The fact is; US healthcare sucks

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Sure it does, but not as much as government healthcare in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Australia, etc.

[Badger]

I'm not sure I follow the logic--the best way to increase the number of health professionals we have is to go to war?

Obviously that's what I'm saying. The best way to increase the supply of healthcare workers so we can save more American lives is to start WWIII.

So you are saying the preferable alternative would be to create a vast peacetime army to employ people like your grandmother.

And you despise Medicare and Medicaid because of the tax burden involved and supposed inefficiency of public healthcare?

Sometimes I think even you know what you're trying to say, so you can imagine the confusion to the rest of us.

[Joe Republic]

Sure it does, but not as much as government healthcare in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Australia, etc.

DO YOU EVER READ ANY THREADS YOU POST IN, OR JUST THE TITLE?

If you had at least bothered to read the very first post here, you'd have found a chart (with pretty colors and miniature flags and everything!) that would show your banal summation to be demonstrably false.  Not that pesky things like facts have ever dented that titanium cranium of yours, of course.

[AggregateDemand]

So you are saying the preferable alternative would be to create a vast peacetime army to employ people like your grandmother.

And you despise Medicare and Medicaid because of the tax burden involved and supposed inefficiency of public healthcare?

Sometimes I think even you know what you're trying to say, so you can imagine the confusion to the rest of us.

You understand the difference between healthcare and health insurance. Furthermore, we already have an army of public employees who man our public clinics and public hospitals. I prescribed training and education to increase the number medical personnel.

[dmmidmi]

I'm not sure I follow the logic--the best way to increase the number of health professionals we have is to go to war?

Obviously that's what I'm saying. The best way to increase the supply of healthcare workers so we can save more American lives is to start WWIII.

Well, more elaboration would be a little helpful. Are you suggesting that we use the military as a way of educating health professionals? Is that more cost effective than providing more funding to increase capacity at colleges/universities? Is there a difference in the quality of care between health professionals who were trained in colleges/universities vs. military alone?

[dmmidmi]

The cost of care in this country would plummet rapidly if we abolished licensing laws for doctors and other health providers.

Yes likely it would, it's still the worst idea I have heard in a while.

No kidding. And actually, it probably wouldn't even "plummet rapidly," either. Licensing and regulatory bodies exist for a reason, y'know. If licensing laws were abolished, there would be literally nothing stopping me from practicing medicine, and I have zero medical training.

[Deus Naturae]

The cost of care in this country would plummet rapidly if we abolished licensing laws for doctors and other health providers.

Yes likely it would, it's still the worst idea I have heard in a while.

No kidding. And actually, it probably wouldn't even "plummet rapidly," either. Licensing and regulatory bodies exist for a reason, y'know. If licensing laws were abolished, there would be literally nothing stopping me from practicing medicine, and I have zero medical training.

No hospital would hire you though. And it probably would plummet considerably. The  doctors' licensing scheme is just an AMA racket, and they have been precisely engineering the system to maximize their profits for decades. Abolishing licensing would see an explosion in the number of qualified practicing physicians, as that number was been below consumer demand for some time now.

[Flake]

The cost of care in this country would plummet rapidly if we abolished licensing laws for doctors and other health providers.

Yes likely it would, it's still the worst idea I have heard in a while.

No kidding. And actually, it probably wouldn't even "plummet rapidly," either. Licensing and regulatory bodies exist for a reason, y'know. If licensing laws were abolished, there would be literally nothing stopping me from practicing medicine, and I have zero medical training.

No hospital would hire you though. And it probably would plummet considerably. The  doctors' licensing scheme is just an AMA racket, and they have been precisely engineering the system to maximize their profits for decades. Abolishing licensing would see an explosion in the number of qualified practicing physicians, as that number was been below consumer demand for some time now.

For profit hospitals would because he's cheaper than a licensed doctor, and I think it's just a really poor decision to let people play doctor. There are some serious consequences, and I really don't think we should do that.

[Deus Naturae]

The cost of care in this country would plummet rapidly if we abolished licensing laws for doctors and other health providers.

Yes likely it would, it's still the worst idea I have heard in a while.

No kidding. And actually, it probably wouldn't even "plummet rapidly," either. Licensing and regulatory bodies exist for a reason, y'know. If licensing laws were abolished, there would be literally nothing stopping me from practicing medicine, and I have zero medical training.

No hospital would hire you though. And it probably would plummet considerably. The  doctors' licensing scheme is just an AMA racket, and they have been precisely engineering the system to maximize their profits for decades. Abolishing licensing would see an explosion in the number of qualified practicing physicians, as that number was been below consumer demand for some time now.

For profit hospitals would because he's cheaper than a licensed doctor, and I think it's just a really poor decision to let people play doctor. There are some serious consequences, and I really don't think we should do that.

It would be cheaper for all for-profit companies to hire random people off the street with no job skills whatsoever. However, most for-profit companies would never do that, because they need people who can actually perform the services they offer. There's a reason Bushie's job search hasn't been very fruitful.

Also, that isn't a real argument. I could just as easily say, "I think it's a really good decision. There are some beneficial results and I really think we should do that."

[dmmidmi]

The cost of care in this country would plummet rapidly if we abolished licensing laws for doctors and other health providers.

Yes likely it would, it's still the worst idea I have heard in a while.

No kidding. And actually, it probably wouldn't even "plummet rapidly," either. Licensing and regulatory bodies exist for a reason, y'know. If licensing laws were abolished, there would be literally nothing stopping me from practicing medicine, and I have zero medical training.

No hospital would hire you though. And it probably would plummet considerably.

And does that stop me from opening my own practice?

The  doctors' licensing scheme is just an AMA racket, and they have been precisely engineering the system to maximize their profits for decades. Abolishing licensing would see an explosion in the number of qualified practicing physicians, as that number was been below consumer demand for some time now.

84% of all takers are passing their boards on the first go-around: http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2013/07/01/why-are-so-many-younger-doctors-failing-their-boards/

I can't buy this last argument without supporting sources. And I can't buy that quality of care wouldn't suffer from having an influx of unlicensed professionals practicing medicine. You can bet that rural and frontier hospitals would be clamoring for unlicensed professionals, and that could be a serious danger to their patient populations.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The cost of care in this country would plummet rapidly if we abolished licensing laws for doctors and other health providers.

Yes likely it would, it's still the worst idea I have heard in a while.

No kidding. And actually, it probably wouldn't even "plummet rapidly," either. Licensing and regulatory bodies exist for a reason, y'know. If licensing laws were abolished, there would be literally nothing stopping me from practicing medicine, and I have zero medical training.

No hospital would hire you though. And it probably would plummet considerably. The  doctors' licensing scheme is just an AMA racket, and they have been precisely engineering the system to maximize their profits for decades. Abolishing licensing would see an explosion in the number of qualified practicing physicians, as that number was been below consumer demand for some time now.

nah just nationalise it.

or internationalise it, even.

[AggregateDemand]

It would be cheaper for all for-profit companies to hire ran people off the street with no job skills whatsoever. However, most for-profit companies would never do that, because they need people who can actually perform the services they offer. There's a reason Bushie's job search hasn't been very fruitful.

Also, that isn't a real argument. I could just as easily say, "I think it's a really good decision. There are some beneficial results and I really think we should do that."

AMA is a racket, but professional licensing isn't part of it. Professional organizations are basically vetting professional workers, and shifting the vetting costs onto the wealthy professionals, rather than the customers.

Another reason standardized certificate-based education is superior for signaling games compared to distinct institution-based accolades.

[dmmidmi]

It would be cheaper for all for-profit companies to hire ran people off the street with no job skills whatsoever. However, most for-profit companies would never do that, because they need people who can actually perform the services they offer. There's a reason Bushie's job search hasn't been very fruitful.

Also, that isn't a real argument. I could just as easily say, "I think it's a really good decision. There are some beneficial results and I really think we should do that."

AMA is a racket, but professional licensing isn't part of it. Professional organizations are basically vetting professional workers, and shifting the vetting costs onto the wealthy professionals, rather than the customers.

Another reason standardized certificate-based education is superior for signaling games to distinct institution-based accolades.

I've gotta agree here, for the most part. The AMA may push for these types of regulatory standards (to protect physicians' scope of practice, among other things), but it's hard to frame this sort of mandated professionalism as a bad thing. If someone is going to cut me open, I'd prefer it if there was an agency that gave them the green light. As a layman, I don't have the resources or knowledge base to thoroughly vet a physician who may operate on me--nobody here does.

According to the American Board of Internal Medicine, the coast of a board exam ranges from $1,365 to $2,830 (depending on the type of exam). In the grand scheme of things, this isn't a huge cost, and the dollar figure shouldn't impede physicians from practicing.

[All Along The Watchtower]

If everyone in America had equal access to health care, then there would be somewhat  less need to pretend that America is a classless, colorblind, egalitarian society. But it's in the interest of some powerful...people and institutions for the charade to continue.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The cost of care in this country would plummet rapidly if we abolished licensing laws for doctors and other health providers.

Yes likely it would, it's still the worst idea I have heard in a while.

No kidding. And actually, it probably wouldn't even "plummet rapidly," either. Licensing and regulatory bodies exist for a reason, y'know. If licensing laws were abolished, there would be literally nothing stopping me from practicing medicine, and I have zero medical training.

No hospital would hire you though. And it probably would plummet considerably.

And does that stop me from opening my own practice?

The  doctors' licensing scheme is just an AMA racket, and they have been precisely engineering the system to maximize their profits for decades. Abolishing licensing would see an explosion in the number of qualified practicing physicians, as that number was been below consumer demand for some time now.

84% of all takers are passing their boards on the first go-around: http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2013/07/01/why-are-so-many-younger-doctors-failing-their-boards/

I can't buy this last argument without supporting sources. And I can't buy that quality of care wouldn't suffer from having an influx of unlicensed professionals practicing medicine. You can bet that rural and frontier hospitals would be clamoring for unlicensed professionals, and that could be a serious danger to their patient populations.

Quality of doctors would certainly not be as high in the US if not for the stringent requirements these days, but realistically speaking, plenty of completely capable people are rejected anyway (or else don't bother knowing the high requirements) when it isn't necessary.

Imagine if the US passed a law mandating "car quality control", so only quite good cars are allowed to be sold. People with cars now are guaranteed to have fuel efficient, high performance, extremely safe cars. But this doesn't somehow make these cars cheaper, so many poor people that would otherwise get a less safe, crappier, less efficient car (because a poor car beats no car) simply get no car at all. Now imagine dumb non-Americans with nationalized car industries (producing a wide range of quality cars, not just "the best") pointed to America and said "look! America has a private car industry and the poor people there don['t have cars!" while idiots in America say "Look at these statistics of how good foreigners with nationalized car industries have it, with affordable cars and access!". Similarly, you don't need "the best" doctors when simply competent ones can get the job done. Other problems with American healthcare include:

-Insurance that doesn't function as insurance (if you use it to pay for foreseeable events like regular doctor visits, ITS NOT INSURANCE)
-Gigantic parasitic government programs piggybacking on the pseudo-free market insurance system (dumb Americans talk about how great single payer government run healthcare would be, but aren't dumb enough to mention the already existing single payer systems like the Indian Health Service and the VA.)
-Corrupt pharmaceutical industry regulated by the FDA, which basically only allows gigantic established corporations that pay them bribes to compete
-Americans are fat and unhealthy, something no system can really solve outright

Also, European healthcare isn't much better, and I suspect that their systems would be completely revamped if not for people using America like the boogey man saying "This is what you get with a private system!". Nordic countries have a system that actually functions like a Republican Party attack ad on Canadian healthcare. Germany is good basically because it looks nice compared to the broken Nordic model and the broken Eastern European systems. UK is like the US system but with more direct government control and more streamlining but less high quality at the better side of things, so very varied quality from one area to the next. Also, if you want anything decent you have to pay the government for your unreliable sh**te NHS service and then pay an insurance company AGAIN for a chance at something worthwhile.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For someone who shows absolutely no signs of knowing anything, you sure like to act like an expert. You'll go far.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Imagine if the US passed a law mandating "car quality control", so only quite good cars are allowed to be sold.

You realize that cars sold in the U.S. are subject to quite exacting "car quality control" via the Department of Transportation and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), yes? And that there are a whole bunch of rules regarding minimum fuel economy, safety and efficiency?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Standards

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Sure it does, but not as much as government healthcare in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Australia, etc.

DO YOU EVER READ ANY THREADS YOU POST IN, OR JUST THE TITLE?

If you had at least bothered to read the very first post here, you'd have found a chart (with pretty colors and miniature flags and everything!) that would show your banal summation to be demonstrably false.  Not that pesky things like facts have ever dented that titanium cranium of yours, of course.

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

[politicus]

Nordic countries have a system that actually functions like a Republican Party attack ad on Canadian healthcare.

I will take this as a compliment.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Imagine if the US passed a law mandating "car quality control", so only quite good cars are allowed to be sold.

You realize that cars sold in the U.S. are subject to quite exacting "car quality control" via the Department of Transportation and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), yes? And that there are a whole bunch of rules regarding minimum fuel economy, safety and efficiency?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Standards

Those are safety standards, not quality standards, so try again.

[dmmidmi]

The cost of care in this country would plummet rapidly if we abolished licensing laws for doctors and other health providers.

Yes likely it would, it's still the worst idea I have heard in a while.

No kidding. And actually, it probably wouldn't even "plummet rapidly," either. Licensing and regulatory bodies exist for a reason, y'know. If licensing laws were abolished, there would be literally nothing stopping me from practicing medicine, and I have zero medical training.

No hospital would hire you though. And it probably would plummet considerably.

And does that stop me from opening my own practice?

The  doctors' licensing scheme is just an AMA racket, and they have been precisely engineering the system to maximize their profits for decades. Abolishing licensing would see an explosion in the number of qualified practicing physicians, as that number was been below consumer demand for some time now.

84% of all takers are passing their boards on the first go-around: http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2013/07/01/why-are-so-many-younger-doctors-failing-their-boards/

I can't buy this last argument without supporting sources. And I can't buy that quality of care wouldn't suffer from having an influx of unlicensed professionals practicing medicine. You can bet that rural and frontier hospitals would be clamoring for unlicensed professionals, and that could be a serious danger to their patient populations.

Quality of doctors would certainly not be as high in the US if not for the stringent requirements these days, but realistically speaking, plenty of completely capable people are rejected anyway (or else don't bother knowing the high requirements) when it isn't necessary.

Imagine if the US passed a law mandating "car quality control", so only quite good cars are allowed to be sold. People with cars now are guaranteed to have fuel efficient, high performance, extremely safe cars. But this doesn't somehow make these cars cheaper, so many poor people that would otherwise get a less safe, crappier, less efficient car (because a poor car beats no car) simply get no car at all. Now imagine dumb non-Americans with nationalized car industries (producing a wide range of quality cars, not just "the best") pointed to America and said "look! America has a private car industry and the poor people there don['t have cars!" while idiots in America say "Look at these statistics of how good foreigners with nationalized car industries have it, with affordable cars and access!". Similarly, you don't need "the best" doctors when simply competent ones can get the job done. Other problems with American healthcare include:

-Insurance that doesn't function as insurance (if you use it to pay for foreseeable events like regular doctor visits, ITS NOT INSURANCE)
-Gigantic parasitic government programs piggybacking on the pseudo-free market insurance system (dumb Americans talk about how great single payer government run healthcare would be, but aren't dumb enough to mention the already existing single payer systems like the Indian Health Service and the VA.)
-Corrupt pharmaceutical industry regulated by the FDA, which basically only allows gigantic established corporations that pay them bribes to compete
-Americans are fat and unhealthy, something no system can really solve outright

Also, European healthcare isn't much better, and I suspect that their systems would be completely revamped if not for people using America like the boogey man saying "This is what you get with a private system!". Nordic countries have a system that actually functions like a Republican Party attack ad on Canadian healthcare. Germany is good basically because it looks nice compared to the broken Nordic model and the broken Eastern European systems. UK is like the US system but with more direct government control and more streamlining but less high quality at the better side of things, so very varied quality from one area to the next. Also, if you want anything decent you have to pay the government for your unreliable sh**te NHS service and then pay an insurance company AGAIN for a chance at something worthwhile.

The comparison between an automobile oversight panel and health professional licensing regulatory bodies is far from an apples-to-apples comparison--one is a commodity that we treat like a commodity, the other is a necessity that we treat like a commodity. You can live without a car (and a lot of people do)--it is far harder to live without access to health care.

These licensing and regulatory bodies do also apply to health professionals who work in safety net organizations (the only exception I can think of would be free clinics--which are often staffed by retired doctors, doing this work in their free time).

The link between strict licensing requirements and cost of health care is speculative, at best (I'll admit it may be there, but we don't know how much the difference is).

The rest of your post is pretty good, though. Especially the part about Americans being fat and unhealthy--by far one of the biggest expenses to our health care system. Things like diabetes and hypertension can, to a large extent, be better managed (this is a little harder in our inner cities, where access to fresh fruits and vegetables is more restricted). But, everybody gets all up in arms when the First Lady suggests putting down a cookie and picking up an apple instead, because, Freedom and 'merica.

[ingemann]

Everyone is brushing off Heironymous Boshemble's comment as classic utopo-libertarian nonsense, but there's a kernel of truth to the idea that overly restrictive medical licensing raises health care costs in a way that's more about rent-seeking doctors than it is about guaranteeing quality care for patients.  If we made it easier for foreign doctors to get relicensed in the US, for instance, that would probably put downward pressure in wages for doctors. Similarly, allowing nurses, dental hygienists, and nurse practitioners to do more without the supervision of a doctor would reduce treatment costs.

Yes there are a truth in it, but there are a reason people don't do it. The truth are that as example that in 99% of the cases a radiographer can see what's wrong with the patient. The problem are when the make the wrong diagnose in the last 1%. Which is why we use radiologists. It's the same problem in many other healthcare cases, in most case someone with a lower education, could make the right diagnose, but we are not willing to take the risk.

[dmmidmi]

Everyone is brushing off Heironymous Boshemble's comment as classic utopo-libertarian nonsense, but there's a kernel of truth to the idea that overly restrictive medical licensing raises health care costs in a way that's more about rent-seeking doctors than it is about guaranteeing quality care for patients.  If we made it easier for foreign doctors to get relicensed in the US, for instance, that would probably put downward pressure in wages for doctors.

I agree that it would be to our benefit to make it easier for foreign doctors to practice here, but some of the problems foreign doctors encounter are the same ones US medical graduates encounter: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/business/economy/long-slog-for-foreign-doctors-to-practice-in-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Namely, a shortage in residency positions.

Since 1999, after the IOM released To Err is Human, it became clear that hospitals throughout the country would make a strong emphasis to reduce medical errors and injuries. Loosening licensing requirements could have a devastating impact on patient safety.

Similarly, allowing nurses, dental hygienists, and nurse practitioners to do more without the supervision of a doctor would reduce treatment costs.

This is a lot easier said than done. The AMA and state-based physician organizations fight tooth-and-nail to protect their scope of practice. We're going through this right now: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140623/LIFESTYLE03/306230018

[Matty]

Mexico has far more lax requirements, and licensing laws are not even enforced in some parts  of the country. I found this out happily when I got my teeth worked on down there for an extremely fair price.

[Badger]

The cost of care in this country would plummet rapidly if we abolished licensing laws for doctors and other health providers.

Yes likely it would, it's still the worst idea I have heard in a while.

No kidding. And actually, it probably wouldn't even "plummet rapidly," either. Licensing and regulatory bodies exist for a reason, y'know. If licensing laws were abolished, there would be literally nothing stopping me from practicing medicine, and I have zero medical training.

No hospital would hire you though. And it probably would plummet considerably.

And does that stop me from opening my own practice?

The  doctors' licensing scheme is just an AMA racket, and they have been precisely engineering the system to maximize their profits for decades. Abolishing licensing would see an explosion in the number of qualified practicing physicians, as that number was been below consumer demand for some time now.

84% of all takers are passing their boards on the first go-around: http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2013/07/01/why-are-so-many-younger-doctors-failing-their-boards/

I can't buy this last argument without supporting sources. And I can't buy that quality of care wouldn't suffer from having an influx of unlicensed professionals practicing medicine. You can bet that rural and frontier hospitals would be clamoring for unlicensed professionals, and that could be a serious danger to their patient populations.

Quality of doctors would certainly not be as high in the US if not for the stringent requirements these days, but realistically speaking, plenty of completely capable people are rejected anyway (or else don't bother knowing the high requirements) when it isn't necessary.

Imagine if the US passed a law mandating "car quality control", so only quite good cars are allowed to be sold. People with cars now are guaranteed to have fuel efficient, high performance, extremely safe cars. But this doesn't somehow make these cars cheaper, so many poor people that would otherwise get a less safe, crappier, less efficient car (because a poor car beats no car) simply get no car at all. Now imagine dumb non-Americans with nationalized car industries (producing a wide range of quality cars, not just "the best") pointed to America and said "look! America has a private car industry and the poor people there don['t have cars!" while idiots in America say "Look at these statistics of how good foreigners with nationalized car industries have it, with affordable cars and access!". Similarly, you don't need "the best" doctors when simply competent ones can get the job done. Other problems with American healthcare include:

-Insurance that doesn't function as insurance (if you use it to pay for foreseeable events like regular doctor visits, ITS NOT INSURANCE)
-Gigantic parasitic government programs piggybacking on the pseudo-free market insurance system (dumb Americans talk about how great single payer government run healthcare would be, but aren't dumb enough to mention the already existing single payer systems like the Indian Health Service and the VA.)
-Corrupt pharmaceutical industry regulated by the FDA, which basically only allows gigantic established corporations that pay them bribes to compete
-Americans are fat and unhealthy, something no system can really solve outright

Also, European healthcare isn't much better, and I suspect that their systems would be completely revamped if not for people using America like the boogey man saying "This is what you get with a private system!". Nordic countries have a system that actually functions like a Republican Party attack ad on Canadian healthcare. Germany is good basically because it looks nice compared to the broken Nordic model and the broken Eastern European systems. UK is like the US system but with more direct government control and more streamlining but less high quality at the better side of things, so very varied quality from one area to the next. Also, if you want anything decent you have to pay the government for your unreliable sh**te NHS service and then pay an insurance company AGAIN for a chance at something worthwhile.

Dear God. It's returned.