(New Left vs. Old Left) vs the Right

[White Doors]

Dear Riverwind,

I find it extremely ironic that healthcare is the only field where advances in technology actually increase the cost of providing the service rather than decrease it.

Have you seen the price of new cars recently? Or computer chips? If you can provide an example of prices going down in a field because of tech advances, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Healthcare is not based on the profit motive, and in my mind, except for cosmetics, it should never be.

The consumer Electronics Industry

[Charles Anthony]

I find it extremely ironic that healthcare is the only field where advances in technology actually increase the cost of providing the service rather than decrease it.

Look on the bright side: when a new healthcare advance is made, everybody wants it and everybody should get it.

The only problem is that we can not afford to keep up.

In the past, if you had a diagnosis of arthritis, you would shut up and suffer while taking pain killers.

Now, you may be a candidate for surgery. However, if you do not want to die waiting in line for the surgery date while praying that the date does not get cancelled, you are free to shut up and suffer while eating pain killers.

Have you seen the price of new cars recently? Or computer chips? If you can provide an example of prices going down in a field because of tech advances, I'd be interested in hearing it.

You are comparing apples and oranges and assuming we are frozen in time.

New cars (or computer chips) are not the same as old cars (or computer chips), therefore, comparing their prices is invalid.

The consumer Electronics Industry

Exactly.

As soon as "tech advances" are made, we are no longer comparing the same product.

Furthermore, prices are not only a function of supply. They are a function of popularity.

Have you seen the prices of personal computers lately? Surprise, surprise! For what you get, they cost a hell of a lot cheaper than new 286's ever did!

Have you ever seen the prices of beaver skin hats lately? Surprise, surprise! Nobody wants them today like they used to when we started shipping Europeans over to North America!

Healthcare is not based on the profit motive, and in my mind, except for cosmetics, it should never be.

That is fine in The Lonely Flea World, but in reality, the people who provide healthcare are not slaves. Like the rest of us, they want more than a sustenance level of remuneration.

Healthcare must embrace the profit motive to survive.

I remember the '2 friends' commercial, it was for shampoo...Faberge , I believe.

I forget. I thought it was HeadAndShoulders but I just looked it up and you are correct.

[As an aside and I suppose it would be good to explore the field of marketing and advertizing in a separate thread, the most ingenious money-making ploy was in the shampoo industry. I believe it was JohnsonAndJohnson that introduced the "rinse and repeat" slogan. Why repeat?? We never ask. The reason was simple: they want us to want to consume more. Are we not remarkably gullible?]

You could be right, but the gov't isn't willing to take the chance. What if, god forbid , everyone saved that money...in 'income trusts'

Correct. It may be risky. However, that risk can be reduced by reducing taxes gradually. No big deal. Nothing to fear.

In keeping with the theme of this thread, which choice would be Left and which choice would be Right?

I found it odd that you would espouse the elimination of income tax in favour of other taxes, but I am in agreement.

If you had to be beaten with a stick, would you want it to be a quarter inch thick at ten lashes or one full swing with a baseball bat??? Choose your poison.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

New cars (or computer chips) are not the same as old cars (or computer chips), therefore, comparing their prices is invalid.

If they are, then so too must they be invalid as an example.

Have you seen the prices of personal computers lately? Surprise, surprise! For what you get, they cost a hell of a lot cheaper than new 286's ever did!

Yes, I was looking for a laptop for my wife, they start at about $2000. I don't recall a 286 (a 386 was our familiy's first real computer) costing a couple month's pay...but I could be wrong, I didn't buy it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

In the past, if you had a diagnosis of arthritis, you would shut up and suffer while taking pain killers.

Now, you may be a candidate for surgery. However, if you do not want to die waiting in line for the surgery date while praying that the date does not get cancelled, you are free to shut up and suffer while eating pain killers.

Healthcare must embrace the profit motive to survive.

Drug companies may survive, but the patients may not.

Why is there 'Healthcare'? Is performing a life-saving operation on an accident victim the same as the application of botox? If Healthcare is to be driven by the profit motive, then they are, it is simply filling a market demand for those with the money to pay. Insurance is no guarantee, Blue Cross/Blue Shield has been caught shredding claims. As with the thread on Auto insurance, forcing people to turn to private insurance is like throwing them to the wolves. Not always, but enough to make me leery.

[Charles Anthony]

Healthcare must embrace the profit motive to survive.

Drug companies may survive, but the patients may not.

Yeah, you are probably right.

Not only will the drug companies survive but I am sure they will make a killing by selling drugs to dead patients.

Why is there 'Healthcare'?

Simple: because "healthcare" providers need to put food on their table.

Is performing a life-saving operation on an accident victim the same as the application of botox?

No. One is more profitable than the other.

If Healthcare is to be driven by the profit motive, then they are, it is simply filling a market demand for those with the money to pay.

No. Why would they be "the same" at all???

Be reasonable. If they are the same, which one would YOU rather have as a consumer?

If health-care is to be driven by the profit motive, then health-care recipients have a fighting chance at receiving health-care.

As with the thread on Auto insurance, forcing people to turn to private insurance is like throwing them to the wolves. Not always, but enough to make me leery.

Leery of what??

That Canadians will be dying in health-care waiting lines??? or dying because there are no health-care providers willing to work???

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

That Canadians will be dying in health-care waiting lines??? or dying because there are no health-care providers willing to work???

They are dying in line now, which is one of the reasons why I am in favour of a two-tiered system.

Not only will the drug companies survive but I am sure they will make a killing by selling drugs to dead patients.

It works for the Liberal Party Membership dues!

If health-care is to be driven by the profit motive, then health-care recipients have a fighting chance at receiving health-care.

Some of them will, if they can afford it. Usually, medial treatment is not refused if you can't afford it/have no insurance, but it is my understanding that insurmountable medical bills are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA.

I spaoke with one of my customers yesterday (he is a surgeon in Calgary), to bounce the idea of 'tax exemption status' for family doctors, or the idea of a substantial raise commensurate with taxation levels, to see if that would help 'keep more doctors in Alberta'. First, he told me that no doctors are leaving, it is just that many are either retiring or cutting back their hours of work, and fewer are entering the profession. He said 'money isn't an issue'. Something like 50% of new doctors are women, and many are only working part time, so they can raise families and such.

Ironically, one can make way more money pretending to be a doctor on TV than one can make being a real one.

[Remiel]

Since one can make more money pretending to be almost anything than actually being it in real life, I don't see the point of your last little quip. Well, without going into a whole 'nother topic.

[Charles Anthony]

They are dying in line now, which is one of the reasons why I am in favour of a two-tiered system.

Wow. Do my ears deceive me? I can not believe what you just wrote.

It works for the Liberal Party Membership dues!

Excellent! Yes, indeed it does! I forgot about that.

Some of them will, if they can afford it.

Oh, there you go again. I knew I must have been dreaming up above.

Oh, well. Back to the drawing board. Hmmm.... now, what shape should a wheel be...??

Usually, medial treatment is not refused if you can't afford it/have no insurance, but it is my understanding that insurmountable medical bills are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA.

Tired, tired, tired attack against tiered "public" service. Attack the USA!

In Canada, the way somebody "is not refused" is by being sent to the back of the line and told to shut up and wait.

First, he told me that no doctors are leaving, it is just that many are either retiring or cutting back their hours of work, and fewer are entering the profession. He said 'money isn't an issue'. Something like 50% of new doctors are women, and many are only working part time, so they can raise families and such.

To put it mildly, that is a Bovine Submission observation. Both he and you are naive if you can not see money is an issue. Time and money are the same.

When you say "50% of new doctors are women, and many are only working part time" or "it is just that many are either retiring or cutting back their hours of work, and fewer are entering the profession" that is the same as saying "doctors are leaving" from a public service perspective.

Does either of you expect local doctors to be immortal and work forever???

ThelOne, enough drama. Be honest: if doctors received double or triple or quadruple the salary, are you telling me that we should expect a ZERO change in the number of doctors???

If that does not bring out honesty, answer this: if doctors received a 50% pay cut, are you telling me that we should expect all of them to stay???

What we have done with our "universal waiting-in-line service" is killed the marginal incentive to work as a health-care provider. The way higher income tax-brackets kill the incentive for rich people to earn more, we have done the same but with different "taxes" on the labor.

Ironically, one can make way more money pretending to be a doctor on TV than one can make being a real one.

Since one can make more money pretending to be almost anything than actually being it in real life, I don't see the point of your last little quip. Well, without going into a whole 'nother topic.

It goes to demonstrate how we value vacuous services (like entertainment) more than life-saving services (like health-care). It is ironic but only in the same way as water (absolutely 100% universally essential for life) is so incredibly cheap -- a good thing.

Anyway, the television doctor is a product of our own consumerism and bloody laziness -- with a bit of cronyism tossed in to boot.

Notice how those "doctors" on television are all trying to sell us pharmaceuticals?

Notice how they encourage us to pester our real doctors to prescribe us astronomically expensive pharmaceuticals?

We feed them because we all want a quick fix. Nobody wants to be told to go exercise or lose weight.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Tired, tired, tired attack against tiered "public" service. Attack the USA!

Not really meant to be an attack on the USA, simply a comparison between two similar economies with two different approaches to healthcare. If it were Ontario that had a fully private medical system and that led to the majority of personal bankruptcies, I would have mentioned them.

Both he and you are naive if you can not see money is an issue

I thought that he would know better than I, so it is his naivete in question more than mine. I also asked him about increasing the number of surgeries done by each doctor to help alleviate wait times, and he told me that the problem is an acute shortage of anesthetists, not a shortage of doctors or facilities.

Be honest: if doctors received double or triple or quadruple the salary, are you telling me that we should expect a ZERO change in the number of doctors???

I would expect that quadrupling thier salary might encourage more to enter the profession, but as it stands...yes. Doctors make damn good money now, and there are less entering the field than before. Why do you suppose that is, if everyone's sole thought is the dollar?

Tuition fees are one aspect that may be a deterrent, med school is expensive and long. With our 'immediate gratification society', many don't want to be in school for 6-10 years and $100,000 in debt when they enter the workforce, so only those with the desire to become doctotrs pursue it, and less with the desire to become rich are doing so.

[Charles Anthony]

I thought that he would know better than I, so it is his naivete in question more than mine.

You could have called him on his argument based on only what he said.

I also asked him about increasing the number of surgeries done by each doctor to help alleviate wait times, and he told me that the problem is an acute shortage of anesthetists, not a shortage of doctors or facilities.

Anesthetists are doctors.

I would expect that quadrupling thier salary might encourage more to enter the profession, but as it stands...yes. Doctors make damn good money now, and there are less entering the field than before. Why do you suppose that is, if everyone's sole thought is the dollar?

Two reasons:

1) unlike you, I do not assume that they "make damn good money" at all

2) their working conditions may not be the best

I am not saying "everyone's sole thought is the dollar" but rather we remunerate them with nothing else.

Tuition fees are one aspect that may be a deterrent, med school is expensive and long.

It may be a deterrent but it is not separate from the issue of how much we pay doctors.

If they were paid more, the de

With our 'immediate gratification society', many don't want to be in school for 6-10 years and $100,000 in debt when they enter the workforce, so only those with the desire to become doctotrs pursue it, and less with the desire to become rich are doing so.

If doctors were paid more, the deterrent of massive schooling debt is not a separate problem.

Would it make sense to complain about the high prices of houses if every mortgage company was willing to lend you the money at 1% interest with no down payment??? The only thing that matters is your cash flow -- if you can make the regular payments you get the loan. In other words, only your salary matters.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

You could have called him on his argument based on only what he said.

Called him on what? That his personal experience must be wrong, and my contrary opinion must be correct? Or that the notion that someone may value something else above more money is illogical and therefore can't be true?

Anesthetists are doctors.

Yes, but specialized. Your point?

[Charles Anthony]

Called him on what? That his personal experience must be wrong, and my contrary opinion must be correct? Or that the notion that someone may value something else above more money is illogical and therefore can't be true?

Neither. Called him on what he said.

I will repeat my quotation of your account from up above:

First, he told me that no doctors are leaving, it is just that many are either retiring or cutting back their hours of work, and fewer are entering the profession. He said 'money isn't an issue'. Something like 50% of new doctors are women, and many are only working part time, so they can raise families and such.

That is a deflection of the situation.

doctor retires = doctor leaving

Saying "that no doctors are leaving" makes no sense.

Anesthetists are doctors.

Yes, but specialized. Your point?

Specialization is irrelevent. They are needed and they are doctors.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

My sincere apologies, the lack of clarification is mine.

doctor retires = doctor leaving

Saying "that no doctors are leaving" makes no sense.

What I should have said was "No doctors are going elsewhere for more money". I suspect that there may be one or two that have, but nothing like the mass exodus portayed by the media.

Specialization is irrelevent.

You must be joking.

[Charles Anthony]

What I should have said was "No doctors are going elsewhere for more money". I suspect that there may be one or two that have, but nothing like the mass exodus portayed by the media.

In that case, if "throwing more money at them" can not possibly solve the problem, what do you suggest?

Are you willing to improve their working conditions as a different strategy???

Specialization is irrelevent.

You must be joking.

No, I am not. Tell me how it is relevent.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

In that case, if "throwing more money at them" can not possibly solve the problem, what do you suggest?

Are you willing to improve their working conditions as a different strategy???

It seems that the real problem is that less people want to become doctors than in the past. (Once upon a time, when I was a kid, the main 'glorified careers' were: "doctor, astronaut, or policeman". Nowadays, it is: "rap artist, WWE wrestler, or movie star.")

Improved working conditions seems to be as irrelevant as more money.

Specialization is irrelevent. They are needed and they are doctors.

An anesthetist cannot do open-heart surgery, and your family doctor cannot be expected to do the same job as a neurologist. Perhaps in a time of dire emergency, such as war, where someone cannot be sued for undertaking a task for which they are not fully trained, but in general the risk of a malpractice suit is way too high.

[theloniusfleabag]

Here is an interesting bit about the 'two-tiered system...

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/...560619-sun.html