Re: Infant Mortality (long)
From: Harrison Sheld (hsheld@anv.net)
Tue Jun 14 10:23:52 2005
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
As a Profession, Medicine is held to a different and higher standard
than commercial enterprises, e.g. insurance companies.
However, when concerned with the disposable income of the executives of
commercial enterprises, it is tempting to consider the spending habits
of medical care providers who vacation in the tropics, own yatchs,
luxury vehicles, etc. Many would consider such "excesses" as a
misapplication of earned disposable income. Who's to make that judgment?
The owner of personal property has the freedom to spend it as he/she
sees fit.
The profit motive that drives our capitalistic society, is responsible
for many wonderful advances in the quality of life. It also can be
abusive in its misapplication. Hopefully there is more of the former
than the latter.
art fougner, md wrote:
>When physicians were charged with having a financial incentive for
>over-providing care, that was called anywhere from conflict of interest
>to criminal. When insurance companies have a financial incentive to
>deny providing care, that is called good business practice ...
>
>art
>
>At Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Joanne Bulley, MD wrote:
>
>>I do not mind the fact that you are disappointed, Harrison. This is one
>>place where you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine - and mine
>>rests with Dr. Chambers.
>>
>>I diagree with insurance for medical care being a for profit industry.
>>When there were not for profit insurance for health care - the companies
>>put 85-90 cents of every dollar premium into the patient care. Once
>>they became for profit - the goal is to put only 55-60 cents of premium
>>dollars into payment for patient care.
>>
>>The "goal" once they are for profit is to garner as much $$$ as possible
>>for the CEO and shareholders. The premium dollar goes to buying extra
>>yachts and homes for the executives.
>>
>>Joanne
>>
>>At Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Harrison Sheld wrote:
>>
>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>
>>>I am disappointed to read that you agree with Dr. Chamber's comments
>>>reproduced below, Dr. Bulley.
>>>
>>>The fact is this country health care is available for those who seek
>>>it. The populace needs to (1) value health care and (2) take personal
>>>responsibility to use health resources properly. For example, there are,
>>>and there will be towns and cities in this country where there may not
>>>be a health care facility, much less a 24/7 one. The populace of those
>>>towns and cities should know that and should have a contingency plan for
>>>routine medical care and, a plan in the eventuality of a medical
>>>emergency. Through the political process they should bring their needs
>>>to their elected representatives for change when necessary. In many
>>>cases they have chosen to live in those towns and cities because of the
>>>quality of life there. It's a trade-off.
>>>
>>>In today's first vignette of the patient with an injury who didn't seek
>>>coverage that he was eligible for at the VA, the blame cannot be placed
>>>on the system. However, in the second vignette, just today, a patient
>>>who fileted his hand apparently couldn't get VA approval for timely
>>>repair. That is bureaucratic inefficiency of government medicine that
>>>some can't wait to have imposed on the American people. So we have a
>>>model of our own inefficient government medicine, the VA, we have the
>>>model of Canada which has just recently been judged inadequate in the
>>>eyes of the Supreme Court of Canada, and the history of the former SSR
>>>including Cuba, to serve as warnings as to what we can expect. It isn't
>>>pretty. No lister has yet cited a model of government run medicine that
>>>is successful.
>>>
>>>If you also sign on to Dr. Chamber's ideological invective concerning
>>>class inequities in income, I am also disappointed. The insurance CEOs
>>>are hired to fullfill the mssion of the company, make the insurance
>>>companies profitable, and thus, be responsible to the owners of their
>>>company. They are not employed to meet the personal medical costs of the
>>>company's insureds. The CEO's salary is based on his market value to the
>>>company. I would bet that neither Dr. Chambers, nor you nor I have any
>>>idea what that value is. Perhaps, it is not appropriate to make judgment
>>>on it. The idea that someone else's income is overvalued and should be
>>>better spent for someone else is a form of income redistribution not
>>>palatable to many Americans. I dare say that on a personal level we
>>>would look with jaundiced eye on those uninformed individuals who would
>>>judge the value of our efforts and wish to redistribute our income to a
>>>cause they deem more worthy. Government bureaucrats don't work for free,
>>>either, and the increased costs they gnerate would be passed on to us in
>>>tghe form of higher taxes.
>>>
>>>Anyway, it is an interesting thread.
>>>
>>>Joanne Bulley, MD wrote:
>>>
>>>>Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>At Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Charlie Chambers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I think the shame is that we are the richest country in the history of
>>>>>the world yet we cannot provide health coverage for everyone. I'm not
>>>>>suggesting free liver transplants for everyone, but at least basic
>>>>>care. Something is clearly wrong with the system. When CEO's of
>>>>>insurance companies are making multimillions in bonuses alone, and I
>>>>>have patients forgoing care because of cost, something is dreadfully
>>>>>wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Joanne Bulley, MD
>>>>Keene, NH, USA
>>>>
>>--
>>Joanne Bulley, MD
>>Keene, NH, USA
>>
>
>--
>art fougner, md
>
> "If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else."
>Lawrence Peter Berra
>
