Canadian Premed and Medical Schools  

Go Back   Canadian Premed and Medical Schools > Medical Student General Discussions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 05-10-2012, 12:54 PM
lostintime lostintime is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,632
Default

You're subject to the will of the "free market" as well for anything else. Products that harm people or don't pass safety regulation aren't allowed in the other consumerism "free market" either. Free market is NOT equal to free-for-all. Some people might argue about whether those "safety regulations" are fair. That's the matter of life.

What you're asking for is a more neutral party deciding what is safe healthcare or not. Kind of had to remove all physicians from that party considering they make up evidence-based guidelines and clinical care practices. Unless you only make it some party of people who no longer practice and have nothing to gain from it. Kind of idealistic.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 05-10-2012, 01:06 PM
aaronjw's Avatar
aaronjw aaronjw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,928
Default

I agree, let's free market health care. It'll significantly drive down physician costs as they all clamor to compete with each other. They could try to oligopoly the market but we know physicians are greedy bastards who want the most for themselves so they'll continue to compete on price.

Oh wait, what I describe is a true free market and that's not what it wanted by hose advocating for it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by medigeek View Post
No it is the deciding factor given that had the girl just drank less, it [being raped] wouldn't have happened at all.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 05-10-2012, 01:09 PM
Wayward son Wayward son is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostintime View Post
You're subject to the will of the "free market" as well for anything else. Products that harm people or don't pass safety regulation aren't allowed in the other consumerism "free market" either.
I am allowed to take risks. I am allowed to buy a car that is cheaper even if it doesn't have all the safety features that a more expensive car does. I am allowed to go hang gliding. I am allowed to live in a neighborhood that has a higher crime rate than other neighborhoods.

In your free market fantasy there is only one reason why I would be allowed to do all those things, but not be allowed to just as freely go to an IMG, ND, Chiroprator, or private citizen any of whom may be able to do whatever procedure I want done at a competency I find satisfactory for a price I find satisfactory. And that reason is you feel that others should be subject to the the free market but that you should be protected from the free market. You feel that MDs provide better service (for instance a lower complication rate), but you don't feel that such better service would truly be valued in a true free market, hence barriers to entry are enacted and maintained.

Quality health care does not work in a free market. This was studied by Nobel Prize winner Arrow in the 1960s who found that unpredictability, barriers to entry, asymmetical information as well as other features make health care completely unsuitable for a free market.

Last edited by Wayward son : 05-10-2012 at 01:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 05-10-2012, 01:15 PM
lostintime lostintime is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,632
Default

I think it's just on a spectrum of things. There's a lot of safe guards for the food that is being sold. You're NOT allowed to take those risks for a cheaper price. Supermarkets get closed down by Public Health if they don't meet standards, same with restaurants. Those places may very well be cheaper, but they get closed down. Sure you can go search for some in the back alley.

I agree there is "more" of a free market for most consumerism than healthcare, but the examples you've been providing could very easily be countered.

Cars can't be sold without a seat belt. Some people may want to take that risk for a more cheaper car. No can do.

So maybe you should change your argument to the fact that the problem is who is setting the standards, NOT whether it's a free market or not. A lot of things are regulated and considered "free market". By your standards, NOTHING that is sold in Canada is part of a free market because everything goes under safety regulations or some sort of law/regulation.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 05-10-2012, 01:37 PM
Wayward son Wayward son is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostintime View Post
By your standards, NOTHING that is sold in Canada is part of a free market because everything goes under safety regulations or some sort of law/regulation.
Yes, that is exactly my argument. Free-market nuts complained when child labor laws were put in place, but the people understood that true free markets are not desirable (and rarely even possible). People who call for a free market are being disingenuous. We are going to have regulations no matter what. If this honestly was spoken then people could decide which regulations work best under which circumstances. Instead it is claimed that the choices are big government or the free market. Not true at all.

Of course, in reality they are not actually calling for a free market, but understand that making such a claim is more beneficial for their interests then explaining the truth. They could say that what they are advocating is a health care system which still has regulations, but keeps regulations that benefit one group of people and gets rid of regulations that protect another group of people (usually the rich over the poor). So Barriers to entry regulations to protect MDs are required, but regulations to protect the consumer in their most desparate time of need? No, that's socialism. It is more appealing to say we should have a "free market."
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 05-13-2012, 10:57 AM
aaronjw's Avatar
aaronjw aaronjw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,928
Default

interesting article: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05...l-spur-exodus/

some funny comments too lol
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by medigeek View Post
No it is the deciding factor given that had the girl just drank less, it [being raped] wouldn't have happened at all.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 05-13-2012, 11:29 AM
Robin Hood Robin Hood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronjw View Post
interesting article: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05...l-spur-exodus/

some funny comments too lol
Excellent way to portray physicians as greedy, but maybe what's said in this article is not far from the truth. You see physicians threatening to see less patients and go to the US just because now, they will earn 250k rather than 300k (or something like this, I'm not claiming exact figures, but that's how it looks like). It also seems physicians are holding patients as hostages to keep their high salaries.
Oh and this statement is pure BS:
“For the past eight years, I’ve spent no less than 80, 90 hours a week in the hospital and it often gets far more excessive than that,” he said. “You don’t go into medicine because you want to be filthy rich. To put this much effort into something for 17 years, you could probably do better.”
If it wasn't for the money, the pool would be the quarter of what it's now.
__________________
Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? (Quran 21:30)
"En chacun de nous, il y a un Hyde" (Dr Jackyll & Mr Hyde)
UdeM
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 05-13-2012, 11:40 AM
A-Stark A-Stark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Hood View Post
Oh and this statement is pure BS:
“For the past eight years, I’ve spent no less than 80, 90 hours a week in the hospital and it often gets far more excessive than that,” he said. “You don’t go into medicine because you want to be filthy rich. To put this much effort into something for 17 years, you could probably do better.”
If it wasn't for the money, the pool would be the quarter of what it's now.
Well, the quoted individual just finished (I presume) a general surgery residency and fellowship, so I don't know why you suggest those hours are BS. They're almost certainly accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 05-13-2012, 01:04 PM
boodog boodog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 194
Default

The problem that I have with the fee restructuring and cuts is that while it was unilateral without discussion and yes usually those decisions are not necessarily the best, the counter-arguments being used by physicians are laughable.

"Patient care will be compromised," "Wait times will be longer," "Access will come up short for patients with chronic disease," "Services will be not as accessible"

This is some of the quotes from the OMA. Seriously??? Are we really saying because we'll get payed 10-15% less per visit that we aren't going to do the same job we were doing? We're going to quit over a small drop in our salary? How will wait times be longer? And in what way will services not be as accessible with a reduction in fees?

Now I'm not coming and saying I'm in favour of pay cuts, why would I be, when in a few years I'll be out of residency and in the work force. But what I do think is that physicians need to come up with better arguments against these cuts if they want to prevent them rather than the current ones which I feel harm the profession and portray us as greedy bastards.
__________________
U of A Meds 2012
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 05-13-2012, 01:33 PM
Mourning Cloak Mourning Cloak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boodog View Post
The problem that I have with the fee restructuring and cuts is that while it was unilateral without discussion and yes usually those decisions are not necessarily the best, the counter-arguments being used by physicians are laughable.

"Patient care will be compromised," "Wait times will be longer," "Access will come up short for patients with chronic disease," "Services will be not as accessible"

This is some of the quotes from the OMA. Seriously??? Are we really saying because we'll get payed 10-15% less per visit that we aren't going to do the same job we were doing? We're going to quit over a small drop in our salary? How will wait times be longer? And in what way will services not be as accessible with a reduction in fees?

Now I'm not coming and saying I'm in favour of pay cuts, why would I be, when in a few years I'll be out of residency and in the work force. But what I do think is that physicians need to come up with better arguments against these cuts if they want to prevent them rather than the current ones which I feel harm the profession and portray us as greedy bastards.
While most established physicians might not be willing to uproot and move over high-handed treatment and a pay cut (but a few will), it will certainly hurt recruitment. It may take a few years, but if Ontario can't recruit and there's an active disincentive to stick around (e.g. the animosity between the physicians and the government), the province will begin to feel the effect of a brain drain . . . exactly as described above.

Now, it may be that in the coming years the anticipated doctor glut actually comes to pass, and is in fact enough of a glut to force doctors into even the most undesirable jobs. However, does Ontario really want to be the place that attracts the bottom-of-the-barrel people who couldn't get a better job somewhere else?

Or, does the province even care?
__________________
PGY-1 (2012)
Who would have guessed that something called "pain" rotation wouldn't be any fun?

Last edited by Mourning Cloak : 05-13-2012 at 01:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.