Who hurts the US Healthcare system worse?

False. You offer plenty of chances on a daily basis and I resist most of them. Wrong again. The reason was to explain to Stile that he was correct in his assessment.Can you ever get anything right?

No shit, but the better you are, the more people are going to be willing to pay you.When you're so good that people are competing to get you, then you may even get offers for higher pay.

quote:

---

Take excess profits out of the picture and you end up with doctors that want to doctor.

---

And you also risk losing great doctors, which would not be an improvement...

Why wouldn't they?

But then, where would they get a proper cup of tea? Isn't there a lot higher percentage of foreign-born/trained doctors in the UK as compared to the US? Could that reflect the pay disparity? I'm not worried about significant brain drain, that's something that happens in developing nations.RAZD mentioned limiting doctors' pay. I'm saying that could cause a loss to the high-end doctors, who are superior in their practice, and who also command a higher pay. But I'm sure there's plenty of scrubs (heh) who could come in and fill the slots if they did decide to retire. I'd just prefer to have the access to the better (best) doctors.

Because US citizens are more likely to become doctors because they get paid more; the lower pay in the UK allows for more jobs opening for the foreigners to take. (not that I know that's true, that's just where the point leads) No, that's not logical. Being paid more doesn't necessarily mean being better.The logical conclusion would be that the US shouldn't disincentivise the best doctors by preventing them from earning a higher pay.

Not really. You're speaking too generally.I said that we shouldn't artificially limit doctors' profits. And my goal is not to retain the best talent in a general sense. My goal is to not dissuade talent by limiting the profit that a doctor can make. You're, like, on a whole 'nother level. I'm not looking at this from a national point of view. I'm talking about my personal experience. No, I'm not concerned about retaining the top doctors and encouraging the finest minds in medicine.I'm concerned about being able to see the doctor that I want to see. My doctor is really good and I'm willing to pay more to be able to see him. Putting a limit on that hurts my ability to maintain seeing him. Although, on the other hand, we could always just meet up in secret and have me pay him in cash. But I don't think you guys want that kind of stuff going on. Paying them more doesn't ensure a higher quality. But I think I get what you're saying. Its just that a doctor should be able to earn a higher pay by providing a better service. Not that we should just 'pay doctors more' in a general sense. You've got a decent argument there, but I don't think the conclusion necessarily follows. Simply paying more doesn't ensure that the qualty will be higher.

I don't know about you, but I'm willing to pay more for better service.

That's how I feel.

Another profession, retirement, a new black market.If you tried to tell me that I couldn't pay my doctor more than a certain amount of money to see him, and that threatened my ability to see him, then I'd go the route of paying him cash under the table in secret. Primary care physician salaries are somewhat higher here in the U.S., but not by a ridiculous amount. Its the orthopedic surgeons who are commanding ridiculous salaries, which throws the average out of whack, but that shit is pretty hardcore so I'm not sure where I stand on that.

Sure they did: Message 244

quote:

---

Take excess profits out of the picture and you end up with doctors that want to doctor.

​

Curiously I think that would be an improvement.

---

How do you take excess profits out of the picture without limiting how much they can be paid?Well, I suppose you could increase their operating costs, but I don't think that's what RAZD was talking about.

That's fine, you can stop discussing this with me whenever you want.

I'd rather not go further down a rabbit hole; where, why, and how doctors get their money is beside the point that I was replying to. The point I was replying to was fairly simple: Whether or not the ACA does this, or whatever percentage of the profits that the doctors are getting from the whole system, or even the exact specifics of how doctors go about getting paid, is beside the point I was making that reducing doctors' pay doesn't necessarily improve the system.Regarding your video, I got through about 6 minutes before I stopped out of boredom. We don't debate by link here, and one of the rules you agreed to upon signing up was that you would present arguments in your own words and provide links to back them up. It was boring and irrelevant to the point I was making.

Nobody cares what you want. Other people do want that doctor. And maybe that doctor doesn't want you as a patient.You've failed to show how your idea is an improvement to the system, and have avoided addressing the arguments for why it wouldn't.

Its no biggie. So what do you think? Would lowering the pay that doctors receive be an improvement?

Well that's good. Part of the problem with for-profit healthcare, is that as a consumer you often don't have a choice in your demand. That is, if you don't buy what they are selling you, then you could die. It hard to find good competition when the clock is ticking and you really really need what they are selling.I think for-profit systems could work just fine, but you need educated consumers with access to competition.I don't think its something that can work on a national level here in the U.S. Not just because of the system, itself, but because the consumers can't handle it. Too often people don't go to the doctor and act like a customer, they see the doctor as some kind of infallible authority. And the People don't seem to want to take matters into their own hands. We, the People, could stand up and push back on the healthcare market and demand better service and costs and funnel our business where that occurs, but its seems that people would rather just leave it up to the government to take care of them. So in that sense, yeah, they all need some help.I don't think it means we need to eliminate a private for-profit sector, though. For the people that can handle it, I think it yields much better results for the individual.