you "shop around"?
That is true. A test sample taken from one side of a hall for the same test on the other, can be a different price.

People need to be cajoled into asking the price of services(I do) and learn to haggle. They are use to laying there with their legs spread eagle getting raped going brain dumb because previously their insurance companies paid for everything. They need to stop that. They haven't obviously.



The link I provided shows that it didn't help any of the stated policy goals of:

1) Limiting rising health care costs
2) Helping the uninsured get coverage
It is a tax free retirement plan at its most simplest.
You get all the money back, even if you die before ever using it(well, your heirs). Life insurance works like that, not health insurance. Except at the least you get everything back out of it, even if you stop paying in to it.
It becomes an asset you own, rather than just a service you have paid for.

Of course, it does not force the uninsured to get coverage, it only makes it easier for them to get it if they chose to. Obviously many of the uninsured are intentionally uninsured(I know I am at this time). I am healthy, I already pay into Medicare and Medical(which I don't qualify for, or have ever received), I don't NEED insurance at this time. That is my individual choice and freedom, seems many make the same choice.

I have previously paid into insurance systems, and have gotten a mere fraction back out of it. That money is spent and gone, someone else got to spend it, on their investments, or on someone else's healthcare. I want my own to go to my own when I do start paying into a system.

I don't want to pay for people who don't work, lazy peoples' healthcare. I don't like those people, I don't owe them anything. I don't like them, and have no duty to lazy ass white trash who can't help themselves out of a wet cardboard box.

Of course, as long as EMTALA continues to be law, we we will all have to pay for them. Even those of us without insurance(and pay our own way, pay for our own services). EMTALA is a slave law, and is unethical and immoral. But until it is repealed, you need to bend over and let it slide in. Healthcare has not so much spiraled out of control, as much as those who pay into the systems, have to pay for those who use the systems and don't pay. Healthcare providers are not getting rich by any means, I still can't afford my own home yet(while many of my customers take in services which cost more than the homes I can't even afford, free of charge to them).

But what it did do is make a nice tax shelter for those who don't really need it.
Poor people need retirement plans even more than rich people do. If they put 3K a year into it, it will work just like an IRA, they could be millionaires by time of retirement. And you can control were it is invested, if you chose, or you can let managers manage it, and get similar returns as any IRA.

But poor people are mostly stupid people of course(otherwise they would figure out how to become rich), and their idea of retirement is a winning Lotto ticket. And they get all the free healthcare in the world(because they are stupid and poor) and you pay for it already. Or maybe even, poor people are actually smart, and figure out that even if they are poor, the rich will pay their way for them; and they don't have to work as hard, or take the hard choice risks. Sounds pretty smart to me.

Poor people get healthcare. Already. If you don't know that by now, buy a Lotto ticket, because you are about as smart as they are.

ps I am mostly discussing the HSA portion, not the high deductible insurance part. After the HSA has grown a bit, you could even discontinue the insurance part; become self insured. Then again, there is always EMTALA, and you don't actually have to pay for anything anyways.

No, we still need them as a collective bargaining tool to prevent you guys from gang raping us on costs and for catastrophic expenses (which, by current hospital rates, means any minor procedure).
If you don't have catastrophic problems, why are you coming to a hospital?

Well, I mean if you are a normal responsible type person.

I asked you previously what you meant(define) by "unnecessary tests". To which, obviously, you had NO answer.

What do you define as a minor procedure?

If you don't have catastrophic problems, why are you coming to a hospital?Because my doctor is located in one. Of course I use the (cheap) office visit method, with the 60%+ discount that Blue Cross negotiates with the hospital. So it costs very little to me, and to the other Blue Cross insureds. Only the hospital loses out, because they can't bill me $20,000 for an ER visit that might accomplish exactly the same thing.What do you define as a minor procedure?Remind me, how much does it cost if my butt touches a bed in your hospital?

What if I'm sitting there for a day with some simple IV and a monitor?

I know someone who got charged over $20K for stitches at the ER after a minor fall.

What you people charge is unconscionable, and that's why we (the patients) continue to need insurance companies to bargain on our behalf, so we don't get gang raped when we're most vulnerable.

Because my doctor is located in one. Of course I use the (cheap) office visit method, with the 60%+ discount that Blue Cross negotiates with the hospital.
My doc has an office. He uses NPs and PAs to control his costs. My last visit was 75 bucks, for all of the things I wanted, that was reasonable.

The first time I went there, I saw an NP(one who I have subsequently work with). Last time was the PA. /shrug. Go figure.

Remind me, how much does it cost if my butt touches a bed in your hospital?
$999. And that is because 19 out of 20 butts don't pay a thing.

Still don't answer my question. Which procedures do you consider minor? And if they are minor, why are you going to the hospital in the first place?


What if I'm sitting there for a day with some simple IV and a monitor?
IVs have an enormous risk. Risk for hemorrhage, risk for infection, risk for infiltration, etc. That risk has been usurped into medical malpractice insurance rates, which you as the consumer are eventually paying for(you are paying for lawyers boats and cabins at Tahoe).

Don't EVER think that an IV is simple. It is an intrusive intervention, with many risks. And that is not even counting the risks of the drugs administered.

Who told you that an IV was simple?

I know someone who got charged over $20K for stitches at the ER after a minor fall.
Really, when I was a kid, when I or anyone I knew needed stitches, they went to their doctor. And it was cheap. Why are you going to the ER for stitches?

What you people charge is unconscionable, and that's why we (the patients) continue to need insurance companies to bargain on our behalf, so we don't get gang raped when we're most vulnerable.
You are welcome to go take care of the services we offer yourself, or ask your family(that is what everyone did back in the old days). Or go to anyone else who can provide you with the services you need, shop around. That is what you would do with your car, and YOU don't do that with your body? That is insane.

The charges are only high because of lawyers(who provide no service), and those who don't pay. You payers have to make up those costs.

If 10 people receive the same service, and only one pays. That is what EMTALA has done. Don't blame me, or hospitals, or docs. EMTALA is YOUR law, not mine.

Or go to anyone else who can provide you with the services you need, shop around. That is what you would do with your car, and YOU don't do that with your body? That is insane.Except when people go to a doctor, it's usually urgent (or even an emergency) and they don't have the time to shop around, let alone the expertise to properly evaluate whether it's a good bargain. And hospitals know that, and take advantage of it, to make more money.

(By the way, if I need stitches, and can't wait days or weeks for a doctor's appointment, I have to go to the ER or do it myself.)The charges are only high because of lawyers(who provide no service), and those who don't pay.You forgot price-gouging by doctors, staff, and drug companies.

It's not just people who don't pay, because other countries provide health care for people who don't pay (more comprehensive, in fact, than what we provide), while spending a fraction of what we spend.

Face it, you simply charge too much for what you do. And you're in league with the drug companies to push as many pills as humanly possible to your patients.

I'm not sure who's more responsible, you, or the fat people and smokers who needlessly tax government and insurance pools. But the solution will undoubtedly involve fixing both problems.

You have made it abundantly clear that you have no idea what I do.

Your assessments are baseless and have no bearing. Meaningless.

You have made it abundantly clear that you have no idea what I do.

Your assessments are baseless and have no bearing. Meaningless.Doctor salary in the United States:

<div style="background:white;color:#333;font:normal 11pt Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;text-align:center;border:1px solid #96b9d7;padding:5px;width:510px"><a href="http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Doctor_of_Medicine_(MD)_Degrees/Salary/by_Job" style="color:#06C;text-decoration: none">Median Salary by Job - People with Doctor of Medicine (MD) Degrees (United States)</a><br /><a href="http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Doctor_of_Medicine_(MD)_Degrees/Salary/by_Job"><img src="http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Doctor_of_Medicine_(MD)_Degrees/Salary/by_Job.jpg" alt="Median Salary by Job - People with Doctor of Medicine (MD) Degrees (United States)" border="0" /></a><div style="margin: 5px; font: normal 8pt Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;">Compare your salary: <a href="http://www.payscale.com" style="color:#06C;text-decoration:underline">Get a free Salary Report</a></div></div>

Compared with Canada ($1 CAD = ~$.95 US):

<div style="background:white;color:#333;font:normal 11pt Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;text-align:center;border:1px solid #96b9d7;padding:5px;width:510px"><a href="http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2f_Doctors/Salary/by_Job" style="color:#06C;text-decoration: none">Median Salary by Job - People with Jobs as Physicians / Doctors (Canada)</a><br /><a href="http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2f_Doctors/Salary/by_Job"><img src="http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2f_Doctors/Salary/by_Job.jpg" alt="Median Salary by Job - People with Jobs as Physicians / Doctors (Canada)" border="0" /></a><div style="margin: 5px; font: normal 8pt Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;">Compare your salary: <a href="http://www.payscale.com" style="color:#06C;text-decoration:underline">Get a free Salary Report</a></div></div>

And the U.K. (1£ = ~$2):

<div style="background:white;color:#333;font:normal 11pt Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;text-align:center;border:1px solid #96b9d7;padding:5px;width:510px"><a href="http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2f_Doctors/Salary/by_Job" style="color:#06C;text-decoration: none">Median Salary by Job - People with Jobs as Physicians / Doctors (United Kingdom)</a><br /><a href="http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2f_Doctors/Salary/by_Job"><img src="http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2f_Doctors/Salary/by_Job.jpg" alt="Median Salary by Job - People with Jobs as Physicians / Doctors (United Kingdom)" border="0" /></a><div style="margin: 5px; font: normal 8pt Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;">Compare your salary: <a href="http://www.payscale.com" style="color:#06C;text-decoration:underline">Get a free Salary Report</a></div></div>

Now you can begin to appreciate why those countries have an affordable universal health care system, and we don't.

Dude, are you comparing to other comparable wages in the same country?

You can't do those comparisons in a vacuum.


Hell, even you know that it costs more money to live in SF than Quebec.

Those are pretty low salaries, in the US, if you ask me.
If you have a PhD and teach at a university you can make more than that. And getting that PhD is MUCH less rigorous than getting an MD. MUCH less rigorous and much less expensive.

Many of you here, with even less credentials and experience in your respective lines, make those numbers. I can't imagine you, a homeowner, in SF not making close if not more than many of those salaries. Just to afford to live in SF. I know that several of you Grovers are, easy, in the 6 figures.

And where is the number for OB/GYNs?

Are your numbers gross or net, that is to say, is insurance costs factored in or out of those numbers. They have got to be out(but it does not say); those numbers are too low to be gross. Canadian and UK N is sub scientific, by my esteem as well; find a study with N is 1000 or greater. US N is over 5K.

With those salaries, those docs could afford a sub median priced house in LODI, BFE. They would get a dump in SF.

Americans already have universal healthcare(though most don't know it). There just are not enough payers.

HSAs are designed to keep more healthcare moneys in the hands of individuals so that they can control their own costs, and their own healthcare. Instead of in the hands of insurance companies or the government.

Which is kinda the opposite of increasing the numbers of payers, isn't it?

HSAs make perfect sense for people like me. I just have not gotten around to getting mine set up.

If everyone built up their own kitty of savings for their healthcare needs for themselves, it would put insurance companies almost out of business wouldn't it. Which would be a good thing, don't ya think. You would not need that overhead being funneled off, and if your kitty were large enough, no insurance company would be in charge of denying you coverage for ANY service you need, or WANT.

I just don't think than many people know about them, let alone subscribe to them. I just found about them myself, and I am in the healthcare biz.

And it is hardly a Bush idea, this concept has been around for at least 20 years. And hardly a failure, spectacular or otherwise.


The problem is that for serious issues the average person cannot possibly save up enough to cover medical expenses (well, not if they also would like to ever retire and even then not then for truly serious medical expenses).

Its a continuing cycle...which just screws the consumers. Insurance companies refuse to pay medical providers full price so the medical providers have to raise their prices in order to compensate, which the insurance companies will still refuse to pay full price for. Even minor outpatient surgery, such as arthroscopic knee surgery, costs about $5,000/knee. That's a semester's tuition and fees (but not room and board) for your children at a state school.

There is no feasible way the average family (or even above average) could cover the cost of, say, cancer treatment for someone in the family. This is why insurance came to be, in the first place. Large numbers of people pay into the pot and agree to pay for the treatment for those who need it, in order to ensure that if they are one of the few who end up needing cancer treatment, there is a pool from which they can draw.

The humane society also accepts the relatively miniscule increase in cost per person paying into the pot, in order to also cover those who cannot afford to pay into the pot.

HSAs are fine for covering the cost to go to the doctor from time to time or even, for the average upper-middle class family, to cover a trip to the emergency room for a broken arm or such (though one might suggest that the costs for even such mundanities as visiting a pediatrician's office for whatever reasons parents have to do so, might be ridiculously expensive).

Even minor outpatient surgery, such as arthroscopic knee surgery, costs about $5,000/knee.

Close to a side panel repair on your Lexus if you got T boned. Actually the knee would be less, I'm sure. And what is more important? What are the ramifications if either of the repairs is flawed?

Arthro docs are some of the highest paid(above cardiologists). The rigorous nature to get into that particular specialty is belied in their costs.

And you still need another doc in the room, the anesthesiologist. Several nurses, a surg tech or two for that knee surgery.

Hell, I had my radiator and my transmission replaced last year on my Jeep, and it was over 2K.

If I want to get veneers put on my teeth, that is close to 5K. For someone to glue porcelain onto my teeth.

5K for a knee surgery is very reasonable. I bet you, your dad's lowest ranking associate's retainer fee for any typical case is more than 5K.

HSAs are fine for covering the cost to go to the doctor from time to time or even, for the average upper-middle class family, to cover a trip to the emergency room for a broken arm or such

There is no limit into how many years you can put money into it.

It works just like an IRA. I'm not going to do the math for you, but even putting in 2K a year, you are going to have a substantial pot in even 10 years. By the age of retirement, it will be over a million dollars in value.

It accrues in value, appreciates in value, just like an IRA. It is not even deductible, it is merely not taxed income.

How many emergencies do you plan this family to have?

Those are pretty low salaries, in the US, if you ask me.
If you have a PhD and teach at a university you can make more than that. And getting that PhD is MUCH less rigorous than getting an MD. MUCH less rigorous and much less expensive.

I rather suspect that the median salary for university professors is significantly lower (I'd guess probably around $80k/year for a fully tenured full professor.)

As for the cost of Med School...any doctor can get his med school paid in full by the government through a variety of means, not the least of which being by taking a pretty cushy military job for 3-4 years where you don't have to pay any costs and make a half-way decent wage. Both the federal government and most state governments have scholarship programs for medical students going into a primary care field willing to locate to a shortage location for a few years.

And those figures up there didn't even touch upon some of the more lucrative specialities. Neurology, Neurosurgery, Cardiovascular surgery, transplant surgery, radiology (the happiest men in the world seem to be radiologists...great pay, low work load, plenty of time for golf), orthopods, etc. etc. etc.

Many of you here, with even less credentials and experience in your respective lines, make those numbers. I can't imagine you, a homeowner, in SF not making close if not more than many of those salaries.

And I rather suspect that doctors in SF make a commensurate amount more than those national median figures indicate, in general.

There is no feasible way the average family (or even above average) could cover the cost of, say, cancer treatment for someone in the family. This is why insurance came to be, in the first place. Large numbers of people pay into the pot and agree to pay for the treatment for those who need it, in order to ensure that if they are one of the few who end up needing cancer treatment,

The high deductible insurance portion pays for stuff like that.

Notwithstanding that at the age at when you normally get cancer, if you have built up your HSA, you could really just pay cash for the whole thing yourself, out of the HSA.

I rather suspect that the median salary for university professors is significantly lower (I'd guess probably around $80k/year for a fully tenured full professor.)
Masters teachers at my JC make more than that.
PhDs are in the 6 figures, at the JC level.

As for the cost of Med School...any doctor can get his med school paid in full by the government through a variety of means, not the least of which being by taking a pretty cushy military job for 3-4 years where you don't have to pay any costs and make a half-way decent wage.
What is YOUR MCAT score Aidon? You still need to do it. Even if you get your degree in the Caribbean, the Philippines, or Mexico.

Who can't you give Zosyn to, Aidon? And why?

Both the federal government and most state governments have scholarship programs for medical students going into a primary care field willing to locate to a shortage location for a few years.
You still have to get into Med School.

And those figures up there didn't even touch upon some of the more lucrative specialities. Neurology, Neurosurgery, Cardiovascular surgery, transplant surgery, radiology (the happiest men in the world seem to be radiologists...great pay, low work load, plenty of time for golf), orthopods, etc. etc. etc.
And women. Those are highly competitive specialties. You have to beat out everyone else to get there. Med Schools graduate students on a quota system of course. What do we get, like 1100 new docs every year. You have to beat out your competitors to get out.

And I rather suspect that doctors in SF make a commensurate amount more than those national median figures indicate, in general.
Well, he is comparing US docs with Canadian docs with no point of reference or acknowledgment, or normalization. Then I get to compare SF docs without any normalization, don't I.

Of course, I suspect that to the point of knowing myself. Any fool should.

P0rn stars make more money than his docs do. Male ones even do.

Close to a side panel repair on your Lexus if you got T boned. Actually the knee would be less, I'm sure. And what is more important? What are the ramifications if either of the repairs is flawed?

Arthro docs are some of the highest paid(above cardiologists). The rigorous nature to get into that particular specialty is belied in their costs.

And you still need another doc in the room, the anesthesiologist. Several nurses, a surg tech or two for that knee surgery.

Hell, I had my radiator and my transmission replaced last year on my Jeep, and it was over 2K.

If I want to get veneers put on my teeth, that is close to 5K. For someone to glue porcelain onto my teeth.

Don't get me started on dental costs, those bloodsucking leeches.

5K for a knee surgery is very reasonable.

Relative to the rest of the medical world, yes it is reasonable. But we're talking about the benefits of HSA for people who can't afford the insurance on a Lexus, let alone the Lexus itself. Also, 5k in California is much less than 5k in the midwest. I don't know how much arthroscopic surgery costs in California. Regardless, as I said, Arthroscopic surgery is a relatively inexpensive outpatient surgery. If you have an accident and have to spend a few nights in the hospital, you're talking $25k-30k. That's almost a year's wages for the average American.

I bet you, your dad's lowest ranking associate's retainer fee for any typical case is more than 5K.

There is no retainer fee, generally speaking, for personal injury tort plaintiff's attorneys. Our firm doesn't see a dime from any case until a verdict has been decided or a settlement reached and the defendant sends the check.

Masters teachers at my JC make more than that.
PhDs are in the 6 figures, at the JC level.

My guess was an educated one, Fyyr...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor#Salary


What is YOUR MCAT score Aidon? You still need to do it.

And you need to take the GRE for a PhD and the LSAT for Law School. Its a test, not some mystical ritual.

Who can't you give Zosyn to, Aidon? And why?

I don't know, without looking it up. I didn't want to be a doctor. I suspect that if I had held a desire to go to focus on the sciences and attended medical school, I might be able to answer that. On the other hand, I rather suspect that your average physician wouldn't know off the top of his head either and would have to look it up. I also rather suspect that the average physician is ignorant of a great many things which are not in his field or his interests. For instance, I rather suspect the average US Physician couldn't tell you who the Girondists were and what happened to them, without looking it up.

Again, its not a mystical ritual here.

Oh, and Zosyn is an antibiotic, a penicillin, which means you can't give it to people who are allergic to penicillin. You also have to adjust dosage for patients with renal impairments due to its longer half-life in such patients.


And women. Those are highly competitive specialties. You have to beat out everyone else to get there. Med Schools graduate students on a quota system of course. What do we get, like 1100 new docs every year. You have to beat out your competitors to get out.

I'm not suggesting US doctors don't deserve their pay, really. I'm just suggesting that arguments over the cost of medical school are pedantic. I'm also suggesting that US doctors aren't quite the starving artists they like to make themselves out to be.

In my folks neighborhood (its a very nice neighborhood), the three largest homes belong to doctors. The two people who own ferraris in the neighborhood are both doctors. Doctors are not about to hit the poor house anytime soon.

On the other hand, I don't think Doctors salaries play that big of a role in the increasing cost of health care in the US. I think its the costs of hospital administration, the cost of tests, the cost of medical equipment, and the cost of drugs..and I think the consistant underpayment of health care providers by insurors plays a proximal role in the increasing costs.

Don't get me started on dental costs, those bloodsucking leeches.
I did bondo instead. /smile



Relative to the rest of the medical world, yes it is reasonable. But we're talking about the benefits of HSA for people who can't afford the insurance on a Lexus, let alone the Lexus itself.
Saving money helps everyone who does it. Regardless of how poor or rich they are.

Also, 5k in California is much less than 5k in the midwest.
True, cost of living is more. Price of salaries are more. It all averages out.

Just like the cost of living in the UK or Canada are less than the US. Which is my point.

I don't know how much arthroscopic surgery costs in California. Regardless, as I said, Arthroscopic surgery is a relatively inexpensive outpatient surgery.
Ortho and artho docs are some of the highest paid. If Med Schools allowed more to graduate, then that would decrease.

If you have an accident and have to spend a few nights in the hospital, you're talking $25k-30k.
Yes. True. But how many people do you know, have had the training and experience to titrate all of the drugs to keep you from dying? And that are there every second of every minute watching you and your health.

You have to pay for that expertise. Just as you would, if you had to hire an expert flyfisher to teach you to fly fish, 24 hours a day(for example), every minute of every hour of that time, without break. It is not just a night, it is around the clock service.

Call up your local flyfishing store and ask them what their price per hour is to teach you to fly fish. For ONE person. If you are in ICU you can easily have 5 people on you, 24 hours a day, easy.

Low end escorts charge 200 an hour out here in California. That is 5K right there per day. Median are 500 an hour, and they still are not experts. PSEs are at least 1K an hour(usually 2K). With far less training and education.

Radiology techs are highly skilled and highly trained people.
EKG techs same.
Lab techs same.
Phebotomists, same.
Pharm techs.
Dietary/Nutrition experts.
Housekeeping. I keep them busy all night.
Respiratory techs are higher still.

These people are serving you 24 hours a day(not just nights). I did not even mention the nursing staff, and their support. CNAs, LVNs, RNs. Have not even gotten to docs yet. Docs are probably the smallest part of what you are paying, in the end.

If you went to a hotel with that level of service, with that many service providers, you would pay more per night. And they are not, at that hotel, keeping you alive.


That's almost a year's wages for the average American.
If this average American were to buy an average car for that average price of 25K, they would pay for it over an average of 5 years. What is more important, a car or your life?

There is no retainer fee, generally speaking, for personal injury tort plaintiff's attorneys. Our firm doesn't see a dime from any case until a verdict has been decided or a settlement reached and the defendant sends the check.
Brain infarct. Sorry. I knew that, I was thinking about a friend of mine who just retained an attorney. My divorce attorney took 10K back in the 90s, just to be hired. The attorney to draw up the selling agreement on my company was 5K, back in the 90s.

Oh, and Zosyn is an antibiotic, a penicillin, which means you can't give it to people who are allergic to penicillin.

Yup.

Did you know it, or look it up?

/smile

Pipercillin, actually. But the allergic reaction is real.

My guess was an educated one, Fyyr...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor#Salary
Fair enough.

And you need to take the GRE for a PhD and the LSAT for Law School. Its a test, not some mystical ritual.
We turn out a lot more PhDs and lawyers than docs. Adam Smith, man, hate it or love it.

I don't know, without looking it up. I didn't want to be a doctor. I suspect that if I had held a desire to go to focus on the sciences and attended medical school, I might be able to answer that.
I know that I am smarter than the average doc. Which implies, you may be too. Do you know any docs, by and large they are social retards, which is probably why they were able to get through school without any distractions.

I had plenty of distractions when I went to University.

On the other hand, I rather suspect that your average physician wouldn't know off the top of his head either and would have to look it up.
Docs are applied biochemists as well as biologists. I did not know that before I got into this thing. Any doc I would go to would know it.

I also rather suspect that the average physician is ignorant of a great many things which are not in his field or his interests.
That is funny, brings up an interesting interaction I had a year ago. It would not be funny here. But yes, I agree.

For instance, I rather suspect the average US Physician couldn't tell you who the Girondists were and what happened to them, without looking it up.
He who would cross the Bridge of Death. Must answer me, These questions three, Ere the other side he see.

Oh,...patients.
Addressed this in previous post.

I'm not suggesting US doctors don't deserve their pay, really. I'm just suggesting that arguments over the cost of medical school are pedantic. I'm also suggesting that US doctors aren't quite the starving artists they like to make themselves out to be.
I don't think they are starving either. Just saying that a good car mechanic could easily make those figures in the posted graphs. Not even a great one, or well experience one. Docs are not gods, don't get me wrong, they are body mechanics. But if I am having a doc shove a wire into my heart, I want one who is well qualified. Vinnie the smog checker, I don't want.

In my folks neighborhood (its a very nice neighborhood), the three largest homes belong to doctors. The two people who own ferraris in the neighborhood are both doctors. Doctors are not about to hit the poor house anytime soon.
I know docs in very modest middle income neighborhoods. Very good docs too.

I have a friend from high school who bragged that he would own a Ferrari before 25. He did it too. Long story, but he did it installing garage doors. He is a millionaire now, on a horse ranch out in Acampo. Went to JC for a couple of semesters, ways back, but he did it by hard work.

The game LIFE is rigged. It does not know that those who go into business usually make more than those who go the University route.

On the other hand, I don't think Doctors salaries play that big of a role in the increasing cost of health care in the US.
I don't either. I think that it is small in comparison.

I think its the costs of hospital administration,
Lower than I thought. Our hospital's CEO makes less than any of the docs per year. Billing and risk management adds up to a greater cost.

the cost of tests,
You are paying people to do the tests. Tudamorf says that there are unnecessary tests. I don't know what those are. I only order, well I sign a docs name to them, those that are necessary. Some have saved lives recently, actually.

the cost of medical equipment,
We are getting 10 new beds. 45K each.

and the cost of drugs
10 years worth of tests before FDA approval costs money. RD cost money. Lawsuits cost money. All those Vioxx class action suits are just going to be tacked onto whatever else Merck makes, drug wise. Passed on to the consumer. Gardisil does not really cost 360 per dose. The Vioxx(and any others) costs are added in to it.

..and I think the consistant underpayment of health care providers by insurors plays a proximal role in the increasing costs.

That is why the KP model is so successful. Not like it is the best, but it is a very successful model.

It is not even deductible, it is merely not taxed income.Yes, it is. It's an above the line deduction.

Dude, are you comparing to other comparable wages in the same country?

You can't do those comparisons in a vacuum.Average salaries across the board are almost exactly the same in all three countries (source: U.S. (http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Country=United_States/Salary), Canada (http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Country=Canada/Salary), U.K. (http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Country=United_Kingdom/Salary)), so yes, they're directly comparable.Hell, even you know that it costs more money to live in SF than Quebec.Those are U.S. averages, not figures for one of the highest cost of living areas in the nation. If you want to talk San Francisco, I heard of a nurse that makes $120K. And the average is almost $80K. That's more than doctors make in the U.K. and Canada. No wonder hospitals rape our wallets.With those salaries, those docs could afford a sub median priced house in LODI, BFE. They would get a dump in SF.That's because San Francisco is the second most expensive housing market in the nation and supply is extremely limited. With a $100K salary, they can get a decent home in the average town in the U.S.

Yes. True. But how many people do you know, have had the training and experience to titrate all of the drugs to keep you from dying? And that are there every second of every minute watching you and your health.

You have to pay for that expertise.So do the Canadians, and the Brits, yet they end up spending a fraction of what we spend and have lower salaries. That expertise is obviously not as expensive as you make it out to be.

Yes, it is. It's an above the line deduction.

same thing

Average salaries across the board are almost exactly the same in all three countries
Your sources are skewed.

so yes, they're directly comparable.
No they'er not.

Those are U.S. averages, not figures for one of the highest cost of living areas in the nation. If you want to talk San Francisco, I heard of a nurse that makes $120K.
Is THAT all. You have no idea what is in the scope of practice of an RN, do you? You have no idea, do you? A 5 day a week, 12 hour nurse can easily make 120K. More. Hopefully.

That is not very much at all. Can get you a 400K house out here. And that is just median. Lower end middle class. Is 120 a lot to you? Its not to me, considering what RNs do, and know.

And the average is almost $80K.
I can make more than that, and probably will my first year out.

That's more than doctors make in the U.K. and Canada.
They should move to the US. We have plenty of Canadian nurses at my hospital. Don't know any Canadian docs, though.

No wonder hospitals rape our wallets.
Adam Smith. Don't like it, fix it yourself. Nothing stopping you from doing that.

There are more customers demanding service than those who can provide it. The increased wages accordingly will spur many into the profession.

That's because San Francisco is the second most expensive housing market in the nation and supply is extremely limited.
I hope all you Friscoites rot, frankly. Go jump off of Pier 39 now, please, all of you.

With a $100K salary, they can get a decent home in the average town in the U.S.
Or a slum 2 1 in SF. Doubt it that you could even qualify(at that rate), you would need to rent.

How much do YOU make, Tudamorf?

And when was the last time you saved a person's life? Huh? Come clean Mr. Hypocrite any time you like.

same thingNot at all. For example, you still pay social security and medicare taxes.

Your sources are skewed.Why? Because they show you're wrong?

Tell me how those countries have cheap universal care and a higher life expectancy.

Hell, tell me how Cuba matches our life expectancy while spending 3% of what we spend per person.Adam Smith. Don't like it, fix it yourself. Nothing stopping you from doing that.We are. Universal health care plans will undoubtedly involve cutting hospital costs. It has to happen. Universal health care is probably the biggest threat to your job.I hope all you Friscoites rot, frankly. Go jump off of Pier 39 now, please, all of you.

Or a slum 2 1 in SF. Doubt it that you could even qualify(at that rate), you would need to rent.An apartment overlooking Central Park is expensive, too. So what? No doubt, San Francisco is for rich people, not the average person. But no one's forcing you to live here if you can't afford it.And when was the last time you saved a person's life? Huh? Come clean Mr. Hypocrite any time you like.You're assuming that pumping someone up with drugs and sticking him with tubes according to your little manual is more important than other things. It isn't. Get over yourself, please.

How much do you make, Tuda?

How many lives have you saved in the last 6 months?

I don't want to save lives. Many of the lives you "save" (read: perpetuate) shouldn't be "saved" in the first place. And I can, in 5 minutes, tell the average person how to enhance their health far better than you can with your drugs and tubes after all the damage is done.

Why? Because they show you're wrong?
Your numbers are not normalized. Worthless info.

Tell me how those countries have cheap universal care and a higher life expectancy.
Again, US numbers factor in low birth weight babies and extreme preemies. Which also happen to be an enormous, did I say enormous, um ENORMOUS drain on the healthcare system.

...Did I say enormous?

Hell, tell me how Cuba matches our life expectancy while spending 3% of what we spend per person.
der, um ok Mikal More, tanks for da infos.


We are. Universal health care plans will undoubtedly involve cutting hospital costs.
Go for it. I bet the CNA and the ANA might have something to say about it. They represent the LARGEST profession in the US. No doubt they will bow down to your socialist ideals.

It has to happen.You're assuming that pumping someone up with drugs and sticking him with tubes according to your little manual is more important than other things.
You are an idiot, aren't you?

It isn't. Get over yourself, please.
How many lives did you save last week?

I don't want to save lives. Many of the lives you "save" (read: perpetuate) shouldn't be "saved" in the first place.
When you get out the Ballot Initiative started for the Compassionate Euthanasia bill, send me a PM. I will sign it, kkthx.

And I can, in 5 minutes, tell the average person how to enhance their health far better than you can with your drugs and tubes after all the damage is done.
You can tell anybody anything you want in 5 minutes. Don't mean they are going to change their lifestyle because you tell them.

Where did you get that notion from? Thats retarded.


God, I thought you were so much smarter than this. Sorry man, my condolences. /shrug.

Your numbers are not normalized. Worthless info.Normalized to what? If the average person earns $X in countries A, B, and C, but the average doctor earns $3X in A but only $2X in B and C, then doctors in A are being paid proportionately more.Again, US numbers factor in low birth weight babies and extreme preemies.And Canadian and British numbers don't?Go for it. I bet the CNA and the ANA might have something to say about it. They represent the LARGEST profession in the US. No doubt they will bow down to your socialist ideals.I, and the other taxpayers pay them, not the other way around. They will have to do what we want.

And this issue is going to come to a head soon, as smokers and fat people tax the health care system to the point where the current model will no longer be sustainable.

You can tell anybody anything you want in 5 minutes. Don't mean they are going to change their lifestyle because you tell them.Obviously. So what? What you do isn't that important to ME. Get it now?

Normalized to what?
Other salaries in the respective countries. DUH!

If the average person earns $X in countries A, B, and C, but the average doctor earns $3X in A but only $2X in B and C, then doctors in A are being paid proportionately more.
Adam Smith perhaps. There may be fewer doctors in country A, perhaps? Not normalized. Your numbers are meaningless and useless.

And Canadian and British numbers don't?
Are they normalized to their countries' respective wages. Your graphs don't show that. Smog check mechanics in the US make more than your Canadian and British doctors.

I, and the other taxpayers pay them, not the other way around. They will have to do what we want.
Um, if you have the power to turn around the largest worker Union in the country,,,,go for it. I'm not union. I don't like unions. hehehe, but if you can do it, send me that PM, kkthx.

And this issue is going to come to a head soon, as smokers and fat people tax the health care system to the point where the current model will no longer be sustainable.
Diabetes is actually bigger than both of those.

When you want your Compassionate Euthanasia bill passed, Try and get your Eugenics Bill passed at the same time...I promise you, I will sign both. Genetics has the biggest effect on healthcare costs, regardless, REGARDLESS what the disease is. DM, Heart Disease, COPD, Obesity, Cancer, Alzheimer's, Sickle Cell Anemia, Psych., the list is endless. All genetics in nature. We are almost there.

Obviously. So what? What you do isn't that important to ME. Get it now?

It WOULD be important when I am titrating your dopamine(insert any pressor) to keep you alive, perhaps.

Ask all of your family, ask all of your friends, if they would titrate your dopamine for you, when you need it.

K?

Your friends and family are idiots, if you relied on them to keep you alive, you YOU WOULD DIE!

You pay people like me to keep you alive when you need it. If you don't want that service, suits me fine. Die for all I care. And don't pay me.

It is important for those people I take care of, and those whose lives I save. You are paying for those people, and would pay for them under any conceivable system of coverage you can think of.

If you have a plan to increase the numbers of ICU RNs in the country, and to reduce their salaries, what is it? What do propose?

Other salaries in the respective countries. DUH!Hello? I gave you three links that showed the average salaries in those countries, across all jobs, are almost exactly the same. Did you miss that?Diabetes is actually bigger than both of those.Diabetes = fat people.Genetics has the biggest effect on healthcare costs, regardless, REGARDLESS what the disease is.Please stop spreading this lie. Genetics don't give you lung cancer hardly ever, cigarettes do. Genetics don't give you type 2 diabetes most of the time, eating a crappy diet and not exercising does.

Sure, there are people with superior genetics who can better tolerate tobacco smoke, a crappy diet, and lack of exercise. But the lifestyle factors, not genetics, are what cause the disease in the first place.

It WOULD be important when I am titrating your dopamine(insert any pressor) to keep you alive, perhaps.But you aren't. There are dozens of other things that are more important to me right now than you. Picking a safer car and driving carefully is far more likely to keep me alive than you are.It is important for those people I take care of, and those whose lives I save. You are paying for those people, and would pay for them under any conceivable system of coverage you think of.I will pay for them, but I will pay less, just as the Canadian and British taxpayers do. In Canada they spend half as much as we do per person, and they are healthier than we are.

And don't think your contribution to health care expenses is immune from the chopping block. Universal health care is one of the biggest threats to your job security. Right along with tort reform.

Hello? I gave you three links that showed the average salaries in those countries, across all jobs, are almost exactly the same.
Can you hear me now?

Docs are not the biggest part of healthcare costs, no more than unnecessary tests are. <retarded>

Did you miss that?
Yes.

Diabetes = fat people.
Perhaps, but obesity is genetic.

Please stop spreading this lie. Genetics don't give you lung cancer hardly ever, cigarettes do.
I have had very very few customers with lung cancer. Genetics determines everything, do you expect to get breast cancer Tudamorf? No. Why? Genetics. Your chances of getting breast cancer are tremendously lower than your mother or sister....why, genetics. You are a boy, genes./...genetics.

Genetics don't give you type 2 diabetes most of the time, eating a crappy diet and not exercising does.

Sure, there are people with superior genetics who can better tolerate tobacco smoke, a crappy diet, and lack of exercise.
Sure.

But the lifestyle factors, not genetics, are what cause the disease in the first place.
Cancer is genetic material going badly. It is genetic.

Of course if you are talking about West Nile virus(or something along those lines), that is just bad luck. But the fact that you are ultimately susceptible to any of that kind of stuff, really is genetic. Ultimately speaking.

Docs are not the biggest part of healthcare costs, no more than unnecessary tests are.I didn't say they're the biggest.Perhaps, but obesity is genetic.Amazing how that gene infiltrated the pool around 30 years ago, and how it coincided with increases in junk food and sedentary lifestyles. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>Cancer is genetic material going badly. It is genetic.Let me put it another way. A person who is not exposed to carcinogens has a much smaller likelihood of developing cancer than does a person exposed to tons of them.

If you visit the Chernobyl plant, you WILL have a massively higher chance of getting cancer than I will, even if your genetics are the best on Earth and mine are the worst.

It's the same with smoking and lung cancer. Other than in cases of radon exposure, lung cancer is practically non-existent in persons who aren't exposed to tobacco.

Genes don't cause the disease, they just have a small say in how it progresses.

But you aren't. There are dozens of other things that are more important to me right now than you. Picking a safer car and driving carefully is far more likely to keep me alive than you are.
But you are paying me aren't you. Through your taxes, and you insurance rates. To keep alive people you don't know. People you would not like if you met them on Market. I keep these people alive, on your wages, your labor.

I will pay for them, but I will pay less, just as the Canadian and British taxpayers do. In Canada they spend half as much as we do per person, and they are healthier than we are.
Do they? Are they?

What about Mexicans? Do they pay more or less? How much do nurses and doctors make in Mexico?

And don't think your contribution to health care expenses is immune from the chopping block.
I just got a 5% raise. And will be asking for more, soon.

Universal health care is one of the biggest threats to your job security.
Hardly. Bureaucracy loves a vacuum. I will make more, in this country, under Nationalized Healthcare.

Right along with tort reform.
Bring it on. If you could remove tort from healthcare, if only to the point where it affects actual health care, I would love it. Bring it on.

blah blah blah
Wrong.

Genes don't cause the disease, they just have a small say in how it progresses.
Genes make you a boy or a girl.
Whether you have wet ear wax or dry ear wax.

Heart disease. Cancer, any. I mean like duh, cancer is genes, um duh. You know that right. Genes.

I mean, your sister has no chance, your mother has no chance of ever, ever, ever getting BPH because of genes, right? Ever. Because of genetics. They can't get it because of what?.....GENES.

Hair color. Skin color, melanomas. um. ya know, I think I am again wasting my time here.

Ever.

Because of genes.

But you are paying me aren't you. Through your taxes, and you insurance rates.Of course. Your point?Do they? Are they?Well, Canadian life spans are among the highest in the world, and put ours to shame. Canadian infant mortality is also 1/3 less than ours.

And yes, they spend half as much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared #_note-WHO) (check out the WHO link on endnote 5 for the raw data).What about Mexicans? Do they pay more or less? How much do nurses and doctors make in Mexico?You'd love Mexico, just your kind of anarchic libertarian system. You have to pay cash, and you never know if your doctor is going to screw you up worse than where you started, with no recourse. The rich can pick the best doctors and the poor are totally screwed.I just got a 5% raise. And will be asking for more, soon.But we're still operating under the old, broken system.Bring it on. If you could remove tort from healthcare, if only to the point where it affects actual health care, I would love it. Bring it on.As you've admitted, without the threat of malpractice, half your job will be gone. Which makes there will be twice as many nurses as necessary to treat patients. Which means either half of you will be fired, your salary will be cut in half, or some combination of both.

Wrong.No, it's right. Or are you seriously claiming that genes are the primary factor in determining whether you get lung cancer, or get fat? Think before you answer, because it's an obvious one.

Of course. Your point?Well, Canadian life spans are among the highest in the world, and put ours to shame. Canadian infant mortality is also 1/3 less than ours.
Are they normalized for maternal drug usage and 24 week deliveries?

You just pull out stuff, which is completely unattached to the real world, and expect people to buy it.? I am incredulous, that you are that naive.

And yes, they spend half as much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared #_note-WHO) (check out the WHO link on endnote 5 for the raw data).You'd love Mexico, just your kind of anarchic libertarian system.
No, I don't love Mexico.

You have to pay cash, and you never know if your doctor is going to screw you up worse than where you started, with no recourse.
That happens. We treat those patients, illegal aliens who have had pig pancreas's put into their bodies by Mexican docs. In ICU, at ICU rates. No insurance, nor Medical, nor Medicare, you will all be paying for it with increased rates on routine procedures and IVs. Soon.


The rich can pick the best doctors and the poor are totally screwed.
Docs in our hospital are treated right next to illegal aliens. Since you say that docs make too much and are rich, I suppose your point is negated.

But we're still operating under the old, broken system.

As you've admitted, without the threat of malpractice, half your job will be gone.
Lawyers. Not malpractice. Actually, over that last few months I have begun to chart less, in lieu of increased patient care. Incidentally speaking.

Which makes there will be twice as many nurses as necessary to treat patients. Which means either half of you will be fired, your salary will be cut in half, or some combination of both.
Cut the amount of lawyers, and you would cut the amount of nurses. Yes. Which would decrease the cost of healthcare nationwide, yes.

No, it's right. Or are you seriously claiming that genes are the primary factor in determining whether you get lung cancer, or get fat? Think before you answer, because it's an obvious one.

Cancer is DNA, it is genes.

Doing what it is not suppose to. Saying that cancer(any cancer) is not genes, and thus not genetic is absolutely absurd.

You really need to think before you ask such a stupid question. Or maybe that is just obvious in and of itself.

Are they normalized for maternal drug usage and 24 week deliveries?So you're saying, they don't use drugs in Canada? Or they don't have premature deliveries?

Cancer is DNA, it is genes.Now you're just being silly. The issue is what causes cancer, not what it is.

Smoking causes lung cancer, not genes.

Eating junk food and not exercising causes obesity, not genes. (And that, in turn, causes type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc.)

If you eat properly for your metabolic rate and exercise, you will not get fat. If you aren't exposed to tobacco or radon, you have virtually no chance of getting lung cancer.

I know you know exactly what I'm talking about, and are beating around the bush because you know you're wrong.

So you're saying, they don't use drugs in Canada? Or they don't have premature deliveries?
Do Canadian mothers use Meth as much as American mothers. Or coke, or THC?


Where are you numbers?

Until I did my OB rounds, I had no clue that there were as many Meth babies being born as there are. There are no news reports, nor alerts to such things.

How many?

Gimme numbers.

You DO have the numbers, right? RIGHT>???

Now .... wrong.

Now I know you are just wasting my time.

I will see you on the next thread. This one has devolved to absurdity and retardation.

Where are you numbers?Premature births (http://www.womenshealthmatters.ca/news/news_show.cfm?number=232): U.S. = 12%, Canada = 7%.

Amphetamine use (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/trends2003_www_E.pdf): U.S. = 1.1%, Canada = 0.8%.

There are small differences, but they can't make up for the large differences in life expectancy and infant mortality.

Not to interject into this wonderful treatise between the dynamic duo, but it might be interesting to you all to know that a number of people here actually go to mexican dentists for their dental work. I don't know about doctors. Apparently the quality is the same or better but the price is a whole lot less.

Adam Smiths folly is that he didn't live for the industrial revolution.

The economic landscape today is vastly different than it was during mercantile Britain.

His ideas do not well hold water when you take into account staple products and a distribution of wealth which permits 20% of a population to essentially set the pricing for the other 80% by stint of that 20% controlling 85% of a nations wealth.

And no, its not the cost of lawsuits driving up the cost of drugs, Fy'yr. These companies get massive government grants and subsidies and then turn around and charge the US market more than any other market in the world, because they can. In other nations the drug companies are quite willing reduce their pricing to a fraction, under the threat of having their patents broken...and we Americans end up paying the price.

If your system graduates doctors not based on an artificial quota system, but graduates them on their ability, then you will have more doctors competing in the marketplace.

Which will drive down the price of doctors.

That is why they have quotas in the first place. To artificially inflate the salaries of doctors.

It is not folly, it is fact.

Premature births (http://www.womenshealthmatters.ca/news/news_show.cfm?number=232): U.S. = 12%, Canada = 7%.

Amphetamine use (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/trends2003_www_E.pdf): U.S. = 1.1%, Canada = 0.8%.

There are small differences, but they can't make up for the large differences in life expectancy and infant mortality.

Crack numbers?


The number one cause of infant mortality in the US is low birth weight babies. The number one cause of low birth weight babies in the US is drug use.
The US has a bigger drug use problem than does Canada.

It is not a medical system or healthcare system problem, it is a personal responsibility problem.

If you gave your baby heroin, meth, crack, or pot; you would have your baby taken from you(and all your other kids too) and you would be thrown in jail. Rightfully so. If you happen to give your baby the drugs through your placenta, NOTHING happens to you in our country.

Crack numbers?All cocaine is 2.6% for U.S., 1% for Canada, same link as above.If you gave your baby heroin, meth, crack, or pot; you would have your baby taken from you(and all your other kids too) and you would be thrown in jail. Rightfully so. If you happen to give your baby the drugs through your placenta, NOTHING happens to you in our country.Yet another reason we need breeding licenses.

If your system graduates doctors not based on an artificial quota system, but graduates them on their ability, then you will have more doctors competing in the marketplace.

Which will drive down the price of doctors.

That is why they have quotas in the first place. To artificially inflate the salaries of doctors.

It is not folly, it is fact.

Think that through again Fy'yr.

Quotas don't limit the number of doctors.

Quotas don't limit the number of doctors.

The number of university places does limit the number of doctors, dentists, and lawyers. There never seems to be a surplus of these professionals and they never have to change professions to find a job. It's hard to say that about many other professions.

Just consider the potential shortage of doctors in the US if there weren't so many foreign doctors practicing.

The number of university places does limit the number of doctors, dentists, and lawyers.I don't know about doctors and dentists, but there are no quotas for lawyers in California. The only real limitation is passing the state exam, which is easy enough that at least 2/3 pass it.

Think that through again Fy'yr

Quotas don't limit the number of doctors.

I'll jump in here, even though it's addressed to Fyyr.

Sorry, Aidon, you are completely wrong. I'll let out a bit of personal information, and say that I am more familar than I would like with medical school application processes. I spent about $1,800 bucks from 1993-1996 in secondary applications alone to med schools, not counting the primary application fees of $189 (probably a lot more now). I applied to schools from Loma Linda, Duke, Harvard, and even the Medical College of Augusta GA. I applied each year, every year. Unfortunately you were only allowed to apply to 12 medical schools per year, which is a quota, and then the schools also have quotas, as in a very limited number of slots.

A blend of the "so-sorry" letters would be:

"You are a fine candidate, but we have to choose from 10,000 appliciants for 150 slots. Due to an unusually high number of applicants this year, we are only considering those with a straight 4.0 grade average. We encourage you to apply again next year, and we are sorry that we could not select you as a member of XXXX school of medicine."

I asked several classmates, and most did not get into medical school those years as well.

Strangely, or perhaps not, several of the letters had similar wording, and similar reasoning for each of the years I applied.

I don't agree with the extreme limitations put on the medical school applications, and it is a quota system. A rather severe quota system, in fact. It is my belief that many medical schools are shortchanging the US populace by this restrictive practice. Then again, I fail to see how I could see it any other way.:ohwell:

And before you say that money had anything to do with either of our thought processes, money was not a concern on my end, and evidently, not their concern either. I assure you, I was more than willing to go from $26k in college debt to $100k or $200+k in college/medical school debt and pay them with a smile on my face. The medical schools' motivation was not, and is not, the tuition money they were losing by not admitting those with slightly lower GPA's. I imagine, doctors being some of the best paid professionals as a group, that money is only a secondary, or tertiary concern.

I was thinking that Fy'yr was referring to affirmative action quotas...not medical school slots.

Which would bring me to a seperate rant regarding female medical students who get pregnant while in school and use up two seats.

Think that through again Fy'yr.

Quotas don't limit the number of doctors.

Of course they are limited.

Med schools don't graduate those above a certain percentage. They only graduate a set number, regardless of their scores.

Ex:
Med School A will graduate the top 25 out of a class of 100. Not every med school student with scores above above 75%.

I was thinking that Fy'yr was referring to affirmative action quotas...not medical school slots.

Not slots to get in.

Slots to get out.


If I have 100 med school students in the potentially graduation class and every single one of them gets above 90% in their scores,,,only the top 25% of all those A students get to graduate. Not all 100, even though all of them would make equally qualified doctors.

Of course this is in a nutshell explanation, but it is what happens.