NationStates Jolt Archive

Have you ever thought about were the healthcare economy is really going and where it started.

Most people, it seems, think that physicians are the reason for all the increase in healthcare costs, yet they make the least money in healthcare. For instance, did you know that Hospitals average more than 10 million a piece every year, lawyers have a 10 billion dollar industry in suing docs, and the docs average 91K per year in their salaries.

How should we change this? Take the Poll

None. The main reason for which healthcare costs that much is the price of drugs, thanks to the drug corporations.

In 2000, the drug industry in USA received 106 billions of dollars. They spent it this way:

- drug production, transport, shipping and handling: 27 billions

- research on new drugs: 19 billions

- profits to stock owners: 19 billions

- advertising and marketting: 41 billions

As you can see, only 43% of money spent on drugs is really useful. 57% is wasted. And add to that all the consequences of advertising: overuse of drugs, focus put on more expensive drugs even when they are not more efficient, ...

The main solution to increased healthcare cost is to nationalize the drug industry, and to run it, as most research should be, as a not-for-profit public institution.

The main solution to increased healthcare cost is to nationalize the drug industry, and to run it, as most research should be, as a not-for-profit public institution.
Are we talking about the same United States which would propably make the word "nationalize" illegal if it wouldn't be against the constitution?

BTW: Has the US government actually nationalized anything in the course of its history?

Have you ever thought about were the healthcare economy is really going and where it started.

Most people, it seems, think that physicians are the reason for all the increase in healthcare costs, yet they make the least money in healthcare. For instance, did you know that Hospitals average more than 10 million a piece every year, lawyers have a 10 billion dollar industry in suing docs, and the docs average 91K per year in their salaries.

How should we change this? Take the PollOnly $91K? My primary physician earns over $4 million a year, and many of my other doctors make much more than $1 million yearly. :mad:

I still have an unpaid bill of $500 from my pediatrist, and all I did during that visit was... visit. Nothing was done. Meanwhile he buys a $1 million property, and a $149K car. Yeah, he needs that $500 for sure.

:mad:

I like the drug nationalisation idea. Good show. :fluffle:

Lawyers shouldnt be allowed to sue doctors unless they do something ridiculously neglegent, like leave a barbequed chicken wing in the patients kidney. Stuff like we accidently cut the artery shouldnt mean a paycheck.

Nationalise healthcare, and cut army budget cos its not doing you guys much good.

Fuzzy math time.
George Bush will lower taxes. George Bush increases army budget.
Increased army budget. Increased threat to security.
Unemployment up. Business profits up.

Summary? its time to break this economy, lets get it done.

Only $91K? My primary physician earns over $4 million a year, and many of my other doctors make much more than $1 million yearly. :mad:

I still have an unpaid bill of $500 from my pediatrist, and all I did during that visit was... visit. Nothing was done. Meanwhile he buys a $1 million property, and a $149K car. Yeah, he needs that $500 for sure.

:mad:
When you are looking at your doctor and his bills to you, are you accounting for what his malpractice is, what the cost of his employees are, the cost of his equipment, the cost of the chart, the cost of the information technology, etc.

91K comes from the NIH and the CDC and SEC for the average annual physician salary. Your primary doctor may bill out 4 million per year, s/he may even make close to that, but are you aware of the reduced fee for service billing contracts that started in 1985? These contracts are required for docs to sign if they want to accept an insurance, and make it cheaper on you. Generally speaking, physicians agree to accept 30% of what they bill to be part of the insurance company.

Further, you really need to account for your docs costs. For a thoracic surgeon to carry 200K/600K aggregate insurance costs about 50K per year. So yeah, take that from a million and you have reduced it. The average paid employee in a physician practice is 10 per hour. Factor 40 per week, 52 weeks of the year, to take care of you. Then, all the photo copies they need to make. Even at .02 per page, it adds up. Plus, in the united states, it is highly illegal to NOT BILL. When a physician wants to give out free work, which many will do for the people who need it, they are stuck to sending a bill and just not pursuing collection on the account. Also, you are paying for an education that they have and we dont.

Look at your insurance company and the lawyers. Lawyers can sue a physician for no apparant reason other than to sue. Generally, the patient will earn a settlement, because to sit thru court for 6 weeks is too costly. Then we also have the fact that the physician is still responsible for their own legal fees, even if they win.

Over 85% of all suits against physicians per year are frivolous, meaning, there was no medical negligence.

As for the drug industry, why should we beat up on capitalism? The drug companies are doing their thing because of lawsuits. Medical Liability for everyone is the reason for rising costs.

Talk to your doctor about medical liability and you will find pandora's box come out. No physician, who has been practicing for over 10 years, hasnt experienced the threat of a lawsuit.

Only $91K? My primary physician earns over $4 million a year, and many of my other doctors make much more than $1 million yearly. :mad:

I still have an unpaid bill of $500 from my pediatrist, and all I did during that visit was... visit. Nothing was done. Meanwhile he buys a $1 million property, and a $149K car. Yeah, he needs that $500 for sure.

:mad:

Making over a million is a rarity among doctors these days. Hospital doctors make far less than those in private practice...and to get in private practice can be risky, expensive, and sometimes not worth it with far more established practices around town.

Plus, in the united states, it is highly illegal to NOT BILL. When a physician wants to give out free work, which many will do for the people who need it, they are stuck to sending a bill and just not pursuing collection on the account. Also, you are paying for an education that they have and we dont.




That is something I've never heard of before, and I'm currently a law student.

Are we talking about the same United States which would propably make the word "nationalize" illegal if it wouldn't be against the constitution?

BTW: Has the US government actually nationalized anything in the course of its history?
"United States - All U.S. railroads were nationalized as the United States Railroad Administration during World War I as a wartime measure but were returned to their private owners almost immediately after the war. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was a government corporation created in 1971 for the express purpose of relieving American railroads of their legal obligation to provide intercity passenger service. They were trying to get out of this obligation anyway, but by taking over their passenger rail assets, Amtrak was able to keep the passenger trains running. In 1976 the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), another government corporation, was created to take over the operations of six bankrupt rail lines operating primarily in the Northeast U.S.; Conrail was privatized in 1987. Initial plans for Conrail would have made it a truly nationalized system like that during World War I, but an alternate proposal by the Association of American Railroads won out. Organization of the Tennessee Valley Authority entailed the nationalization of the facilities of the former Tennessee Electric Power Company in 1939. In 2001, in response to the September 11th attacks, the then-private airport security industry was nationalized and put under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration."

Looks like the U.S. government isn't the big evil capitalist you make it out to be.

And I'm severly doubting that a completely nationalized drug industry is the way to go, governments don't really have a habit of doing things more efficiently than private companies.

Fuzzy math time.
George Bush will lower taxes. George Bush increases army budget.
Increased army budget. Increased threat to security.
Unemployment up. Business profits up.

Summary? its time to break this economy, lets get it done.
I don't see where the increased unemployment comes into the whole thing.

"United States - All U.S. railroads were nationalized as the United States Railroad Administration during World War I as a wartime measure but were returned to their private owners almost immediately after the war. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was a government corporation created in 1971 for the express purpose of relieving American railroads of their legal obligation to provide intercity passenger service. They were trying to get out of this obligation anyway, but by taking over their passenger rail assets, Amtrak was able to keep the passenger trains running. In 1976 the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), another government corporation, was created to take over the operations of six bankrupt rail lines operating primarily in the Northeast U.S.; Conrail was privatized in 1987. Initial plans for Conrail would have made it a truly nationalized system like that during World War I, but an alternate proposal by the Association of American Railroads won out. Organization of the Tennessee Valley Authority entailed the nationalization of the facilities of the former Tennessee Electric Power Company in 1939. In 2001, in response to the September 11th attacks, the then-private airport security industry was nationalized and put under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration."

Looks like the U.S. government isn't the big evil capitalist you make it out to be.

And I'm severly doubting that a completely nationalized drug industry is the way to go, governments don't really have a habit of doing things more efficiently than private companies.


I don't see where the increased unemployment comes into the whole thing.

Mainly just a cheap shot at the government to be honest.

Efficient?
Export jobs overseas, but its ok as long as the profits add up.
Um...No.
Nationalisation is best.

And I'm severly doubting that a completely nationalized drug industry is the way to go, governments don't really have a habit of doing things more efficiently than private companies.


That has been debuked thousands of times. EDF (electricity public service) is much more efficient than most, if not all, of private electricity corporations. State-owned SNECMA is the world leader in plane angines. And so on.

But anyway, even if those examples of very efficient and successful state-owned entities don't convince you, the mere reality of drug markets should.

Structural inefficiency in private drug markets (ie, with how money is shared between production, research, advertising and stock owners) is at 57% ! No entity will have a >50% inefficency rate from internal organisation or similar. Or if your governement does, you can just kick them, because they are the most incompetent leaders ever.

We are not speaking of a 10% or 20% inefficiency of not doing things the best possible way, we are speaking of 57% inefficiency just even before starting to do anything ! That's so enormous than no governement bureaucracy can ever get close to such levels.

From a Brit, take it from me that public healthcare is awful. It is inefficient, impersonal and mediocre.

From a Brit, take it from me that public healthcare is awful. It is inefficient, impersonal and mediocre.
And from another Brit, I say that I love the public healthcare and don't know what I'd do without it. It's hardly perfect (nothing is) but it's something about my country I'm actually proud of. The vast vast majority of Brits, even conservatives, wouldn't want to lose something so valuable.

It's recently going downhill due to Blair privatising parts of it. When the people are working there because they care about people and doing a good job, they do far better than when they're there to do the least they can, for the most amount of money.

BTW: Has the US government actually nationalized anything in the course of its history?
The production of stupidity.


As for the drug industry, why should we beat up on capitalism? The drug companies are doing their thing because of lawsuits.
How many lawsuits does the drug industry receive versus any other? I would bet no more.

Administrative burocracy - which cannot be avoided.

Originally Posted by The Blessed Chris
From a Brit, take it from me that public healthcare is awful. It is inefficient, impersonal and mediocre.
Also from a Brit, the NHS is remarkably efficient considering how underfunded it is compared to other western healthcare systems. The average American has to spend almost twice as much as the average Brit just to get similar healthcare provision. Don't knock the NHS. It's doing a fine job despite successive governments trying to force a private agenda on it, which is pushing up administrative costs at the expense of the clinical side.

From a Brit, take it from me that public healthcare is awful. It is inefficient, impersonal and mediocre.

And take it from THIS Brit that the majority of our population thinks that the NHS is sacrosanct. I'm part of that majority.

Administrative burocracy - which cannot be avoided.

Because there is no bureaucracy in corporations ? Hell, I work with people from IBM, they have at least as much bureaucracy as in french administration. And that's the same in every big corporation.

But no bureaucracy can swallow 57% of the initial value, as the private drugs corporations do. And hey, they swallow even more than 57%, because those 57% don't even count their own bureaucracy !

Well, you can with massive, systematic corruption, but that isn't the situation of most western countries, and corruption can be fought easily with transparency laws and a higher level of democracy.

Oh, btw, in France, the nationalised public healthcare is 95% efficient (for every euro entering the CPAM, 95 cents go to paying healthcare, only 5 cents are swallowed in bureaucracy), while private insurances are less than 85% efficient (15% get swallowed by their own bureaucracy, advertising and stock owners). And that's because they are highly regulated, deregualte a bit, and you'll see the profit rate raising, and the amount of money going back to citizen lowering by the same margin.

And take it from THIS Brit that the majority of our population thinks that the NHS is sacrosanct. I'm part of that majority.

Why is it sacrosanct? Amongst the poor, yes, because it allows them healthcare that is essentially paid for by others. Considering that the majority of the wealthy have private healthcare anyway, why maintain a system that only benefits a proportion of the population.

Why is it sacrosanct? Amongst the poor, yes, because it allows them healthcare that is essentially paid for by others. Considering that the majority of the wealthy have private healthcare anyway, why maintain a system that only benefits a proportion of the population.

Because solidarity is what makes us civilized, and each-for-his-own law-of-the-jungle what makes us barbarian ? Because the "poor" are HUMAN BEINGS like you, and they suffer like you do ?