Re: Can State-Run Health Care Conform To Halachic Guidelines?
- From: Eliyahu <lrooff@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:40:04 +0000 (UTC)
On Jun 24, 7:51 am, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In <73b99a75-0106-4432-a1d4-2ce741e9e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Eliyahu <lro...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
As far as halachic guidelines, those issues can arise in privately-run
hospitals and clinics just as easily as in public ones. The reality is
that this is simply another sort of fear-mongering by the same part of
the medical establishment that has been railing about "socialized
medicine" for decades now to protect their high incomes. See,
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/canada.aspfor some fact
checking.
Don't forget that by the time most doctors have finished their medical
training and are getting ready to actually start earning some of those
"high incomes," and maybe begin paying on the potentially hundreds of
thousands of dollars of debt they've incurred to buy that education,
One of the faults in our medical education system is that the US is
probably the only western nation that expects medical students to pay
their own way through medical school. A good national health care
plan would also deal with that issue. Nevertheless, a couple hundred
thousand dollars in debt isn't much when you can expect to start right
out making a couple hundred thousand per year. After all, MDs aren't
typically practicing for five years and then retiring.
meanwhile their high school buddies who joined the fire department are
well over halfway to retirement on a nice pension.
Most of the firefighters can expect to retire at anywhere from 55 to
65 years of age. They'll often start working at 18 to 20 years of
age. That means the halfway point is somewhere between 17 and 23 years
of service. Are you suggesting that doctors don't get to start
practicing until they're in their late 30s or early 40s? And unlike
doctors, those guys on the fire department are taking their lives in
their hands every time they go to work. (And check out the pay and
retirement rates for firefighters. None of them are getting rich.)
Certain specialists like orthopedic surgeons make tons of money. Many
other doctors, like pediatricians, don't.
It depends on what you consider "tons of money." See,
http://www.allied-physicians.com/salary_surveys/physician-salaries.htm
for listings of net income. Note that this is net, not gross, and not
a single field makes less than $100K after three years in practice,
and orthopods who specialize in spinal surgery can anticipate an
annual income of $1,352,000. If you're taking home an income in the
six-figure range, I suppose that you might argue that it's not a lot
of money, but you'll be hard pressed to convince the sizable segment
of the nation earning in the low five-figures.
Also, regarding the VA, it's not a really good model because you're taking
taxes from the entire United States and using that money to pay for the
health care of 10% of the population. The economics change considerably
when you need to support 100% of the population from that same tax base.
Would you be willing to, say, move to Applachia and dig ditches for
minimum wage if the government told you that sort of labor was needed? If
not, then why require doctors to do the equivalent?
No one is suggesting that doctors be required to relocate to
undesirable places and do unskilled labor. If I were unemployed and
had no marketable skills, being hired for that sort of job might be a
good idea, especially since the folks who operate ditch digging
equipment are paid fairly well now, but I'm not sure how the two are
equivalent. No one has proposed minimum wage for doctors. They'll
still need to be paid decently if we're to attract qualified people
into the profession.
By all means, let's keep the status quo. Our medical system is working
I'm certainly not suggesting the current medical system is perfect, not by
any means, but I think the scare-mongering is coming from the side
demanding radical change.
so well now... There's no reason in the world that we should want to
lower our infant mortality rate, increase our lifespans, or get our
health care standards up to match those of European nations. If
people can't come up with money for health insurance or get a job in a
place that provides it, let them die and decrease the surplus
population... <Sarcasm off> The fact is, the lack of decent medical
care for a sizable part of our population increases our medical costs
when they're limited to making emergency room visits after things
which might have been resolved inexpensively and quickly if caught in
the early stages get out of hand. Making preventive medical care
readily available for everyone would almost pay for itself by reducing
the need for emergency and catastrophic care. Which do you think is
the cheaper? Preventing cardiovascular disease, or surgical and ICU
treatments when it's uncontrolled? Treating diabetes, or providing
care for people who go blind and lose limbs because it's untreated?
It's really no different than providing vaccinations for children.
The vaccines and clinics cost money, but it's far cheaper than the
outcome of not having them.
Eliyahu
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Can State-Run Health Care Conform To Halachic Guidelines?
- From: chsw10605
- Re: Can State-Run Health Care Conform To Halachic Guidelines?
- References:
- Can State-Run Health Care Conform To Halachic Guidelines?
- From: chsw10605
- Re: Can State-Run Health Care Conform To Halachic Guidelines?
- From: Eliyahu
- Re: Can State-Run Health Care Conform To Halachic Guidelines?
- From: Steve Goldfarb
- Can State-Run Health Care Conform To Halachic Guidelines?
- Prev by Date: Re: Kosher salt?
- Next by Date: Re: Daas Torah
- Previous by thread: Re: Can State-Run Health Care Conform To Halachic Guidelines?
- Next by thread: Re: Can State-Run Health Care Conform To Halachic Guidelines?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|