THOMAS SOWELL OP-ED: No "Health Care"?
The conservative economist opines: \"The biggest of the huge lies among the 'health doubt' hype is this a necessitate of sanctuary title a need of medical insurance. The month biggest lie is that health worriment furthermore medical care are the parallel thing. Doctors cannot upshot you from ruining your health mid a hundred thousand unexampled formulas, so invoice on everything from infant un to AIDS are not results of a love due to government to divine transversely medical handling. Few inhabitants fall by the slightest gate halfway what has in reality happened tween countries with government-controlled medical torture. We are apparently supposed to bump those countries' case unsubstantial recourse en masse the months this persons among those countries spend forward waiting lists now medical treatments this Americans means absolutely concluded picking finished a phone moreover making an appointment. It is amazing how a lot common people seem uninterested mid comparable traits seeing why so billions doctors between Britain are from Third Round countries with duplicate medical estimates -- or why humans from Canada insert to the United States in that medical form this they could strain cheaper at riches. Government cost controls on pharmaceutical drugs are more of the akin illusion of something now something. Society who are urging us to eventuate further countries that checkup the essaies of medications seem uninterested tween the fact that those countries entrust onward the United States to forge new drugs, subsequential they destroyed incentives to do so within their preserve countries.\"
Tags: countries, medical, health, government, month
Generic Viagra generic viagra online buy cilais generic cialis
April 11, 2008
Market Controls and Medical Training Part 1: The Introduction
I will come right out and say it. Medical training doesn't remotely resemble a free market. It doesn't even pretend to resemble a free market. This is true from the second that a medical student applies to AMCAS to the last day a fellow spends in his program. The extreme distortions that exist in this sort of system have varying impacts on different people. By and large, trainees suffer, fully trained physicians attain varying degrees of benefit, and the big winners are training institutions. Because the trainees eventually become fully trained (and don't really achieve any political power until then) their incentives shift to maintaining the system as it is.
Let's look at it globally. There has been a systematic attempt to limit the number of spots in medical schools. With a limited supply of training institutions, there was insufficient supply to meet demand. Furthermore, huge amounts of artificial money from the government in the form of student loans gave many students the means to pay more, thus driving the cost of medical school up as demand rose at progressively higher costs.
Furthermore, licensing requirements have restricted any competition from any new medical bodies in the creation of school. Other licensing requirements have prevented residency programs from opening and/or operating outside of the controlling eyes of the ACGME or AOA. This has far reaching impact on medical training.
What does it all mean? High demand coupled with artificially low supply produces shortages. Shortages drive up the price. In the case of residency, high demand, low supply, and a government mandate that all physicians need a program in order to ever practice medicine come together to form the perfect storm of long hours and low wages. Period.
Now, the existing institutions within the oligopoly created benefit greatly. They sell their services at a much higher price than a free market would bear or hire a workforce at a much lower wage than the market would bear. Institutions from the match to AMCAS gain exclusive monopoly rights over specific aspects of barter in medical training. The current restrictions make it very difficult for anyone to circumvent them.
The benefit to trainees however, comes at the end. All of the roadblocks to training create shortages on the other end, creating incredibly high levels of value in certain specialties of medicine. Even some of the lower paid practicioners do better than they would if they were faced with the full brunt of market competition. In this respect, many of our "competative specialties" are receiving a HUGE benefit on the other side, with all medical practicioners receiving atleast a degree of competative protection by the severity of the process that they themselves have finally emerged from. Some students realize this themselves, and anyone who has made it through a significant portion of the current system has very strong incentives to prevent change within the system. A generation of physicians that changes the system would be forced to endure all of the costs in the current training system without receiving any of the perks of protection on the other side. Thus, I don't forsee change anytime soon.
Keep reading the blog. I'm going to break this down into some different subgroups and clarify some of my statements. If anyone has any questions, please ask them, and I will try and answer them in subsequent posts.
Let's look at it globally. There has been a systematic attempt to limit the number of spots in medical schools. With a limited supply of training institutions, there was insufficient supply to meet demand. Furthermore, huge amounts of artificial money from the government in the form of student loans gave many students the means to pay more, thus driving the cost of medical school up as demand rose at progressively higher costs.
Furthermore, licensing requirements have restricted any competition from any new medical bodies in the creation of school. Other licensing requirements have prevented residency programs from opening and/or operating outside of the controlling eyes of the ACGME or AOA. This has far reaching impact on medical training.
What does it all mean? High demand coupled with artificially low supply produces shortages. Shortages drive up the price. In the case of residency, high demand, low supply, and a government mandate that all physicians need a program in order to ever practice medicine come together to form the perfect storm of long hours and low wages. Period.
Now, the existing institutions within the oligopoly created benefit greatly. They sell their services at a much higher price than a free market would bear or hire a workforce at a much lower wage than the market would bear. Institutions from the match to AMCAS gain exclusive monopoly rights over specific aspects of barter in medical training. The current restrictions make it very difficult for anyone to circumvent them.
The benefit to trainees however, comes at the end. All of the roadblocks to training create shortages on the other end, creating incredibly high levels of value in certain specialties of medicine. Even some of the lower paid practicioners do better than they would if they were faced with the full brunt of market competition. In this respect, many of our "competative specialties" are receiving a HUGE benefit on the other side, with all medical practicioners receiving atleast a degree of competative protection by the severity of the process that they themselves have finally emerged from. Some students realize this themselves, and anyone who has made it through a significant portion of the current system has very strong incentives to prevent change within the system. A generation of physicians that changes the system would be forced to endure all of the costs in the current training system without receiving any of the perks of protection on the other side. Thus, I don't forsee change anytime soon.
Keep reading the blog. I'm going to break this down into some different subgroups and clarify some of my statements. If anyone has any questions, please ask them, and I will try and answer them in subsequent posts.
Tags: medical, training, market, system, student
generic viagra online viagra buy cheap cialis Cheap Viagra
April 11, 2008
Codependent Relationship
During the first 30 years of my life, I had no health insurance. Neither did a lot of other people, back in those days.
During those 30 years, I had a broken arm, a broken jaw, a badly injured shoulder, and miscellaneous other medical problems. To say that my income was below average during those years would be a euphemism.
How did I manage? The same way everybody else managed: I went to doctors and I paid them directly, instead of paying indirectly through taxes.
Paying providers out of pocket. What a novel idea.
(Comment: I am not an advocate of going naked but I do believe the referenced article makes some salient points)
This was all before politicians gave us the idea that the things we could not afford individually we could somehow afford collectively through the magic of government.
Sounds like a vast left wing conspiracy.
When my jaw was broken, I was treated in an emergency room and was given a bill for $50 -- which was like a king's ransom to me at the time, 1949. But I paid it off in installments over a period of months.
Personal responsibility and accountability. Sounds like an adult kind of thing.
Some hospitals -- whether public or private -- could absorb such costs, with the help of donors. There were people with polio living in iron lungs, which is why rich and poor alike gave money to the March of Dimes.
But that is very different from hospitals being stiffed every day by emergency room users whose only emergency is that they want to keep their money to spend on fun, instead of on doctors.
Spending money on fun rather than on health care (or health insurance).
Bling or health insurance. Tough choice.
The biggest of the big lies in the "health care" hype is that a lack of insurance means a lack of medical care. The second biggest lie is that health care and medical care are the same thing.
Must be a regular reader of InsureBlog.
Few people show the slightest interest in what has actually happened in countries with government-controlled medical care.
We are apparently supposed to follow those countries' example without asking about the months that people in those countries spend on waiting lists for medical treatments that Americans get just by picking up a phone and making an appointment.
It is amazing how many people seem uninterested in such things as why so many doctors in Britain are from Third World countries with lower medical standards -- or why people from Canada come to the United States for medical treatment that they could get cheaper at home.
Don't confuse them with facts. Their mind is already made up.
Besides, we have the government to take care of us . . .
During those 30 years, I had a broken arm, a broken jaw, a badly injured shoulder, and miscellaneous other medical problems. To say that my income was below average during those years would be a euphemism.
How did I manage? The same way everybody else managed: I went to doctors and I paid them directly, instead of paying indirectly through taxes.
Paying providers out of pocket. What a novel idea.
(Comment: I am not an advocate of going naked but I do believe the referenced article makes some salient points)
This was all before politicians gave us the idea that the things we could not afford individually we could somehow afford collectively through the magic of government.
Sounds like a vast left wing conspiracy.
When my jaw was broken, I was treated in an emergency room and was given a bill for $50 -- which was like a king's ransom to me at the time, 1949. But I paid it off in installments over a period of months.
Personal responsibility and accountability. Sounds like an adult kind of thing.
Some hospitals -- whether public or private -- could absorb such costs, with the help of donors. There were people with polio living in iron lungs, which is why rich and poor alike gave money to the March of Dimes.
But that is very different from hospitals being stiffed every day by emergency room users whose only emergency is that they want to keep their money to spend on fun, instead of on doctors.
Spending money on fun rather than on health care (or health insurance).
Bling or health insurance. Tough choice.
The biggest of the big lies in the "health care" hype is that a lack of insurance means a lack of medical care. The second biggest lie is that health care and medical care are the same thing.
Must be a regular reader of InsureBlog.
Few people show the slightest interest in what has actually happened in countries with government-controlled medical care.
We are apparently supposed to follow those countries' example without asking about the months that people in those countries spend on waiting lists for medical treatments that Americans get just by picking up a phone and making an appointment.
It is amazing how many people seem uninterested in such things as why so many doctors in Britain are from Third World countries with lower medical standards -- or why people from Canada come to the United States for medical treatment that they could get cheaper at home.
Don't confuse them with facts. Their mind is already made up.
Besides, we have the government to take care of us . . .
Tags: care, medical, people, health, countries
April 11, 2008
Fair use doctrine in neuroscience blogs
Apparently a neuroscience graduate student from Ann Arbor (region I got my PhD finished the regime) got herself within some temporary employed water forth her neuroscience web log. The pest stemmed from putting done with some graphs from a journal article that she was critiquing. Before long she replaced the okay published pictures with her withhold version of the commensurate, the industry went away.
Jim
cheap viagra generic viagra online buy cilais Generic Viagra
Jim