[ExI] ...or else... was: RE: What happens when Bitcoin goes to a million bucks?

Mirco Romanato painlord2k at libero.it
Mon Nov 25 22:53:25 UTC 2013


Il 25/11/2013 18:32, spike ha scritto:

>> ...In Italy...A lot of people is forced to move from south to north to
> obtain the care they need. There are a lot of waiting time everywhere to see
> a MD specialist or obtain some examinations from the government health
> care...

> Ja.  Anywhere the same general rules apply: medical school is hard and
> expensive.  People will not invest in that if the doctors are not able to
> make a ton of money at it.  So it always means a shortage of doctors.  But I
> have an idea.  Read on please.

We will actually have a surplus of MD and specialists (because
practically one need to be a specialist to be hired by the health care
anyway).

We will have a penury of MD in the future, because they bungled the
numbers at the University system (like for the nurses).

But it is not a real problem. The numbers at the hospitals are lowering
anyway. We was 24 nurses in my ward fifteen years ago, now we are 21
(and not all full time). We barely have time to do what is needed now,
not much more. The same is true for MD. They just do not hire anyone or
hire the minimum legal number of MD they need.

>> ...So, no, I do not think if they move from Obamacare to GovernorsCare
> there will be any increase of efficiency. In the end, every local government
> will try to use the sector to obtain money and votes to stay in power...
> 
> I think there will be an increase in efficiency over federal-level health
> care.

Anything over water is better than underwater.

>> ...You need (and we need) to move to a free market health care, where
> people pay and obtain what the market can afford to offer at some price
> level and efficiency improvements are promptly rewarded...Mirco
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> It has been said the medical system is inherently incompatible with free
> markets.  I partially agree, but that is not to say it is hopeless or that
> the government can solve that problem.  One thing governments can do is be a
> lot more open minded to importing foreign doctors who did not get a
> bachelor's degree before going to medical school, as we usually require in
> the states.  I personally know a doctor who went to med school in Tehran
> right out of high school, got her MD at age 23, did a residency, practiced
> medicine for several years in Iran, fled the country 8 yrs ago, and has been
> struggling ever since just to get a residency in the USA, anywhere.
> Somewhere we need to have states which actively recruit foreign doctors who
> were trained in similar circumstances.  They would be lower cost.  We could
> take pharmacists and others that way too.

Plundering someone else stock will not solve your long term problems. At
most will delay the day of reckoning.
The solution is to reduce (in the US and everywhere) the bar to enter
health care as a professional provider. There are stuff nurses can do as
good or better than MD. There are other that could be done by
technicians without the need of nurses or MD.

A lot of stuff could be done by the patient itself, it the right tools
could be developed and commercialized. And this would reduce the costs
(direct and indirect) a lot.

> Nursing can be taken as a college major, right out of high school.  Why not
> medical school?  Why not pharmacy?  Wouldn't that increase the pool of
> doctors, and drive down the cost?

It all depend on what you want they be able to do.
If you want certified (by the government) or recognized (by the
government) individuals, you have problems.

The reason I advocate a completely private infrastructure people pay out
of pocket or with catastrophic insurance policies is because they have
every incentive to reduce costs and have a lean but effective structure
they are able and willing to re-purpose if the original purpose is no
more useful.
And, mainly, they have competition.

Remember the first thing to go out in case of government managed health
care is competition. Because government hate competition. With
competition they can not choose losers and winners.

BTW, how would you manage the streaming of people coming from a state to
another to obtain "free" health care?
Do you send them packing back to their home state?
In Italy is possible to accept all people because the central
government, as they distribute the funds, compensate for the expenses of
the past year. So a lot of money from the south regions is taken and
given to the northern regions to compensate them for the costs they
incur for treating the southerns residents.

If you have no way to compensate expenses, you go broke nor much slower
than Obamacare or you must start refuse treatments.

Mirco



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list