Given the choice, where do you think the brightest and best qualified
medical personell would choose to work? What questions would that raise
about the disparity in healthcare between the two? How long until the
left starts screaming about the unequal healthcare access for the

There is no doubt that somebody would try to make an issue of of the fact that
a Public Health Hospital (once common in this country) didn't deliver the same
level of customized, boutique medical attention available at "Sky's the Limit
Clinic."

Probably as good an excuse as any for the
hard hearted factions on the right to justify
doing *nothing*, (except allowing the private insurance companies they all hold
stock in to remain obscenely profitable and charge predatory rates).


I'd rather a doctor get paid 1.5 mill, than some sports "star".

Dave



I'd rather attract some people to the profession who were interested in the
practice of medicine for reasons not associated with being in the top .01% of
American wage earners.

In most communities, you can live in a very fine home, vacation a few times a
year, own a boat, a couple of cars, and put away plenty for an early and
comfortable retirement on no more than $300-400 thousand a year. Why a guy
thinks he needs five times that amount is beyond me.NOT THAT HE SHOULDN"T BE
FREE TO EARN IT IF HE CAN- but it shouldn't be considered normal compensation
for
a 9-5 flu and sniffles pediatrician.

Gould 0738 wrote:

Given the choice, where do you think the brightest and best qualified
medical personell would choose to work? What questions would that raise
about the disparity in healthcare between the two? How long until the
left starts screaming about the unequal healthcare access for the

There is no doubt that somebody would try to make an issue of of the fact that
a Public Health Hospital (once common in this country) didn't deliver the same
level of customized, boutique medical attention available at "Sky's the Limit
Clinic."

Probably as good an excuse as any for the
hard hearted factions on the right to justify
doing *nothing*, (except allowing the private insurance companies they all hold
stock in to remain obscenely profitable and charge predatory rates).

Doing nothing, in this case, is better than creating a bigger
boondoggle, and widening the disparity in health care.



I'd rather a doctor get paid 1.5 mill, than some sports "star".


I'd rather attract some people to the profession who were interested in the
practice of medicine for reasons not associated with being in the top .01% of
American wage earners.

Many doctors want bigger salaries, in order to pay the exponentially
spiraling cost of malpractice insurance. You want to put a lid on
medical costs? Then sign on to tort reform.


In most communities, you can live in a very fine home, vacation a few times a
year, own a boat, a couple of cars, and put away plenty for an early and
comfortable retirement on no more than $300-400 thousand a year. Why a guy
thinks he needs five times that amount is beyond me.NOT THAT HE SHOULDN"T BE
FREE TO EARN IT IF HE CAN- but it shouldn't be considered normal compensation
for
a 9-5 flu and sniffles pediatrician.

I would be curious of the percentage of doctors, who actually MAKE that
kind of exhorbinant salary. I'd be willing to bet that it's not that
much. Most whom I'm acquainted with, earn 6 figures, but no more.

Dave

Doing nothing, in this case, is better than creating a bigger
boondoggle, and widening the disparity in health care.

How do you widen a disparity when the have-nots are already at "zero"? The
statement makes no sense.

Many doctors want bigger salaries, in order to pay the exponentially
spiraling cost of malpractice insurance. You want to put a lid on
medical costs? Then sign on to tort reform.

Gould 0738 wrote:

Doing nothing, in this case, is better than creating a bigger
boondoggle, and widening the disparity in health care.

How do you widen a disparity when the have-nots are already at "zero"?

Who said they have "zero"? You've already acknowleged, (And it was this
revelation which was partially responsible for this splinter thread),
that poor people can go to the "ER" for treatment, and that cost is
passed on to real paying people. That's what prompted you to propose
your "two tiered" approach to healthcare, which would therefore make it
glaringly obvious, and actually seem to be promoting, that we have
seperate classes of healthcare.


The statement makes no sense.

It does if you follow your own logic.

Dave