ObamaCare vs. the Hippocratic Oath
Do we really want a system that would fatally compromise doctors' ability to treat their patients according to their best judgment and ability? (Also read Roger L. Simon: Obama on Fox: It’s Desperation Time)
President Obama’s health care “reform” plan has been criticized for being economically unsustainable, politically unpopular, and constitutionally suspect. But for many practicing physicians like myself, his plan contains an even greater but seldom-discussed flaw that overshadows those others. ObamaCare would fatally compromise doctors’ ability to uphold their Hippocratic Oath to treat their patients according to their best judgment and ability.
Whenever the government attempts to guarantee “universal health care,” it must also control that service, if only to control costs. Hence, it will inevitably seek to control how doctors practice. Accordingly, the White House Council of Economic Advisors has recommended controlling costs through “performance measures that all providers would adopt.” Physicians who strayed too far from government “comparative effectiveness” practice guidelines would be punished as “high end outliers.”
This will place your doctor’s medical conscience directly on a collision course with government bureaucrats.
If you developed severe abdominal pain due to gallstones, who should decide whether medication or surgery would be the best treatment for you? The doctor who felt your abdomen, saw your ultrasound, and knows your drug allergies? Or a bureaucrat who has never met you, never went to medical school, and is quoting “comparative effectiveness” guidelines from a book?
Yet if that bureaucrat decides that your doctor is performing more surgeries than government guidelines allowed, then your doctor could face punishment — even if surgery would be the best choice for you as an individual patient. Your doctor would be forced to choose between following his conscience and treating you to the best of his ability — or following a bureaucrat’s decree. In essence, he would be punished for upholding his Hippocratic Oath and rewarded for violating it.
Such ethical dilemmas have already arisen for doctors practicing in other countries with government-run “universal health care,” such as Great Britain and Canada.
In 2008, a scandal erupted in Great Britain when the public learned that the government-run National Health Service had paid bonuses to family physicians who reduced the number of patients they referred to specialists. According to the Telegraph, “A leading surgeon said that patients’ cancers had already gone undiagnosed after they were denied specialist care under two such ‘referral management’ schemes.”
If you physician feels a suspicious lump in your abdomen during a routine physical exam, do you want him to hesitate — or even worse, ignore it — for fear of losing his bonus because he referred too many patients to an oncologist?
Similarly, nearly one in four British oncologists admitted to deliberately withholding information from their patients about treatments widely available in other European countries, but not allowed under the NHS system due to cost. These oncologists argued that “there was ‘no point’ in discussing treatments their patients could not have” and that such a discussions might “distress, upset or confuse” their patients.
But patients rely on their physicians for information about treatment options — including an honest appraisal of all the risks, benefits, and alternatives — so they can make fully-informed decisions about their lives. Failure to disclose such information is a serious breach of a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath.
Government-run medicine thus pitted doctors against their patients in an ethically perverse situation. Physicians, prohibited by the government from doing what they actually thought was best for their patients, had to decide whether they should conceal medically important information from their patients. Patients were placed in a position of not knowing if their doctors were being fully truthful with them. The result was rationing not only of medical care, but of medical information.
Page 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single Page
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
Another excellent article, Paul. Now tell us again why you “hoped” Barack Obama would be elected president?
Duh.
Thank you so much for writing this btw. I am in 100% agreement and I realized my ‘DUH’ might have come off with flippancy and no appreciation (which, actually it kinda was, my bad and I apologize).
Anyway, this article was an ‘AMEN!’ all the way.
No one in their “right mind” trusts the congress/President and a 2400 page health care reform bill to get it right. No one!
The heck with the Hippocratic oath and morals in general, this is for the higher good of social justice! Didn’t the Nazis make similar arguments about euthenasia for “prufiying the race”?
@Tom: Limiting the discussion to health care (since I think Dr. Hsieh could have had many reasons for preferring Obama over McCain), Republicans have only a marginally better track record on this issue. Most recently, Medicare Part D — the largest expansion of the system since its inception — was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush.
Regardless of how hard doctors try to convince some of their patients to do the right things, too many of them ignore their warnings.
And just as predicted the dreaded day arrives, where the doctor has to sit down with the patient and tell him or her its probably a good thing for them to get their things in order right now.
Too much booze, unprotected sex, no exercise, too much sodium, fast food, unchecked high bad cholesterol regimes, the same thing with smoking and high blood pressure: I’m afraid that your pancreas has shutdown your liver Mr. or Ms. average person.
Is that not essentially where our country is at right now Dr. Hsieh? If so, why not level with your patients instead of playing games with “What if”?
Americans didn’t listen to their doctors. They didn’t read the product labels, or they decided to ignore them. They said to themselves, “We are the ones that can beat the odds.”
We can play and we will feel good and we will have everything that we want and we won’t ever have to worry again.
We can elect Barrack Hussein Obama President of the United States of America.
I submit to you Dr. Hsieh your duty to your patients now is to lay the facts on the table cold turkey. This is not a time for “What if” new, albeit somewhat crippled beginnings for American patients, but a state of existence that is very close to the end.
Having been in pretty good health all my life, I found two years ago that I had a chronic illness, estimated a three-year job. I must say I am glad of a national health service and not sorry to have contributed when in good health.
I think if Obama had not been taken in by the CO2/global warming wild goose chase, he might have been in a more favourable position to concentrate on negotiating a better solution with regard to the shaky health care that has ruined many folk in the States from what I gather from friends who live there.
I appreciate the many valid points in Paul Hsieh’s article, but he cannot deny that health care in the US is at present in a critical state and I remain sceptical that the free market can provide all the solutions – in my experience the free market has its own constraints and straitjackets; corner-cutting was not invented by the state alone.
Thanks for another excellent article Paul!
It’s interesting to see once again how the common view about conflicts of interests is false. There are no conflicts of interest when men are free to exchange value for value as they would be under capitalism. Conflicts only arise when government injects force into human interactions, in this case encouraging and forcing doctors to act against their own conscience beliefs and knowledge.
I hope this lesson makes it to Washington sooner rather than later.
Here in Massachusetts we’ve survived under our universal coverage law only through generous federal subsidies. State treasurer Tim Cahill came clean with the data on this just the other day, and confirmed that he saw no way to implement this on a national scale. Who is going to subsidize us then, foreign nations? Still, Washington officials continue to be blinded by their moral crusade to relieve everyone of the responsibility to provide for themselves. As Dr. Hsieh argues, this bill fails the Hippocratic test: it won’t make things better, it will make them worse.
Nailed it, Paul. The really sad part is that many people in these foreign countries with socialized medical systems have abused spouse syndrome. They accept the waiting lists, substandard care, and lack of care as normal, and they are grateful for anything they do get. Americans should not be okay with waiting eight months to get a hip replacement.
Oops, I meant “conscious”, not “conscience” in the comment above.
My bet is that Obama believes that doctors take their Hippocratic Oath the same way he took his Oath of Office, with a grain of sand. Obama has no honor and thinks everybody is like him. Thank God he’s wrong, and thank God he will be gone.
Friday! Webcast on open government.
Can someone here be involved in this webcast (see bottom) on Mar 19th? I am a librarian whose organization is sponsoring this fiasco.
Webcast announcement:
Sunshine Week 2010 Webcast- Building Transparency
Friday, March 19th, 2009, 11:00 – 1:00 PM (CST)
On his first full day in office, President Obama committed his Administration “to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.” To help meet that goal, the Administration has issued an Open Government Directive and a new Memorandum on Freedom of Information Act and Attorney General Guidelines. The Administration has also launched an expansive effort to open up data to developers, advocates, and the public via Data.gov. Join us for this three panel event to hear our panelists — transparency experts from inside and outside government– discuss these initiatives and their effect on the public. Panelists will also take questions from the live and viewing audience.
· The first panel, featuring Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, will focus on the White House’s efforts to imbed transparency in the system by, in part, requiring each agency to develop an open government plan, and post open government pages.
· During the second panel, our panelists, including Miriam Nisbet, Director of the new Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), will discuss how recent changes to law and policy effect a citizen’s ability to request and receive information from the federal government.
· During the last panel, developers and advocates will explain how they use government information like the data on Data.gov to make a difference for the public.
Opportunities will be available for audience questions from all participants.
Fee: No charge; Registration: Not required (though there will be a short form to fill out prior to downloading the streaming video)
Stream the teleconference on your desktop! The link will be available at least 24 hours prior to the event at the 2010 Sunshine Week Event Page: http://www.openthegovernment.org/article/articleview/420/ Use the link to make sure your computer has all the necessary software at least one day before the event.
During the teleconference, feel free to e-mail or call in any questions you may have for the panel. If you cannot view the program live, there will be an archived version on the Sunshine Week website. If you have questions please contact: Amy (Fuller) Bennett, Program Associate, OpenTheGovernment.org.
You’re being entirely too logical and sincere in this piece, Dr. Hsieh.
I don’t know why we haven’t heard more outcry from medical professionals throughout the entire year we’ve been subjected to this “healthcare” travesty. More outrage at this President’s references to unnecessarily yanking tonsils, cutting off feet to garner enormous surgical fees, derision when the President of the US tells a woman her aged mother would be better off taking a pain pill for arrhythmia than getting a pacemaker.
I don’t know why doctors aren’t screaming from the rooftops, shouting with derision as this President resorts to tricks like lining up the guys (and girls) in white coats behind him as he pontificates and speechifies.
(If the AMA is, in fact, on board, I’ve read that only something like 17% of doctors even belongs to the AMA any more.)
Or screaming louder at the bureaucratic intrusion into medicine that will inevitably ensue if this bill passages. Pointing fingers at Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and his big, fat eugenics loving thesis of Quality Adjusted Life Years in terms of which age & stage of life does, and does not, get the best care.
Stream the teleconference on your desktop!
A teleconference on openness and transparency ?
Like everything else in this administration, transparency was only a word to fool the proles.
The “healthcare” agenda pushed forward with sub rosa, backroom deals and a President who doesn’t even himself currently know what deals are in, what deals are out ?
While Nancy the Dominatrix yakked about the most ethical Congress in history ?
Watching a teleconference on openness in this administration would make me sick enough to need some immediate “healthcare”.
They’d be more honest sponsoring a teleconference on “Chicago Thug Style Politics on the Potomac.”
“Bureaucracy” is code for “Black.”
You are a racist bigot.
Dr. Hsieh has written another excellent analysis of the all too real consequences of the socialization of medical care. It is critical that we not only oppose Obamacare but begin to seriously discuss ways to roll back the significant presence of the government in the health care industry so that all rights are once again respected and we can all enjoy the benefits of doctors who are free to practice medicine without government interference.
These problems already exist under Medicare. But the reality is concealed from patients who do not understand how their care is compromised. How many doctors will tell a patient that treatment X is a better choice for you than treatment Y but I cannot afford to do treatment X for you and I am not allowed to accept additional money from you to do treatment X? They will just do treatment Y and the patient will be happy that he has Medicare.
Something I haven’t seen discussed, but comes to mind in this discussion is, when diagnoses and treatment are determined by the bureaucrats, when things go south, whose pockets will the lawyers dip into for malpractice claims . . . the doctors who followed the proscribed course, or the bureaucrats who called the shots from afar? Surely our Democratic leadership hasn’t forgotten about their litigious brethren . . . it would put guys like John Edwards out of business, monkey- and otherwise.
I long for the days of personal responsablity.
“personal responsablity” is a code word for slavery.
I am a raceist bigot. /rolleyes.
Paul, another great piece. Why is he the only doctor I ever hear on the subject of HealthCare. More doctors should be screaming about this travesty.
“Bureaucrat = Black” is a new one on the me (and on the world at large). Europe and Russia had the quintessential, lily-white bureaucracies, and Dostoyevsky described the (literally) Caucasian bureaucracy to a tee. The 20th-Century, African version’s climax is the Ten-Trillion-Zimbabwe$ bill. (The US$ is getting there, i.e., to the wallpaper stage.)
Bureaucracy is a plague on all Humanity, and is the handmaiden of all tyrannies.
What a dangerous Socialist we have for a president !!,pure and simple. No good can ever come of this my friends.
Dr. Hsieh, you and Professor Hanson are voices of reason. I thank you for that.
Unfortunately, many believe reasoning, acceptance of one’s health, well-being and accomplishments are not of their control. But political plebes who are ‘looking out for your best interests’. A defeatist outlook due to the very same politicians constantly speaking of the ‘crisis’, ‘atrocities’ and so forth they exacerbate though hidden in the guise of ‘problem solving’.
No, when addressing these concerns via email/ phone to these aristocrats – a cut n’ paste self-serving platitudes/ ‘I’m here for you’ dog and pony response is their M O.
Those for HR3200 must adore the line from Ray Bradury’s, Fahrenheit 451.
“We’ve all got to be alike. The only way to be happy is for everyone to be made equal”.
The key words being ‘all got to’ and ‘made equal’. Not pursue nor strive towards but ‘made’. In essence, a dictatorship. Many are for this, dismantling of free will..
I still fail to see how any of this differs between a rep from an insurance agency deciding what a doctor can and cannot do based on the companies policies on what care the patient pays for and what they deem the cheapest way to fix the problem rather than rely on the doctors judgment.
In either case you have someone telling the doctor what the insurance is willing to pay for, only in one of the two cases you
actually get to see a doctor.
The link in the first paragraph which references constitutional issues raised by the NYP unsurprisingly waters down major constitutional problems with Obamacare. So let’s be a little more specific.
Here’s why Obama, Reid and Pelosi are in contempt of the Constitution that they have hypocritically sworn to defend. They are unthinkingly basing their so-called constitutional authority to make healthcare legislation on perversions of the Commerce Clause by pro-big federal government justices in the 1930s and 40s.
Eight of these justices were nominated nominated by FDR, an enemy of the Constitution, and caved in to perverting the Commerse Clause to give the green light to illegal spending legislation inspired by FDR. The justices did so by scandalously ignoring state sovereignty statutes like Article V and the 10th Amendment when deciding cases which tested the limits of Congress’s powers. But here’s what’s really going on.
Given that the federal Constitution is silent about public healthcare, the 10th Amendment automatically reserves government power to regulate healthcare to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress.
In fact, the USSC has already decided that Congress has no business sticking its big nose in the medical practice.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925. http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html
So presuming that they really know that they don’t have the constitutional authority to make healthcare legislation, Obama, Reid and Pelosi are criminally ignoring the following.
Article V requires Reid and Pelosi to rally Congress to propose a healthcare amendment to the states for ratification. And should the states choose to ratify such an amendment, then Congress would have the power to make Obamacare legislation.
On the other hand, the states can always choose not to ratify such an amendment, in which case Congress remains without constitutional authority to regulate healthcare.
In the meanwhile, Obama, Reid and Pelosi are treasonously basing Obamacare legislation on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.
The bottom line is that Constitution-defending patriots have a big mess to clean up in DC in this year’s midterm elections.
Intrade has Obamacare passing at 78% now (for what it’s worth).
Nothing in the article has anything remotely to do with the hippocratic oath.
Excellent article (again) by Dr. Hsieh.
The Catch 22 situation in which ObamaCare will place physicians is sufficient reason to oppose it.
Excellent article, Dr. Hsieh. It’s interesting the way Obama dismisses such concerns as “old fashioned,” as he does the Constitution.
Interesting article, Dr. Hsieh. Last night on one of the worldwide broadcasts the Germans were discussing their healthcare system, the oldest among industrialied countries and now going bankrupt to the tune of $11 billion. It seems our politicians didn’t listen when this was brought up last fall by the Free Democratic Party of Germany. The rich and famous are going to run out of places to run for hi-tech treatment.
I have 3 children on a single income, please DO NOT approve comprehensive Health Care reform as currently under consideration in Congress. Bureacratization of Medical Coverage is ALREADY THE MAJOR CAUSE of current health care cost increases. I know most politicians see themselves as good people who love their families and are trying to do some good. But enforcing access as they proprose will REDUCE accessibility and quality while INCREASING the relative cost to me. Note Washington: Please don’t be starry eyed and idealistic, be realistic. There is no money to spend on this. As one of the people, I’m your boss and I’m telling you, this move is a big mistake. Wishing everyone has fabulous health care is a noble and brotherly feeling, not a legislatable feat. You can’t legislate a wish. The 2000 odd pages of rhetorical niceness will result in a mega-health ministry with countless employees hired to run and monitor the giant, a new subindustry of worker that we your bosses must pay for. Will Mr. Orwell please stand up?
I believe the Doctor makes wonderful points about the issue. Unfortunately, the voice of reason and groupthink phenomena is at work in the DC wasteland. Thre is no attempt to reason, to consider this important issue in a prudent and disciplined manner. I know there needs to be changes but does our elected officials wish to make changes at the the expense of falling off the cliff without the parachute? Hope and change may win a temporary battle but I really believe he has lost the war. I cannot wait until November to send a real message of hope and change.
Oh please, this is no different tha your HMO requiring preauthorization for stuff that is not standard procedure
While people complain about insurance companies making decisions about what is and is not covered at least you have a chance to appeal an insurance company’s decision. Your doctor has a chance to convince them your care is necessary.
Once the government is in control it will require an act of Congress to change the rules and there is no room for exceptions due to unusual circumstances.
I use Tricare for my health insurance since my husband is a veteran so I’ve had to deal with the government and health insurance. I’ve had coverage denied and been told that there was absolutely no recurse because the guidelines for Tricare were written by Congress so it didn’t matter what arguments I made. When I mentioned they were possibly violatin the Americans with Disabilities Act my appeal letters were handled by their attorney and they continued to insist coverage was not allowable in my case due to Congressional rules.
At least you have a chance to reason with an insurance company. Once the government is in charge it will take an act of Congress to fix any problems.
#33 you are a moron
How is a government bureaucrat deciding how your doctor should treat you different from a private-company bureaucrat deciding how your doctor should treat you? This argument is moot.
Not only are tax-payers’ consciences going to be brutalized when they discover (if they don’t know already what’s coming with abortababydemcare)that they get to fund abortion, but we learn, too, that doctors’ moral and professional ethics will be treated with the same contempt.
Now, remember, this all comes at the behest of the “enlightened” people amongst us, the progressive, fair, and tolerant political class, filled with compassion for those poor — poor — people who can’t find it within their means to get on the installment plan or at the very least pay for catastrophic medical care coverage.
So we as a society must now do violence against the consciences of a majority of Americans so our progressive-minded betters may sleep the sleep of the sainted. Ahhhh. It just feels so good to know we were able to rob Paul, not only of his money, but of his conscience, just so we could pay Peter.
In my humble opinion, any Congressman who in some manner, shape or form votes for ObamaCare is sticking a knife in the back of America.
Sticking it in and happily watching it bleed. The fact is, not only will ObamaCare torpedo the highest quality medical system in the world, but financially its affect will be devastating. It’ll be the final nail in the coffin of financial ruin that Obama has planned for America since day one.
As you know, President Obama has been chipping away at this nation’s security since his swearing in. When he promised to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, he didn’t mean a word of it. If he’d been attached to a lie detector on January 20th of ‘09, the needle would have been jumping back and forth like a man on a fuzzy tree.
All of which is probably very old news to every here at PJM. What may be new news is my suggestion that all the lawyers in America who care about the future of this nation work on theories for grounds to sue Barack Obama for trying to destroy this nation. Seems to me, a district court jury in any state of the United States, when the rubber hits the road and ObamaCare begins leading us to ruin, would not only elect to indict Obama on willfully negligent, or intentional grounds, but if it got to trial, would vote to convict. As a result of Obama’s attack on the supreme court during his state of the union address, should a case against Zero get to the supreme court, Obama would lose on a 5-4 decision. Of course, before any virdict, he would offer to resign, which in a chicken hearted way would be accepted.
Then there’s the matter of income taxes. If you believe as I that Obama is trying to destroy this nation from within, I suggest you consider not pay taxes. As I understand it, by law, you’re required to mail in a tax form, not to fill it out. Lawyers have advised me that, simply by signing your name, leaving the tax form blank and mailing it in, you are fulfilling your legal duty. And be sure to march on Washington this weekend. A million people chastising Congress may get somebody’s attention. Or not.
Just don’t break down any doors. Unless, of course, you have to.
“ObamaCare would fatally compromise doctors’ ability to uphold their Hippocratic Oath to treat their patients according to their best judgment and ability.”
If you strongly feel this way, Dr. Hsieh, you (and AMA) have the moral obligations to bring this to the attention of your legislators and offer common sense, viable solutions.
Does the good Doctor understand that insurance companies also direct what procedures they will pay for and in many inumerable instances refuse to pay for services. I do not see our physicians writing articles condemning the insurance companies directing the physiscians as to what services they will pay. Does he not understand that many of us do not like the insurance company CEO’s to make millions out of our sick bodies. Please we are not toothpaste or cereal we are human beings and we do not like to be treated as marketable products.
“Does he not understand that many of us do not like the insurance company CEO’s to make millions out of our sick bodies.” Herbert Miller @#43
There is a simple solution to that: don’t contract for their services. That’s still allowed (for a couple more days at least).
The Hippocratic oath is a farce.
Doctors routinely bankrupt their patients with their excessive fees, leaving “Do no harm” to be a complete crock. Financial harm is real harm.
Open your eyes people, seriously.
45. What is excessive? A doctor must be able to cover his overhead and recoup his tuition bills with his fees. 8 years and $300,000 is a lot to invest in an education to get an MD, and these costs must be paid. Doctors also owe a great deal in taxes.
All these people popping in here saying that an insurance company denying treatment is the same as a council of bureaucrats dictating treatment are actually making a case for increased privatization and competition, not less. If you have a insurance company that always pays late, has crappy doctors in their network and keeps denying coverages, well go find another company that doesn’t. But you can’t do that in this present day and age, BECAUSE OF BUREAUCRATIC REGULATIONS that limit the sale of insurance across state lines. This severly limits the number of possible sources of insurance and the lack of competition increases overall costs. Also, the fact that your insurance is tied to your job contributes to a great many problems as well. When you hear about someone’s premiums for insurance going up it often has a story that begins with, “Well when I changed jobs I lost my old insurance and when I signed up for new insurance my premiums went up.” Well, I hate to tell folks this, but that is how insurance works. If you been paying into an insurance providers system for years and years and then the time comes to actually use your insurance. Well, the likelihood of being denied coverages is less and your premiums will often remain lower over the long term. When you lose your insurance and are forced to sign onto a new company, they have no vested stake in your account since you’ve not been a paying member at any point previously. It’s funny that reform proponents just insist that some company they’ve never paid a dollar too or been a member of should just be required to cover everything under the sun from the very get go; mind-boggling.
You only get to vote a couple of times a year at most when it comes to the government. When it comes to private business you literally get to vote with your feet. Every dollar you spend is a vote of confidence in the services said company is providing to you. With increased competition people will have the ability to pick and choose providers that offer services and policies that fit their judgment and needs. Not the judgment of a small group of Washington insiders who have little to no idea of what innumerable challenges can be faced by a large set of unique individuals. Therein lies the problem with people who think that more oversight and control will grant them a wonderful future, “if we all just do it THIS way”. They all think that everything will just be hunky dory with the way they have envisioned things to be. However, they can’t seem to fathom for more than a few moments that people in general are far to chaotic and incalculable as to what decisions and services they will make or require. By trying to craft a one size fits all approach you will be limiting innovation in health services that could potentially find ways of mitigating costs and improving services, on their own, and over the long term. Only problem is, if we implement the one size fits all approach there will be no way to determine the unrealized benefits since most cookie cutter programs work by controlling systems from the top down. All this will lead to is a stagnant health care system that will slowly plow along.
myth buster,
Firstly, the reason medical schools can charge so much is because they know the salaries are going to be extremely high. Once we reduce doctor salaries to reasonable amounts, the cost of medical education will go down. Also, we can easily chop off one year of medical school. 4 years is not necessary, and it’s just a way of squeezing more money from the students.
Secondly, doctors are actually paid quite well for residences & fellowships, much more than the median income level in the US! Not bad pay for essentially what amounts to TRAINING! Why do doctors LOVE to ignore this fact??
Damn right doctors owe a lot in taxes, as they should! Did you know that a residency is funded from GOVERNMENT dollars? And it is government licensing which keeps competition down and salaries high. So you bet your sweet bippy that doctors should pay more in taxes to pay back what the government gives them!
If we can streamline education, I’m all for it. I, for one, am graduating college in three years in a program that’s very difficult to do in four years. I cannot understand why so many liberal arts majors would need five years, save that they don’t belong in college at all.
If your HMO or your insurance company denies coverage for something you and your doctor want to do, you have choices. You can pay for it yourself, you can change your insurance and you can sue. With government medicine you lose these choices. This is already the case under Medicare. Medicare interferes with all of these choices and, as the rules stand today, you MUST enroll in Medicare to get Social Security. It will be worse under Obamacare. They will ration health care, disguise the fact that they are doing it and make it difficult for you to obtain the care you want with your own money.
I am in an HMO. I am happy with my doctor. I trust him. He spends more on my care than I would choose to do if I were paying cash. Obamacare will certainly change all that.
In health care, as in everything else, most of us cannot afford everything that we want. If we choose not to have insurance for routine care, we make cost-benefit trade-offs with the help of our doctors. If we have insurance or an HMO we choose a system in advance that will make the complex trade-offs for us. If we are too poor to pay for our care, the government makes the trade-offs through Medicaid since the government is picking up the tab.
This is how a free people wants to make major decisions in their lives. Obamacare will turn us into serfs and wards of the state.
This is a real question, not a smart ass one. If the horrors described in this article are even close to true, why did the AMA come out in favor of this bill?
“Once we reduce doctor salaries to reasonable amounts” Johnathan Blaze @#48
“we”? Who are “we” to determine through the power of government what is a reasonable salary? There’s a word for that: slavery.
Bobby: The AMA consists of a handful of doctors who only represent less than 20% of practicing medical doctors, I can’t state this for a fact, but they are likely mostly left-leaners. There is no way that, if this organization was a representation of all medical professionals, that they would be in favor. Ask any single one of your doctors what they feel about the healthcare reform. Seriously.
So posters do not want your government to come between doctors and patients.
However, when it comes to abortion you want government to force women to continue with their pregnancy and labour,no matter what their doctors assessment is.