5 ms·
well, of course. imagine you are a business and the govmt could change a law and put you out of business. wouldn't you put as much money as you could into preve
by Upvoter33 10y ago
well, of course. imagine you are a business and the govmt could change a law and put you out of business. wouldn't you put as much money as you could into preventing that change?
this is why money in politics causes problems...
- joering2 10y agoSame old same old: show me a doctor who doesn't want you to be sick. Show me a lawyer who doesn't want you to get in trouble with law. Show me a priest who doesn't want you to sin. It just blows my mind up to what degree TurboTax will go with this!
- olegkikin 10y agoDoctors already have more patients than they can handle, that's why they work such crazy shifts.
- j2bax 10y agoI was under the impression that they worked crazy schedules so they could work 2-3 days and be off the other 4-5 days each week.
- pixelmonkey 10y agoAre you kidding? Very rare is the doctor with that kind of schedule.
- bollockitis 10y agoMy wife works at a regional cancer center and many of them do indeed have this kind of schedule. It's built into their contract.
- cmurf 10y agoI have a family full of doctors and none of them have schedules anything even approximating that; it'd be 4 days with 10-12 shifts, one 1/2 day defined as at least 6 hours or possibly an open ended 8, and two days off. This idea of 4-5 days off in a row, or even per week is nonsense.
- mikeash 10y agoI've never met a doctor who wants people to be sick. I'm sure they're out there, but the great majority wants to help people, and would gladly be put out of business.
- usaphp 10y ago> "and would gladly be put out of business" But someone still has pay their student loans :)
- bluejekyll 10y agoGiven that there is no magic cure everything potion, I highly doubt doctors will ever have an issue with a lack of patients. This is especially true if you consider population growth.
- sfeng 10y agoIn my experience it is taken as a given that people will continue needing medical care of one sort or another, so doctors at the microlevel don't worry too much about patients getting _too well_. The exception to this would be some corners of medical care with a lot of discretionary spending like cosmetic surgery, dentistry, etc. and even there a doctor doing work which doesn't need to be done is not looked upon favorably.
- abiox 10y ago> I've never met a doctor who wants people to be sick. i don't think this is meant in an interpersonal, malicious sense.
- Ezhik 10y agoShow me a doctor who'd spend millions of dollars for me to not get a cure
- blhack 10y agoI have never met a doctor (and I think I know a higher-than-average amount of doctors) who wants people to be sick.
- cowsandmilk 10y agoBut there are diseases where there is a debate over whether someone is "sick" and should be treated. E.g. slow-spreading cancers that likely won't kill you or cause symptoms until after you are dead. Procedures such as whole-body scans frequently turn up issues that would likely never be a problem. There are doctors who push these things that are of questionable medical efficacy, but definitely put money in their pockets.
- nemo1618 10y agoI think people are taking your comment too personally. It's not about an individual doctor, but the healthcare business. It's not about an individual lawyer, but the legal business.
- joering2 10y ago+1
- caoilte 10y agoDoctors want you to be sick? - no. HMOs? - maybe. Lawyers want you in trouble with the law? - no. Prison Corporations? - definitely. People are generally good, corporations are evil by design.
- praneshp 10y agoThat's nice to hear, but doesn't the analogy break down when you start thinking about what a corporation is? Unless you mean to say: Doctor want you to be sick? - no. Health Execs - yes.
- bluejekyll 10y agoCoporations need to make a profit. I don't think this necessarily makes them evil. The ones that you mention make a profit at the expense of people's wellbeing and happiness, so their profit motive definitely puts them in conflict with the better good of people. I would say corporations are generally amoral, not evil. This is why regulations for corporations are so important; they guarantee an appropriate way to make profit without say polluting all the drinking water in the country. In the case of the prisons and medical insurance, the profit motive is directly in conflict with the actual positive desired outcome. In cases like this it's clear that the government should be the service provider, where the desire is to reduce costs, not see them increase for profit.
- ebola1717 10y agoWhat can evil ever mean then? Like by that logic, slave-owners were not evil because they wanted to make a profit.
- bluejekyll 10y agoI guess for me, people can be evil, corporations aren't themselves capable of evil without people. One thing I would like to see more of is individuals who perform evil acts inside companies be held personally liable. To many walk away without any consequences, see Texaco and Venezuela. In terms of slave owners, the person is evil, and so was the system. I suppose you have a point that corporations can be evil in some cases, but I'd generally say that is because of a lack of regulations to restrain them, but this is obviously a gray area.
- dredmorbius 10y agoChinese system: pay doctor only when you're well. Allign incentives.
- hyperliner 10y agoPatient pays doctor when patient is following instructions, not eating fast food, not smoking, etc? That would make it even.
- umanwizard 10y agoBullshit, I have been to a public Chinese hospital and all I got before paying was a tech hooking me up to an EKG to verify I wasn't actively having a heart attack. Before I could see a doctor, I had to pay cash. I had to pay again to do the blood tests ordered by the doctor.
- dredmorbius 10y agoOn Health Care Compensation: Methods of Allocation: "The public may yet regard as commendable the Chinese custom of paying the physician only during the period health is maintained, all emoluments ceasing during sickness." Albert Abrams, Nervous Breakdown, Hicks-Judd Company, San Francisco, 1901, p 5 https://archive.org/stream/nervousbreakdown00abrarich#page/4/mode/2up https://archive.org/stream/nervousbreakdown00abrarich#page/4...
- sxg 10y agoIt's an analogous situation to last week's news about Apple banning self-updating apps in the App Store and Rollout.io's business model. Except that had the opposite outcome.