Gas Price.....Too High?
 

katy wrote:


Marty
Does your medical coverage put age limits on some procedures like in
Great Britain? It is my understanding that in GB, if you are over
50, kidney transplant and I believe, dialysis, are not
available..also some heart treatments.


Not arbitrarily, sometimes out of necessity, my uncle had an aneurysm on
the anterior descending aorta, they wouldn't try to repair it as they
they thought the procedure itself would probably kill him, he was 82 at
the time.

Cheers
Marty

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 08 May 2006 07:57:31 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

So we pay about about the same allowing for exchange, there are however
two important differences: Everbody gets equal coverage here including
the indigent. No one can get dumped by his carrier.

There is, of course, the added cost that doesn't show up on anybody's
balance sheet--the cost of delaying needed care because of the system's
inability to provide it when needed.

I think that applies to just about any health care delivery system. If
by some miracle every person in the USA were to acquire medical
insurance, (this includes your millions of illegal aliens) then the
capacity of the system would be exceeded. Of course in both systems
there are those who eschew any form of preventive medicine for personal
reasons.

Cheers
Marty

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

Dave wrote:

On Fri, 05 May 2006 04:46:02 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

And the
cost of absorbing the expense of hosptial and medical care for the
uninsured, impoverished masses may just be the largest percentage.

According to reported figures that cost represents between 2 and 3% of the
total. I think you've been reading too much AMA propaganda.

Some numbers for you guys:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/7031/ti2004-1-5.cfm

21% for physician/clinical services, 30% hospital care. (2004 data)

The drug companies are doing well:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/7031/ti2004-1-21.cfm

If you do a little reading in Tenet's 4th quarter financial statement
you will see that they spent some $545 million on "uncompensated care",
this from an operating revenue of $2,299 million (this is the hospital
side of their operation). I believe Tenet is a reasonable exemplar of
this type of business, these numbers would seem to support Max's
position.

Cheers
Marty

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote
So we pay about about the same allowing for exchange, there are however
two important differences: Everbody gets equal coverage here including
the indigent. No one can get dumped by his carrier.


The problem in both (all?) countries is the lack of good old capitalistic
competition. The solution for the USA is to use our anti-trust laws to break
the back of the American Medical Association. Don't hold your breath ....

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 May 2006 14:03:22 -0400, "Vito" said:

What was
amazing was how a minor (1 or 2%) change in the supply/demand ratio increased
or
decreased prices and thus profits. Maybe some of the business majors here
can
provide the actual equation and typical figures.

It depends entirely on the slope of the two curves. The technical term is
"elasticity" of each of the two. That is, the amount by which a specific
increase in price makes producers willing to increase output, and the amount
by which it causes purchasers to reduce the quantity they're willing to buy
at that price.

Thanks. The equation included those factors and prof claimed that this
'elasticity" was very predictble for well established markets like automobiles,
oil, et cetera. He also mentioned a "poloroid" (?) scheme of sales. Say that a
small % of people would pay $100 for something, but a lot would buy it for $50
and it only costs $1 to produce. The smart way is to offer it at $100 until
sales begin to drop indicating a saturated $100 market then drop the price to
$75. That way you get $100 for some items and many people, who otherwise would
only pay $50, will snap up the "bargains". Interesting stuff I just never got
into.

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Maxprop" wrote
Often the MD suffix is synonymous with runaway ego.

I always thought Cadillac drivers were the same until I bought one, then I found
that other drivers make you that way. If one is deferred to often enough one
comes to expect it. After observing how folks treated his MD uncle a buddy of
mine began using it to his own advantage. For example, if you leave a message
for a friend he may or may not get it but if you say "Tell him Dr. Daniels
called about his lab results" he almost certainly will. The down side was he
was often asked for free diagnosis. He cured that by claiming to be a
proctologist!

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

I was just commenting on your willingness to use the phrase, but don't like
it when other people do. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 May 2006 13:10:22 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Reported figures? Don't trust this sort of language. Especially if "they"
report them. :-)

I used it simply because I read or skim a fair number of publications and
just don't remember the source of the number. If you have better numbers,
let's hear them.

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

In article , Vito
wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote
Often the MD suffix is synonymous with runaway ego.

I always thought Cadillac drivers were the same until I bought one, then I
found
that other drivers make you that way. If one is deferred to often enough one
comes to expect it. After observing how folks treated his MD uncle a buddy of
mine began using it to his own advantage. For example, if you leave a message
for a friend he may or may not get it but if you say "Tell him Dr. Daniels
called about his lab results" he almost certainly will.

Yeah. My wife found that when she got her PhD. All of a sudden she got
straight through doctors' secretaries without explanation when she was
wanting to get hold of them, and the med school students paid far more
attention as well.

Funny. I was an associate professor for a while, which caused my staff
a lotta amusement. Eventually I demoted myself as it was a PITA.

PDW

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..


Thing is, *nobody* I know goes into R&D in most areas with the
expectation that they'll get filthy rich. They do it because they're
interested in a particular type/class of problem. In fact, obsessed
would be a better word than interested. If they do get rich, it's a
nice side effect.

I think you've got blinders on, Pete. Motivations for doing research among
the gifted academics are as wide and varied as with any endeavor by anyone.
Seldom do researchers have the monocentric interest (obsession) that you
describe without other motives. Money is a big one these days, especially
in some fields where the payoff can be huge, such as genetic engineering.
Prestige also tops the list--academics as a rule tend to be somewhat
egotistical, and peer recognition/adulation is a powerful motivator. So is
the desire to be the foremost individual in a particular field of endeavor.
It would be convenient to believe researchers have nothing but altruism
lighting their way, but that simply isn't the case, at least not very often.
Most prominent research scientists won't normally discuss their motives,
apart from telling you they have " . . .always been obsessed with . . ."
their topic of choice, but the other motives are there, and they are
powerful.

So - if those truly motivated in the main by money & prestige choose
some other profession than medicine, good. I don't regard a doctor
practising family medicine as all that much superior to a good auto
mechanic, to tell the truth.

Ridiculous. Next time you are seriously ill, consult your local mechanic.

They get bored, in fact. Friend of mine has given up being a GP and is
doing a PhD in a health related area instead.

It's more than just boredom. It's frustration with the legal climate
surrounding health care, the governmental intervention that imposes more and
more controls over how a qualified physician can practice medicine, and the
eroding doctor-patient relationship, thanks to the first two items. A close
friend, a cardiac surgeon, threw in the towel six years ago and bought a
convenience store (grocery + gas station) in Montana. He had practiced for
24 years, been junk-sued twice (he won both), and watched his malpractice
premiums rise to the level of 25% of his annual gross income. His
professional group broke up for legal reasons, and he found himself alone,
having to be on call constantly. Since leaving medicine, he's a very happy
man. Before he was consistently frustrated and often angry.

The media paint a very one-sided, distorted view of medical people, Pete.
If you are forming your impressions from them, you really need to change
your information-gathering methods.

Max

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
Martin Baxter wrote:
katy wrote:
Martin Baxter wrote:
katy wrote:
P.S. for Katy, presbyopia does not mean that I'm Presbyterian.
I knew that, Martin. So how much of your tax dollar per annum do
you contribute for health care?

Guess I should have included the smiley. ;-)

The average Canadian family pays about 48% of it's income in taxes,
(federal and provincial income, federal and provincial sales, booze,
gas..etc.), 40% of that goes to health care.

Cheers
Marty
OK, so according to 2001 stats, a median family income in Canada was
about 68k and you are paying around 13k out of your taxes for health
care that doesn't cover some things. If we were to COBRA (pay for
total policy on own) our BCBS plan, which covers many of the things
you've listed as exclusions, would cost us 9K per annum for a family
policy. We do have some small co-pays, which usually add up to
another 1.5k/annum ...

So we pay about about the same allowing for exchange, there are however
two important differences: Everbody gets equal coverage here including
the indigent. No one can get dumped by his carrier.

Cheers
Marty
Does your medical coverage put age limits on some procedures like in Great
Britain? It is my understanding that in GB, if you are over 50, kidney
transplant and I believe, dialysis, are not available..also some heart
treatments.

The "Hillary Health Care Plan" was a classic example of health-care
rationing. Over 50 and need dialysis? Sorry. Transplants after the same
age--wait your turn, and everyone younger gets first shot. Sounded a lot
like Russia.

Max

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
katy wrote:


Marty
Does your medical coverage put age limits on some procedures like in
Great Britain? It is my understanding that in GB, if you are over
50, kidney transplant and I believe, dialysis, are not
available..also some heart treatments.


Not arbitrarily, sometimes out of necessity, my uncle had an aneurysm on
the anterior descending aorta, they wouldn't try to repair it as they
they thought the procedure itself would probably kill him, he was 82 at
the time.

I won't tell you that that explanation wasn't accurate or honest, but I'm
betting his age had as much or more to do with the response than his general
health and condition. It's called rationing.

Max

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 May 2006 11:50:49 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

According to reported figures that cost represents between 2 and 3% of
the
total. I think you've been reading too much AMA propaganda.

Some numbers for you guys:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/7031/ti2004-1-5.cfm

21% for physician/clinical services, 30% hospital care. (2004 data)

The drug companies are doing well:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/7031/ti2004-1-21.cfm

If you do a little reading in Tenet's 4th quarter financial statement
you will see that they spent some $545 million on "uncompensated care",
this from an operating revenue of $2,299 million (this is the hospital
side of their operation). I believe Tenet is a reasonable exemplar of
this type of business, these numbers would seem to support Max's
position.

Might or might not, depending on what goes into that "uncompensated care"
number in addition to Max's "expense of hospital and medical care for the
uninsured, impoverished masses."

It would seem the term "uncompensated care" is rather self-explanatory.

Max

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..


Thing is, *nobody* I know goes into R&D in most areas with the
expectation that they'll get filthy rich. They do it because they're
interested in a particular type/class of problem. In fact, obsessed
would be a better word than interested. If they do get rich, it's a
nice side effect.

I think you've got blinders on, Pete. Motivations for doing research among
the gifted academics are as wide and varied as with any endeavor by anyone.
Seldom do researchers have the monocentric interest (obsession) that you
describe without other motives.

Yeah, I know that. But the big driver is interest/obsession IME. For
the best ones, at least.

Money is a big one these days, especially
in some fields where the payoff can be huge, such as genetic engineering.

For a lot, yes. I know a little about this field because I used to work
in a closely related area. In fact at one stage I was offered a full
scholarship to return to university and get a PhD in bioinformatics.
Decided life was too short to do this in my mid 40s & went back to sea
instead, but that's another story.

Prestige also tops the list--academics as a rule tend to be somewhat
egotistical, and peer recognition/adulation is a powerful motivator. So is
the desire to be the foremost individual in a particular field of endeavor.

Oh agreed. Moreso than money for R&D people.

It would be convenient to believe researchers have nothing but altruism
lighting their way, but that simply isn't the case, at least not very often.

I don't think I used the word 'altruism' anywhere. In fact I'm damn
certain I didn't. I've seen very senior & powerful researchers do
anything possible to preserve funding and/or get more to pursue their
pet hobbyhorses ragardless of any other factor to actually be under any
such delusion. The current global warming stuff is a lovely case in
point, actually, which I am observing from a close to ringside seat. I
am a data providor to some of this.

Most prominent research scientists won't normally discuss their motives,
apart from telling you they have " . . .always been obsessed with . . ."
their topic of choice, but the other motives are there, and they are
powerful.

Not a problem when you see them ****ed at conferences etc. Then the
truth comes out.

So - if those truly motivated in the main by money & prestige choose
some other profession than medicine, good. I don't regard a doctor
practising family medicine as all that much superior to a good auto
mechanic, to tell the truth.

Ridiculous. Next time you are seriously ill, consult your local mechanic.

About as useful and sensible as the next time I have a problem with my
interrelated software/hardware control systems, I should consult a
doctor. You'll have to do better than that, Max. I didn't say doctors
weren't skilled. Mostly, they are. The surgeon who put my arm together
did a pretty good job of it considering how badly I managed to smash
it. I'm happy with the end result. So what? A top orthopaedic surgeon
is a real good bone mechanic :-)

They get bored, in fact. Friend of mine has given up being a GP and is
doing a PhD in a health related area instead.

It's more than just boredom. It's frustration with the legal climate
surrounding health care, the governmental intervention that imposes more and
more controls over how a qualified physician can practice medicine, and the
eroding doctor-patient relationship, thanks to the first two items. A close
friend, a cardiac surgeon, threw in the towel six years ago and bought a
convenience store (grocery + gas station) in Montana. He had practiced for
24 years, been junk-sued twice (he won both), and watched his malpractice
premiums rise to the level of 25% of his annual gross income. His
professional group broke up for legal reasons, and he found himself alone,
having to be on call constantly. Since leaving medicine, he's a very happy
man. Before he was consistently frustrated and often angry.

We have been/are losing doctors in the OB/GYN specialties due to plain
stupid lawsuits so I hear you. Occasionally there's a glimmer of hope.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...9-1702,00.html

I had a suggestion for 'wrongful life' cases. We should just offer to
terminate them now, end of problem.

Don't get me started on lawyers.


The media paint a very one-sided, distorted view of medical people, Pete.
If you are forming your impressions from them, you really need to change
your information-gathering methods.

Umm, Max, I'm one of those oddball people who *read*. I don't own a TV
or a radio. I don't as a rule watch movies because I've found they're
mostly shallow and simplistic. However, I read a number of newspapers
and a wide range of scientific literature. I get to do this as part of
my job and also I do it for interest & entertainment. My opinions are
just that, but if they have congruence with the media, it's
coincidental.

As I said, I know a lot of doctors. I've designed & written software
that's running the entire NSW neonatal screening program and has
genetic data on well over a million children online. Perhaps my
familiarity has caused me to see them in a different light. I respect
the better ones' talent, skill and dedication, but I'm not in awe of
them nor do I respect them more highly than people in other demanding
professions.

PDW

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
katy wrote:


Marty
Does your medical coverage put age limits on some procedures like in
Great Britain? It is my understanding that in GB, if you are over
50, kidney transplant and I believe, dialysis, are not
available..also some heart treatments.


Not arbitrarily, sometimes out of necessity, my uncle had an aneurysm on
the anterior descending aorta, they wouldn't try to repair it as they
they thought the procedure itself would probably kill him, he was 82 at
the time.

I won't tell you that that explanation wasn't accurate or honest, but I'm
betting his age had as much or more to do with the response than his general
health and condition. It's called rationing.

I see. When you can't afford it, it's not rationing. Right?

This topic makes for a *great* argument.

The USA rations on money. Canada arguably rations on age. There have
been suggestions put fwd that various treatments be denied people who
smoke, are clinically obese etc etc. I suspect it's going to happen.

Oz's idol in the last Aussie Fed election proposed giving priority in
public (ie taxpayer funded) hospital care to people over 75 in an
attempt to buy votes. I had a lotta fun asking why a 75+ y/o was a
better target for a limited resource than say a 5 y/o with a long
future in front of her.

PDW

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote
The USA rations on money. Canada arguably rations on age. ....

There'd be no need to ration if supply wa close to demand and the reason it is
not is because supply is artificially limited - in the USA by the MD's union,
just as other trade unions like electricians and plumbers did before the
do-it-yourself trend. Imagine what electricians might charge if you had to get
a prescription for a light bulb.

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 08 May 2006 11:06:21 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

There is, of course, the added cost that doesn't show up on anybody's
balance sheet--the cost of delaying needed care because of the system's
inability to provide it when needed.

I think that applies to just about any health care delivery system.

I don't think so. In the US, generally if you're willing to pay you can get
what you need, and when you need it, without going to another country to do
so. There's a reason you see wealthy Canadians coming here for treatment,
and it's not necessarily the quality of the physicians..

No argument there. I'm more or less agreeing that medical care is a
limited quantity, it will get "rationed" (this weeks fad word) either in
a capitalistic fashion or by a socialistic method, either way there's
not enough to go around.

Cheers
Marty

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

In article , OzOne wrote:

On Tue, 09 May 2006 04:11:03 +0100, Peter Wiley
scribbled thusly:


Oz's idol in the last Aussie Fed election

What idol would that be?

Thought I'd get a bite :-)

Where's your new boat now in its progress across the Pacific? Been
snowing here, I'm thinking of visiting Sydney (or Qld) for a bit....

The one who was accused of not having being capable of controlling the
economy, or the accuser who is supposedly the best treasurer we've
ever had..he can balance a budget to within about 15billion, and claim
to pay off the national debt..unfortunately the current account
deficit is now getting close to 450 billion!.

WGAF, it's private money, not Govt debt. I don't have much regard for
the current clowns in power so don't expect me to defend them. They're
benefiting from circumstances largely not of their making so deserve no
credit. Just as I told the other mob before the last loss, you can get
into power if your policies are crap but your sales team is good, you
might get into power with good policies and poor sales, but you'll
*never* get into power if you have no talent and no policies. And I was
right. I'd love to see the current mob booted out. Come the day the ALP
has sensible policies....

PDW

PDW

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:


I won't tell you that that explanation wasn't accurate or honest, but I'm
betting his age had as much or more to do with the response than his
general
health and condition. It's called rationing.

I see. When you can't afford it, it's not rationing. Right?

I presumed something I shouldn't have--that your uncle lived in a place with
socialized medicine. Perhaps that was not the case. In socialized
medicine, health care is always rationed. I don't know if that answers your
question, because I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

This topic makes for a *great* argument.

The USA rations on money. Canada arguably rations on age. There have
been suggestions put fwd that various treatments be denied people who
smoke, are clinically obese etc etc. I suspect it's going to happen.

Not here. The discrimination lawsuits would clog the legal system worse
than it already is.


Oz's idol in the last Aussie Fed election proposed giving priority in
public (ie taxpayer funded) hospital care to people over 75 in an
attempt to buy votes. I had a lotta fun asking why a 75+ y/o was a
better target for a limited resource than say a 5 y/o with a long
future in front of her.

The answer: politics. But you already knew that.

Max

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:22:50 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

Might or might not, depending on what goes into that "uncompensated
care"
number in addition to Max's "expense of hospital and medical care for
the
uninsured, impoverished masses."

It would seem the term "uncompensated care" is rather self-explanatory.

Not at all. All it tells you is that they claim to have provided a service
and didn't get paid. It says nothing about the reasons they didn't get
paid. Reasons might include, among other things, those who refuse to pay
deductibles based on a dispute with the provider,

Possible, yes, but generally most individuals with means do not risk having
their credit trashed over such disputes. Further, such cases, if they end
up in court, are preponderantly decided in favor of the provider. Patients
sign contracts for services *prior* to receiving them, and such contracts
are considered binding, at least here in Indiana. My guess is that such
co-payment defaults involve those with little or no means to pay = the
impoverished or working poor. Uncollectable Medicaid co-payment claims at
my wife's hospital are currently in the 90th percentile.

amounts un collectible
because of poor collection practices, generally sloppy billing practices
in
dealing with third party providers, and a number of other things.

Hospitals are notorious for being astute with their billing practices, both
with patients and with third-parties. Once again this could possibly be a
percentage of "uncompensated care," but I doubt if it's larger than a single
digit percentagewise.

I stand by my initial contention that the greatest percentage of
"uncompensated care" consists of indigents who cannot pay. This is for two
reasons: 1) they generally have no means to pay, obviously, and 2) this
general classification of people have, as a rule, poor health habits and
some downright dangerous ones, such as drug use, smoking, obesity, and
neglect of minor health problems before they become major ones. These folks
end up in the hospital at a substantially greater rate than the rest of the
non-geriatric general population. And as the undocumented alien population
proliferates this group constitutes an ever-increasing part of the
uncompensated care column.

My suppositions are based upon experience and data, not darts thrown
blindfolded.

Max

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..


Thing is, *nobody* I know goes into R&D in most areas with the
expectation that they'll get filthy rich. They do it because they're
interested in a particular type/class of problem. In fact, obsessed
would be a better word than interested. If they do get rich, it's a
nice side effect.

I think you've got blinders on, Pete. Motivations for doing research
among
the gifted academics are as wide and varied as with any endeavor by
anyone.
Seldom do researchers have the monocentric interest (obsession) that you
describe without other motives.

Yeah, I know that. But the big driver is interest/obsession IME. For
the best ones, at least.

Try taking away their big NIH grants or corporate salaries/bonuses and see
how many of them still are obsessed.

Money is a big one these days, especially
in some fields where the payoff can be huge, such as genetic engineering.

For a lot, yes. I know a little about this field because I used to work
in a closely related area. In fact at one stage I was offered a full
scholarship to return to university and get a PhD in bioinformatics.
Decided life was too short to do this in my mid 40s & went back to sea
instead, but that's another story.

Prestige also tops the list--academics as a rule tend to be somewhat
egotistical, and peer recognition/adulation is a powerful motivator. So
is
the desire to be the foremost individual in a particular field of
endeavor.

Oh agreed. Moreso than money for R&D people.

Probably. I've always held an affection for those in academia/research who
eschew the public limelight and don't seem to require the adulation of their
peers. Rare birds, they are.

It would be convenient to believe researchers have nothing but altruism
lighting their way, but that simply isn't the case, at least not very
often.

I don't think I used the word 'altruism' anywhere. In fact I'm damn
certain I didn't. I've seen very senior & powerful researchers do
anything possible to preserve funding and/or get more to pursue their
pet hobbyhorses ragardless of any other factor to actually be under any
such delusion.

You're right. There are typically less-than-attractive underlying motives
for such obsessions, however. That's why I used the term "altruism." I
don't think it exists to any great degree in research these days.

The current global warming stuff is a lovely case in
point, actually, which I am observing from a close to ringside seat. I
am a data providor to some of this.

Most prominent research scientists won't normally discuss their motives,
apart from telling you they have " . . .always been obsessed with . . ."
their topic of choice, but the other motives are there, and they are
powerful.

Not a problem when you see them ****ed at conferences etc. Then the
truth comes out.

Occasionally, yes, but not always. Some top people are consumate liars, or
at least evaders of the truth.

So - if those truly motivated in the main by money & prestige choose
some other profession than medicine, good. I don't regard a doctor
practising family medicine as all that much superior to a good auto
mechanic, to tell the truth.

Ridiculous. Next time you are seriously ill, consult your local
mechanic.

About as useful and sensible as the next time I have a problem with my
interrelated software/hardware control systems, I should consult a
doctor. You'll have to do better than that, Max. I didn't say doctors
weren't skilled. Mostly, they are. The surgeon who put my arm together
did a pretty good job of it considering how badly I managed to smash
it. I'm happy with the end result. So what? A top orthopaedic surgeon
is a real good bone mechanic :-)

Yes, he is. But he is also a powerful physiologist, diagnostician, and
therapist. If he weren't those things, your anaesthetic-induced arythmias
might prove fatal during your total hip replacement. Or the microbial
pathogen you contracted during the surgery might undo all he did with his
"bone mechanics." If the fuel pump the auto mechanic replaced did not
solve your car's stalling-at-stoplights problem, he'll replace something
else until he gets it right. Either way your car lives to drive another
day. Bad comparison, doctor vs. mechanic.


They get bored, in fact. Friend of mine has given up being a GP and is
doing a PhD in a health related area instead.

It's more than just boredom. It's frustration with the legal climate
surrounding health care, the governmental intervention that imposes more
and
more controls over how a qualified physician can practice medicine, and
the
eroding doctor-patient relationship, thanks to the first two items. A
close
friend, a cardiac surgeon, threw in the towel six years ago and bought a
convenience store (grocery + gas station) in Montana. He had practiced
for
24 years, been junk-sued twice (he won both), and watched his malpractice
premiums rise to the level of 25% of his annual gross income. His
professional group broke up for legal reasons, and he found himself
alone,
having to be on call constantly. Since leaving medicine, he's a very
happy
man. Before he was consistently frustrated and often angry.


We have been/are losing doctors in the OB/GYN specialties due to plain
stupid lawsuits so I hear you. Occasionally there's a glimmer of hope.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...9-1702,00.html

I had a suggestion for 'wrongful life' cases. We should just offer to
terminate them now, end of problem.

LOL. What crap litigation that was. Seriously, however, the problem of
junk suits won't go away here, mostly because the trial lawyers groups in
this country are too powerful, not to mention that so many of our
congressmen, senators, and presidents are attorneys. If ever there was a
special interest group overrepresented in our government it is lawyers.

My cousin is doing primarily OB now. He has religious qualms with abortion,
so he cannot participate in the GYN end of his group practice. But he knows
his time as a physician is probably limited. Any baby born with birth
defects or with delivery complications is a potential lawsuit these days.
He's been sued five times for complaints so far beyond his control as to
stretch the imagination. All five cases were dismissed for lack of evidence
of neglect on his part, but he still had to endure the expense, the mental
turmoil, and the negative publicity such suits have wrought. OB is in a
unique position in that young women know that if they sue the doctor and
win, the damage to the profession won't affect them in the future, provided
they are through with childbearing. So such suits are plentiful. Let the
upcoming generations worry about where to find OB care---it's no longer my
problem.

Don't get me started on lawyers.

(see above) You've already gotten me started.


The media paint a very one-sided, distorted view of medical people, Pete.
If you are forming your impressions from them, you really need to change
your information-gathering methods.


Umm, Max, I'm one of those oddball people who *read*. I don't own a TV
or a radio.

Sorry, but that doesn't prevent you from getting one-sided info. Much of
the written media these days have rather anti-medical biases.

I don't as a rule watch movies because I've found they're
mostly shallow and simplistic. However, I read a number of newspapers
and a wide range of scientific literature. I get to do this as part of
my job and also I do it for interest & entertainment. My opinions are
just that, but if they have congruence with the media, it's
coincidental.

As I said, I know a lot of doctors. I've designed & written software
that's running the entire NSW neonatal screening program and has
genetic data on well over a million children online. Perhaps my
familiarity has caused me to see them in a different light. I respect
the better ones' talent, skill and dedication, but I'm not in awe of
them nor do I respect them more highly than people in other demanding
professions.

Years ago physicians were regarded in near-godlike terms. Today most people
are aware that they, like everyone else, are just humans with the same
fallibility, idiosyncrasies, and problems. I don't believe the current crop
of physicians *wants* you to be in awe of them. To the contrary, most of
them want you to know up front that they are doing their level best and do
care for your welfare, but are not free from error or misjudgment. Times
have changed in the medical world. Ego and arrogance are not absent, but
they do not define the doctor any longer.

Max

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:14:59 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

So - if those truly motivated in the main by money & prestige choose
some other profession than medicine, good. I don't regard a doctor
practising family medicine as all that much superior to a good auto
mechanic, to tell the truth.

Ridiculous. Next time you are seriously ill, consult your local mechanic.

Not at all ridiculous. A good analogy, in fact. The reply is absurd.

Both a good doctor and a good mechanic have the skill of applying
knowledge
of an extensive knowledge base to diagnosing a specific problem and
finding
the right solution to that problem. To suggest that you can't expect
someone
looking at the wrong knowledge base to solve a problem is obvious, but
utterly beside the point.

A predictable legal response.

It's the extent of the knowledge base that differentiates the two. If an
auto mechanic's knowledge base were as extensive and voluminous as that of
the physician, mechanics would be in very short supply, and it would cost
you thousands to repair a clogged fuel injection system. Auto mechanics,
when repairing a vehicle, have the luxury of taking a moment to consult a
parts list or a diagram of the particular device or subassembly upon which
they are working. Physicians have no such luxury. Cars don't die on the
mechanic while he takes a look at the repair manual followed by a coffee
break.

Max

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:14:59 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

It's more than just boredom. It's frustration with the legal climate
surrounding health care, the governmental intervention that imposes more
and
more controls over how a qualified physician can practice medicine, and
the
eroding doctor-patient relationship, thanks to the first two items.

Undoubtedly true. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The combination of
third party payment systems and a greedy plaintiff's bar puts less and
less
emphasis on what the patient wants or needs. The medical profession is
coming closer and closer to the media business model, in which those using
the service are not the consumers of the service, but the product sold to
those who pay for the service. Just as a newspaper makes money by selling
advertisers access to its readers, so MDs succeed by developing a large
base
of product in the form of patients, and selling third party payors access
to
those patients.

A nice analogy, but inaccurate. It's the third-party payors who sell the
product (patients) to the practitioners. Speak with any physician who has
watched his long term patients perform a mass exodus from his practice when
a third party, with which he is not a provider, sells his patients, or their
employer, their song and dance.

Max

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

In article , Maxprop
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

Yeah, I know that. But the big driver is interest/obsession IME. For
the best ones, at least.

Try taking away their big NIH grants or corporate salaries/bonuses and see
how many of them still are obsessed.

Shrug. Some R&D is so expensive, it either gets funded by Govts
(directly or indirectly) or by big corporations. Nobody else can afford
it. Not a matter of obsession at that point.

Costs my group some $3 mill to stage a single research cruise. Even in
USD that ain't cheap and it doesn't include the salaries of up to 70
scientists & techs, nor ship fuel.

About as useful and sensible as the next time I have a problem with my
interrelated software/hardware control systems, I should consult a
doctor. You'll have to do better than that, Max. I didn't say doctors
weren't skilled. Mostly, they are. The surgeon who put my arm together
did a pretty good job of it considering how badly I managed to smash
it. I'm happy with the end result. So what? A top orthopaedic surgeon
is a real good bone mechanic :-)

Yes, he is. But he is also a powerful physiologist, diagnostician, and
therapist.

Matter of opinion. The surgeon didn't have much to do with me after the
op except a couple checkups. My physiotherapist, OTOH, spent a lot of
time up close & personal. She's not a doctor. He wasn't a therapist in
the sense I'm using.

If he weren't those things, your anaesthetic-induced arythmias
might prove fatal during your total hip replacement.

Different specialty. Doctors are rarely extensively cross trained once
they've become senior specialists IME. We employ such doctors (cross
trained ones) because we send them places where there's no possibility
of backup and the surgical nurses, anesthetists etc are people like -
me. As I said one trip, you better not get badly hurt because I'll be
operating the anaesthetic while the doc does the work :-)

Or the microbial
pathogen you contracted during the surgery might undo all he did with his
"bone mechanics."

Ditto. That's either good aseptic control on the part of the hospital
or maybe downright carelessness I guess. Nevertheless I got my butt
outa hospital and home ASAP. Had a hairline fracture of the pelvic
girdle and wasn't supposed to be walking for 6 weeks, but I was outa
there 3 days after they'd finished pinning my arm back together. 3 ops
over a week, I learnt the benefits of a morphine drip under patient
control :-) Thank God I wasn't in the USA, the DEA probably woulda
locked everyone up for abuse of narcotics.

If the fuel pump the auto mechanic replaced did not
solve your car's stalling-at-stoplights problem, he'll replace something
else until he gets it right. Either way your car lives to drive another
day. Bad comparison, doctor vs. mechanic.

I'll agree that the consequences of failure might be higher with an
auto mechanic, but possibly not with, say, an airline one.


We have been/are losing doctors in the OB/GYN specialties due to plain
stupid lawsuits so I hear you. Occasionally there's a glimmer of hope.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...9-1702,00.html

I had a suggestion for 'wrongful life' cases. We should just offer to
terminate them now, end of problem.

LOL. What crap litigation that was. Seriously, however, the problem of
junk suits won't go away here, mostly because the trial lawyers groups in
this country are too powerful, not to mention that so many of our
congressmen, senators, and presidents are attorneys. If ever there was a
special interest group overrepresented in our government it is lawyers.

My cousin is doing primarily OB now. He has religious qualms with abortion,
so he cannot participate in the GYN end of his group practice. But he knows
his time as a physician is probably limited. Any baby born with birth
defects or with delivery complications is a potential lawsuit these days.

Our High Court has no settled the birth defect one at least insofar as
'wrongful life' claims go.

He's been sued five times for complaints so far beyond his control as to
stretch the imagination. All five cases were dismissed for lack of evidence
of neglect on his part, but he still had to endure the expense, the mental
turmoil, and the negative publicity such suits have wrought. OB is in a
unique position in that young women know that if they sue the doctor and
win, the damage to the profession won't affect them in the future, provided
they are through with childbearing. So such suits are plentiful. Let the
upcoming generations worry about where to find OB care---it's no longer my
problem.

We had one woman who sued because she was advised to have a C-section
rather than a vaginal delivery, because of some factor(s) I forget. End
result was a healthy mother & baby, but she sued because she'd been
deprived of the experience of a natural childbirth. Can't remember if
she won or not, but it's crap like that causes doctors to give it away.

Don't get me started on lawyers.

(see above) You've already gotten me started.

Second group against the wall, come the revolution.....


The media paint a very one-sided, distorted view of medical people, Pete.
If you are forming your impressions from them, you really need to change
your information-gathering methods.


Umm, Max, I'm one of those oddball people who *read*. I don't own a TV
or a radio.

Sorry, but that doesn't prevent you from getting one-sided info. Much of
the written media these days have rather anti-medical biases.

Sure, but it cuts down the crap no end. Big improvement in the S/N
ratio, similar to killfiling Bob here.

Years ago physicians were regarded in near-godlike terms. Today most people
are aware that they, like everyone else, are just humans with the same
fallibility, idiosyncrasies, and problems. I don't believe the current crop
of physicians *wants* you to be in awe of them. To the contrary, most of
them want you to know up front that they are doing their level best and do
care for your welfare, but are not free from error or misjudgment. Times
have changed in the medical world. Ego and arrogance are not absent, but
they do not define the doctor any longer.

I agree. We've drifted far from the starting point by now. I still
don't think it requires top level SAT/TER scores to make a good doctor.
Academic ability (or ability to pass exams) is useful but not
sufficient. If I had to pick a 'talent', it'd be the ability to
synthesise a raft of information and make a correct diagnosis more
often than an incorrect one. I don't underestimate the ability of doing
this, nor do I think that lawyers, who can't do it themselves even with
100% hindsight, aid the process one iota.

The population at large may well no longer be in awe of doctors, but
they sure are in contempt of lawyers. I can't see that changing any
time soon.

PDW

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:14:59 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

So - if those truly motivated in the main by money & prestige choose
some other profession than medicine, good. I don't regard a doctor
practising family medicine as all that much superior to a good auto
mechanic, to tell the truth.

Ridiculous. Next time you are seriously ill, consult your local mechanic.

Not at all ridiculous. A good analogy, in fact. The reply is absurd.

Both a good doctor and a good mechanic have the skill of applying
knowledge
of an extensive knowledge base to diagnosing a specific problem and
finding
the right solution to that problem. To suggest that you can't expect
someone
looking at the wrong knowledge base to solve a problem is obvious, but
utterly beside the point.

A predictable legal response.

It's the extent of the knowledge base that differentiates the two. If an
auto mechanic's knowledge base were as extensive and voluminous as that of
the physician, mechanics would be in very short supply, and it would cost
you thousands to repair a clogged fuel injection system. Auto mechanics,
when repairing a vehicle, have the luxury of taking a moment to consult a
parts list or a diagram of the particular device or subassembly upon which
they are working. Physicians have no such luxury. Cars don't die on the
mechanic while he takes a look at the repair manual followed by a coffee
break.

Hmmm. I guess you've spent no time in a public hospital recently.
Waiting times in Casualty in Australia, some people *have* died and the
delay times are generally sufficient for people to have a 3 course
dinner let alone a coffee break.

Few doctors outside casualty & surgery operate under those time
pressures, Max. You're using a small group to stand for all. It simply
isn't so.

Not to mention doctors' extensive libraries, reference materials and
computers......

PDW

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

In article , OzOne wrote:

On Wed, 10 May 2006 03:58:39 +0100, Peter Wiley
scribbled thusly:

Hmmm. I guess you've spent no time in a public hospital recently.
Waiting times in Casualty in Australia, some people *have* died and the
delay times are generally sufficient for people to have a 3 course
dinner let alone a coffee break.

Can be fixed by education.
GPs offices are empty while cas waiting rooms are full, mostly with
people who have flu or a headache, or a kid with a temperature.

Won't argue with that. Lotta cas stuff *is* trivial, could be dealt
with by a GP. Dunno about fixing it, tho. Only thing I can see working
is to charge for the use of the service to discourage trivial
complaints. That's a can of worms and I can see a lot of ways it could
backfire badly. Education - no.

PDW

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Matter of opinion. The surgeon didn't have much to do with me after the
op except a couple checkups. My physiotherapist, OTOH, spent a lot of
time up close & personal. She's not a doctor. He wasn't a therapist in
the sense I'm using.

I don't know how things are done there, but here the doctor plans and orders
the therapy. He just doesn't peform it. That's what physical therapists
are for.

If he weren't those things, your anaesthetic-induced arythmias
might prove fatal during your total hip replacement.


Different specialty. Doctors are rarely extensively cross trained once
they've become senior specialists IME. We employ such doctors (cross
trained ones) because we send them places where there's no possibility
of backup and the surgical nurses, anesthetists etc are people like -
me. As I said one trip, you better not get badly hurt because I'll be
operating the anaesthetic while the doc does the work :-)

The surgeon is the skipper in charge of the patient's welfare during surgery
here. Even if the anaesthesiologist disagrees with him over a point of
procedure, the surgeon has the final say in the matter. And that is the way
it should be, because it's the surgeon who will be named the primary
recipient of litigation of something goes awry.


Or the microbial
pathogen you contracted during the surgery might undo all he did with his
"bone mechanics."

Ditto. That's either good aseptic control

Today it's "sterile," not aseptic. Hasn't been for over half a century.

on the part of the hospital
or maybe downright carelessness I guess. Nevertheless I got my butt
outa hospital and home ASAP. Had a hairline fracture of the pelvic
girdle and wasn't supposed to be walking for 6 weeks, but I was outa
there 3 days after they'd finished pinning my arm back together. 3 ops
over a week, I learnt the benefits of a morphine drip under patient
control :-) Thank God I wasn't in the USA, the DEA probably woulda
locked everyone up for abuse of narcotics.

Not necessarily. We use patient-controlled morphine drips here, too. But
the total amount administered is limited over time, as was yours.

If the fuel pump the auto mechanic replaced did not
solve your car's stalling-at-stoplights problem, he'll replace something
else until he gets it right. Either way your car lives to drive another
day. Bad comparison, doctor vs. mechanic.

I'll agree that the consequences of failure might be higher with an
auto mechanic,

Say what??

but possibly not with, say, an airline one.

Did you mean "doctor?"

We have been/are losing doctors in the OB/GYN specialties due to plain
stupid lawsuits so I hear you. Occasionally there's a glimmer of hope.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...9-1702,00.html

I had a suggestion for 'wrongful life' cases. We should just offer to
terminate them now, end of problem.

LOL. What crap litigation that was. Seriously, however, the problem of
junk suits won't go away here, mostly because the trial lawyers groups in
this country are too powerful, not to mention that so many of our
congressmen, senators, and presidents are attorneys. If ever there was a
special interest group overrepresented in our government it is lawyers.

My cousin is doing primarily OB now. He has religious qualms with
abortion,
so he cannot participate in the GYN end of his group practice. But he
knows
his time as a physician is probably limited. Any baby born with birth
defects or with delivery complications is a potential lawsuit these days.

Our High Court has no settled the birth defect one at least insofar as
'wrongful life' claims go.

He's been sued five times for complaints so far beyond his control as to
stretch the imagination. All five cases were dismissed for lack of
evidence
of neglect on his part, but he still had to endure the expense, the
mental
turmoil, and the negative publicity such suits have wrought. OB is in a
unique position in that young women know that if they sue the doctor and
win, the damage to the profession won't affect them in the future,
provided
they are through with childbearing. So such suits are plentiful. Let
the
upcoming generations worry about where to find OB care---it's no longer
my
problem.

We had one woman who sued because she was advised to have a C-section
rather than a vaginal delivery, because of some factor(s) I forget. End
result was a healthy mother & baby, but she sued because she'd been
deprived of the experience of a natural childbirth. Can't remember if
she won or not, but it's crap like that causes doctors to give it away.

Amen.


Don't get me started on lawyers.

(see above) You've already gotten me started.

Second group against the wall, come the revolution.....


The media paint a very one-sided, distorted view of medical people,
Pete.
If you are forming your impressions from them, you really need to
change
your information-gathering methods.


Umm, Max, I'm one of those oddball people who *read*. I don't own a TV
or a radio.

Sorry, but that doesn't prevent you from getting one-sided info. Much of
the written media these days have rather anti-medical biases.

Sure, but it cuts down the crap no end. Big improvement in the S/N
ratio, similar to killfiling Bob here.

Good point. Especially about Bob.


Years ago physicians were regarded in near-godlike terms. Today most
people
are aware that they, like everyone else, are just humans with the same
fallibility, idiosyncrasies, and problems. I don't believe the current
crop
of physicians *wants* you to be in awe of them. To the contrary, most of
them want you to know up front that they are doing their level best and
do
care for your welfare, but are not free from error or misjudgment. Times
have changed in the medical world. Ego and arrogance are not absent, but
they do not define the doctor any longer.

I agree. We've drifted far from the starting point by now. I still
don't think it requires top level SAT/TER scores to make a good doctor.
Academic ability (or ability to pass exams) is useful but not
sufficient. If I had to pick a 'talent', it'd be the ability to
synthesise a raft of information and make a correct diagnosis more
often than an incorrect one. I don't underestimate the ability of doing
this, nor do I think that lawyers, who can't do it themselves even with
100% hindsight, aid the process one iota.

The population at large may well no longer be in awe of doctors, but
they sure are in contempt of lawyers. I can't see that changing any
time soon.

Agreed, and that can be the final statement on this topic. Good one, Pete.

Max

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

OzOne wrote in message ...

Can be fixed by education.
GPs offices are empty while cas waiting rooms are full, mostly with
people who have flu or a headache, or a kid with a temperature.

We have the same issues with our emergency services here, but our
physicians' waiting rooms are not empty. As of 2002 70% of the geographic
USA was underserved by medical people, from slightly to substantially.

Not to mention doctors' extensive libraries, reference materials and
computers......

Which is a good thing. The broader the information base available on
instant demand to physicians, the better patients can be served. It is
predicted that by 2015 most surgical theaters will have voice controlled
computer screens over the operating table from which a physician can access
almost any medical information he requires, including the past and present
medical history of the patient. That, of course, will be no substitute for
a doctor's knowledge and skill, but access to broader knowledge is always a
good thing.

Max

Gas Price.....Too High?
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Wed, 10 May 2006 23:14:02 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
m...

Matter of opinion. The surgeon didn't have much to do with me after the
op except a couple checkups. My physiotherapist, OTOH, spent a lot of
time up close & personal. She's not a doctor. He wasn't a therapist in
the sense I'm using.

I don't know how things are done there, but here the doctor plans and
orders
the therapy. He just doesn't peform it. That's what physical therapists
are for.

Bit different here,
The doc orders the therapy, the therapist plans and executes it.

If he weren't those things, your anaesthetic-induced arythmias
might prove fatal during your total hip replacement.


Different specialty. Doctors are rarely extensively cross trained once
they've become senior specialists IME. We employ such doctors (cross
trained ones) because we send them places where there's no possibility
of backup and the surgical nurses, anesthetists etc are people like -
me. As I said one trip, you better not get badly hurt because I'll be
operating the anaesthetic while the doc does the work :-)

The surgeon is the skipper in charge of the patient's welfare during
surgery
here. Even if the anaesthesiologist disagrees with him over a point of
procedure, the surgeon has the final say in the matter. And that is the
way
it should be, because it's the surgeon who will be named the primary
recipient of litigation of something goes awry.
Interesting,
Here, the anethetist is number one, inconsultation with the surgeon.
He has the patient hovering, at times, close to death and will tell a
surgeon that he has to complete to whatever point he can so the
patient can be revived.

Actually the gas passer has some control here, too, much as you describe.
He can put a halt to the surgery if the patient is becoming sentient or
going critical, but it's still the surgeon's game. He's in charge.

Max