100 years of medical robbery

[Copernicus]

[quoteMedical science is not about one product, it's constantly inventing new ways of improving diagnostic tools and outcomes and it dosen't just refine the old designs to make them more efficent, like computers.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that, adjusted for inflation?

[tolbiny]

Matt

[ QUOTE ]
simple supply and demand concepts do not apply to modern medicine. for example, the best predictor of medical costs in an area is the number of doctors

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are saying that there are more doctors where the cost is highest this is not a phenomenon limited to medicine, in fact its not a phenomenon at all. The exact same thing can be said about car ownership. If you look at number of cars/capita the areas where this ratio is highest are also the areas where the cars are most expensive. This is simple supply and demand stuff- rich people can afford more and better services, they pay more overall but also expect better treatment, better outcomes. Naturally all this money attracts more doctors which lowers prices relative to what they would be without those extra doctors, but those prices still reflect lots of money competing for the limited resources.

[stephan]

[ QUOTE ]
No, its not. To be fraud, a plaintiff would have to prove the defendant knew that the ginseng cure is bogus and offer it anyway. You don't have to actively prove something you believe to be true. For instance, you don't have to do a study of every doctor in your area and prove that you are the best doctor in town if you believe you are and claim so in an ad.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't the FDA declare that only a DRUG can cure cancer. Ginseng is not a drug, so you go to jail.

[iron81]

Well, yes, but that lies within the FDA's statutory power: only FDA approved drugs can be advertised as a cure for cancer. We're talking about common law fraud, similar to how I imagine people would handle drug safety in the absence of the FDA.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Copernicus, the hospital chain idea has a goal to assure the customer he is on a decent hospital where the doctors arent guys like me pretending to be doctors, anyway I think I came up with an even better idea the market can come up with safe health care( well actually you came up with the idea)
According to you people can choose representatives who they trust to find the people who are better at directing the economy to advise them, or actually run it.
I dont see why those same people cant choose representatives who they trust to find doctors. Makes a lot of sense to me actually. <font color="red">I never said that the concept itself is faulty. There is no reason I can see that economies of scale shouldnt benefit the medical market. However, there has been a big difference between the organic growth of a chain (which generally results in the vision and objectives of the founders being passed along in each expansion, a vision that the market has shown its approval of), and growth of a business by acquisition, which are generally predicated on unlocking non-core values and a vision that only the investors, not the market has approved. The experience of the growth of hospital chains has been the latter far more than the former </font>

Copernicus Im sure many wifes whose husbands have a gambling problem dont find the online poker ban annoying. <font color="red"> And Im sure that if the "US Internet Gambling Authority" discovered systemic cheating at PokerStars you wouldnt find the regulations annoying either. Unfortunately the good that the USIGA does will fade as there are fewer and fewer fraudulent sites exposed, and all of a sudden it becomes an "evil regulator". Ie the ban on online gambling has nothing to do with improving quality or protection of the consumer, if it did it would be regulation, not a roundabout attempt at banning. </font>



[/ QUOTE ]

[valenzuela]

1) Why cant a non-goverment entity discover systematic cheating on Poker Stars? You dont need the goverment to tell you there is cheating going on.
2) Even if what you say is right on paragraph 1 is correct, how does that imply that the goverment should regulate health?