Comments on: Demagoguing Against Doctors Using Techniques Developed Demagoguing Oil Companies

By: Dan Smith MD

Dan Smith MD — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:21:10 +0000

Jim Collins’ anectdote provides rationale for eliminating as much as possible the barrier between patients and doctors produced by a faraway insurance company that can be fraudulently charged for unnecessary procedures. Look at Medicare fraud, for example. Medicare may have a low administrative overhead, but it makes fraud a lot easier to perpetrate. I don’t excuse the ER for ordering the EKG and Echo. But if Mr. Collins had to pay the charges up front, would they be so eager to perform the tests without explaining why they were necessary?

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:24:29 +0000

You may be correct that I didn’t provide enough information.
First off I’m big (6′-7″) 290 lbs., not obese.
Second my blood pressure was excellant, the doctor even commented on that.
I’m more inclined to agree with Dr. T’s numbers 2 and 4, add into that that I have excellent health insurance and #4 becomes real valid.

Dr. T’s number 2 is the issue here. I am quite willing to believe that it is the main reason. Number 2 is in place to protect the hospital in the event that I keel over walking out of the ER from a totally unrelated health issue.

If my blood pressure was high, if I had a history of heart attacks, if I was having trouble breathing, if I showed any indication of something being abnormal, then I would have no problem with these tests. Something like that saved my Mother’s life a few years ago. These tests were done for just two reasons. To protect the hospital and to help the hospital’s bottom line.

By: Dr. T

Dr. T — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:35:13 +0000

Jim Collins asked: “Why should I have had an EKG and a heart sonogram, when all I came into the ER for was stitches in my leg?”

A number of possibilies:

1. Someone thought you had an irregular heart rhythm or a heart murmur.
2. The ER has a (bad) protocol requiring those tests on obese people.
3. The doctor was clueless.
4. ER reimbursement is better for cardiac tests than for stitching.

By: Dr. T

Dr. T — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:29:03 +0000

Obama established a clear behavior pattern early in his presidency.

1. Decide to take over a big chunk of the economy.

2. Make illogical claims and malicious statements about the people or businesses in that part of economy.

3. Make totally absurd claims that the government can run that part of the economy better.

4. Apply illegal restrictions against that part of the economy while simultaneously make illegal government expansions into same.

5. Repeat step 4 until the government has it all.

It worked for commercial banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, non-bank financial institutions, a financial insurance giant, and two automobile companies. Next on the list are health care insurers and then all health care providers. Who knows what will follow as Obama continues his fascistic and socialistic policies.

By: mishu

mishu — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:16:12 +0000

Jim, maybe your blood pressure was through the roof? Would you then suggest that it’s not prudent to take the blood pressure of a bleeding person? Just a guess but it seems like you haven’t given us all the data.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:43:09 +0000

The first graph is a brilliant summary of how the oil companies have been hammered by every side of the political spectrum.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:04:40 +0000

orthodoc
Let me ask a question. Why should I have had an EKG and a heart sonogram, when all I came into the ER for was stitches in my leg?
Yes, I am a big guy and quite a bit on the heavy side, but all I needed was 10 stitches in my left leg.

By: Pops

Pops — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:49:15 +0000

Another tactic being employed here is the “good cop, bad cop” routine. Government interference in the medical marketplace has disrupted natural incentives to do the right thing (bad cop), so now government will step in to fix everything (good cop).

Current government interference in the health-care marketplace derives mainly from the tax exemption for employer-provided medical benefits. We might have a chance of getting back to free-market principles and a stable system if employer-provided medical benefits were simply taxed, thus removing much of the incentive for employers to get involved. So here’s a novel idea: people spend their own money for visits to the doctor. People spend their own money to buy real insurance to cover catastrophic events. If some people don’t have enough money to go to the doctor or to purchase real insurance, it would be better to just give them the money to do so rather than to destroy the entire free market. [To illustrate this last point - when people don't have enough money to buy food, we give them food stamps. We don't nationalize the entire food production and distribution system. Of course if someone from the Chairman Zero administration is reading this, they might get ideas...]

By: James H

James H — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:46:36 +0000

This is all just a bunch of prep to the masses and the compliant media to basically say that the doctors are wasting sooo much money with unnecessary crap, that the government should come in and take over. He knows that the cost of taking over is too high, and so the all-too-familiar solution comes along: rationing. Rationing seems to be the solution to every “problem” from energy to health care.

By: Sam L.

Sam L. — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:02:12 +0000

John, I believe you meant “The Mote In God’s Eye”, from which phrase the aliens were called Moties. Instapundit would have said “the gripping hand”–he has before.