Health Care

Willaim Thurber - PhD Student thurber at FMGMT.MGMT.UTORONTO.CA
Thu Sep 7 21:54:26 MDT 1995

>         Specialists making the "big bux" probably do have considerably
>         increased expenses over GPs.  I would think that salary is
>         negotiated, so someone is willing to pay the "big bux" to the
>         doc.  Since salary figures don't just fall from the sky, I'd
>         also speculate that negotiated salaries are arrived at after
>         the doc makes known his "salary requirements" which would include
>         paying those expenses down.
Right now, it is a fee for services performed.  However our new Premier,
Mike Harris, considered to be Newt of the North is considering a strictly
salary system and the docs are howling.
>         I'd dare say that "big bux" and "GP working within the confines of
>         a government operated/controlled health care system" doesn't quite
>         mix--if it does, then there's some foolish spending going on.
I learned last week to leave the economic number crunching to Dr.
McCready.  My impression is that GP's actually make more than many
specialists but I'll leave those numbers to him.
>         The USA is nearly alone in the world when it comes to one facet of
>         life in the courts.
Yeah, you are right but how do we effect societal change, I'm still out of
ideas.  Of course Plaintiffs are not the only ones to take advantage of
the process but pointing out that the system is even more broken down is
not helping to find a solution.
>         Now, if the USA joined the rest of the civilized world and incorporated
>         a statute that required plaintiffs to pay the defendent's legal fees,
>         court costs, and other expenses incurred when the court finds for the
>         defense, more innocent defendents would opt for court and not the
>         settlement option.  As the loosing plaintiff would pay costs, and
>         not the malpractice insurance, the doc's premiums wouldn't go up,
>         and he wouldn't have any expense to pass to consumers.
That's a good start, wonder how our resident shark feels about it?  Steve...
>         Still, the amount of tax that I would end up paying is still going to
>         be much more than you do.  What I pay now only supports those eligible
>         for benefits.  Add the rest of the USA's population, and like it or
>         not, taxes needed to pay even for minimal health care will be excessive.
But you now pay tax plus premiums, Did the GAO address the total cost
to the consumer or just pass judgement on the current tax burden.
>         Hospitals are already full of those who suffer maladies caused
>         by their own excesses.  Luckily, many are paying for their care.
>         To them, those alternatives were comfortable and/or fashionable.
>         Fashionable smokers with lung cancer, comfortable couch potatoes
>         suffering from heart ailments and other cancers, &c.--all there,
>         being treated now.
Well we have come full circle since my late father-in-law was a smoker
who died of lung cancer
>         No anger at all.  I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.
Does this mean I can't send my kids over to sing with you for a few days?

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list