100 years of medical robbery

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im going to reply to Adanthar and Copernicus at the same time.

Health King: Hospital chains are very,very likely because there is going to be a demand for safe hospital and there is someone who is going to offer the demand of safe hospitals. Instead of using the "each time someone proposes a change play the "ure just hoping that will happen" card" tactic, please explain to me why you think the market wont come up with safe hospital chains.
The reason that there is no need for hospitals chains RIGHT NOW is because of goverment fiscalisation. <font color="red"> thats not a reason. If there are legitimate efficiencies to be found in forming hospital chains they would be happening. There are a few small scale efforts at that every few years. The biggest one going on right now is, unfortunately, an unethical doctor who is cutting corners and sacrificing standards at every hospital he buys. </font> However that doesnt justify goverment fiscalisation, if the goverment spends 100 dollars per citizen on hamburgers on dialy basis, youre not going to need mcdonalds. Of course a lot of big goverment fans are going to say " the market will never come up with better hamburgers that the goverment!!!" and btw theyre right, however the problem is that those hamburges have a cost of opportunity.

Democracy/imposed health standards: If you dont have a clue about economy how are you going to know who is better at directing the economy? <font color="red">you don't have to. You hire representatives who you trust to find the people who are better at directing the economy to advise them, or actually run it. eg you elect representives smart enough to keep Alan Greenspan in place for so many years </font>

Non american health care : Do a small boycott to countries that dont have enough health regulations is a start.( note that I dont have nothing against boycotts per se, but I do have something against boycotts that blackmail you to do something immoral.( for instance kill X or I wont trade with you)) <font color="red">Yeah, I can see the headlines now. "US kills XX,XXX Chileans because they withheld financial aid until Chile adopted more rigid medical standards." </font>

PS: I dont think health standards are immoral just that they are kinda annoying.

[/ QUOTE ] You may not be familiar with this if it was unique to the US, but those patients who the FDA pulled off of Fen-Phen before they developed heart valve problems dont think health standards are annoying.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about celebrex of vioxx? FDA not required, fear of public outcry worked just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

who said the market fails in every situation? the market already proved for 1000s of years that it was incapable of differentiating between real and bogus medicines. The market right now fails in the multi-billion dollar homeopathic supplements business. Even if you believe that 90% of them aren't totally bs, the market has failed to differentiate in quality, purity and dosages. Listen to the crap that passes for radio late on a weekend night...2 hour infomercials that dont disclose that they are paid advertisements and dont need to because the supplement business is left to the market.

[Metric]

rapidly advancing technology = decreasing prices (e.g. computers)

rapidly advancing technology + heavy government regulation = increasing prices (e.g. health care -- but the answer is obviously MORE government regs, right?)

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've seen a lot of reference to litigation against quack doctors in an unregulated environment.

The question I have is how can you sue when there is no regulated framework which lays out what is malpractice and what is not?

In the UK we have an organization called NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence). If doctors follow the NICE guidelines, they cannot be sued (for clinical reasons anyway). This is vital as many upset families will attempt to sue even if there has been no wrongdoing.

With no approved regulations what is to stop a group of incompetent doctors drawing up their own guidelines, making them virtually impervious to the courts? Remember that desperate and confused people can me made to sign pretty much any kind of waver.

[/ QUOTE ]

The doctors would be sued for malpractice according to the standards of the group that sponsors their training or manages them or ensures their quality. Its entirely possible that 5 such organizations would sprout up and all of them would have very similar "standards of care." Its also possible they would have very different standards. Your doctor would be held to the standard of his training/group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, then these doctors could start their own training and management group. There will be a gap in the market for people who want to be doctors but don't want to sit hard exams or study too much. Yes, they will have a bad rep in the medical community but that won't stop them printing shiny diplomas and sexing up some impressive statistics to get patients. With all the money they saved on training they could easaly out-advitise their competitors.

Independent review bodies that grade these groups can easaly be countered by less honest bodies that will give good reviews for $$.

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
rapidly advancing technology = decreasing prices (e.g. computers)

rapidly advancing technology + heavy government regulation = increasing prices (e.g. health care -- but the answer is obviously MORE government regs, right?)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false, 40 years ago X-rays were the state of the art imaging system. Althought the tube was tricky to manufacture, everything else was pretty simple. Basicly just some films and a darkroom.

Now the most advanced imaging is done by MRI, This requires a large superconducting magnetic coil with a flawlessly even field, supercooled by a constent supply liquid helium. Making the images requires a whole ROOM of computing power.

It's clear that the latter will be far more expensive. Regulation has absolutly nothing to do with it.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
rapidly advancing technology = decreasing prices (e.g. computers)

rapidly advancing technology + heavy government regulation = increasing prices (e.g. health care -- but the answer is obviously MORE government regs, right?)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false, 40 years ago X-rays were the state of the art imaging system. Althought the tube was tricky to manufacture, everything else was pretty simple. Basicly just some films and a darkroom.

Now the most advanced imaging is done by MRI, This requires a large superconducting magnetic coil with a flawlessly even field, supercooled by a constent supply liquid helium. Making the images requires a whole ROOM of computing power.

It's clear that the latter will be far more expensive. Regulation has absolutly nothing to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prices decrease over time for the same product, as manufacturing techniques improve and become more efficient. What you're describing here is two completely different products.

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
rapidly advancing technology = decreasing prices (e.g. computers)

rapidly advancing technology + heavy government regulation = increasing prices (e.g. health care -- but the answer is obviously MORE government regs, right?)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false, 40 years ago X-rays were the state of the art imaging system. Althought the tube was tricky to manufacture, everything else was pretty simple. Basicly just some films and a darkroom.

Now the most advanced imaging is done by MRI, This requires a large superconducting magnetic coil with a flawlessly even field, supercooled by a constent supply liquid helium. Making the images requires a whole ROOM of computing power.

It's clear that the latter will be far more expensive. Regulation has absolutly nothing to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prices decrease over time for the same product, as manufacturing techniques improve and become more efficient. What you're describing here is two completely different products.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, X-ray systems have been getting better and cheaper ever since they were invented, just like one specific drug gets its uses refined and manufacture simplfied.

The rising expense comes from the next drug breakthrough, the brand new imaging system (like MRI), surgical implant or whatever.

Medical science is not about one product, it's constantly inventing new ways of costing money and it dosen't just refine the old designs to make them more efficent, like computers.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
rapidly advancing technology = decreasing prices (e.g. computers)

rapidly advancing technology + heavy government regulation = increasing prices (e.g. health care -- but the answer is obviously MORE government regs, right?)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false, 40 years ago X-rays were the state of the art imaging system. Althought the tube was tricky to manufacture, everything else was pretty simple. Basicly just some films and a darkroom.

Now the most advanced imaging is done by MRI, This requires a large superconducting magnetic coil with a flawlessly even field, supercooled by a constent supply liquid helium. Making the images requires a whole ROOM of computing power.

It's clear that the latter will be far more expensive. Regulation has absolutly nothing to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prices decrease over time for the same product, as manufacturing techniques improve and become more efficient. What you're describing here is two completely different products.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then please show me some data where health care related products (the same products) are increasing in price, as is the claim.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Accreditation is required for students to receive federal loans. Additionally, schools must be accredited to receive federal funding for medical education."

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't a restriction, this is a failure to promote. There is nothing there requiring people to attend accredited schools and even then, schools can be accredited if they are decent. I mean, how great of a medical school could Florida State possibly have? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] So obviously, the solution is that taxes should be raised so more federal money can be sent to more medical schools. This problem isn't anything a few $billion/year couldn't clear up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you need a state license to practice medicine? If you open a non-accredited school, you think those grads will get those licenses?

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]


Don't you need a state license to practice medicine? If you open a non-accredited school, you think those grads will get those licenses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Objection! Asked and answered. Move to strike.

(wow that is easy)

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
rapidly advancing technology = decreasing prices (e.g. computers)

rapidly advancing technology + heavy government regulation = increasing prices (e.g. health care -- but the answer is obviously MORE government regs, right?)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false, 40 years ago X-rays were the state of the art imaging system. Althought the tube was tricky to manufacture, everything else was pretty simple. Basicly just some films and a darkroom.

Now the most advanced imaging is done by MRI, This requires a large superconducting magnetic coil with a flawlessly even field, supercooled by a constent supply liquid helium. Making the images requires a whole ROOM of computing power.

It's clear that the latter will be far more expensive. Regulation has absolutly nothing to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prices decrease over time for the same product, as manufacturing techniques improve and become more efficient. What you're describing here is two completely different products.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually you'll wind up reinforcing the argument. If those machines are two different products, what machines haven't gone down in price, and then if you can find any, how did regulation cause that?

If, in this case, you consider the image to be the product, not the machine, then indeed they have gone up in price, just as a 60 inch HDTV costs more than a 1950s TV.