4 ms·

Article does not address the problem why the doctors' behave this way: insurance companies. Unfortunately, treating makes more money than curing and the United

Article does not address the problem why the doctors' behave this way: insurance companies. Unfortunately, treating makes more money than curing and the United States is scared to death of what shall they do with all that free time if they actually do cure, while other countries do not work themselves to death because they do not have an artificially controlled supply of Doctors...

robbiep 9y ago
This is an absurd and oft-repeated claim that taps into variations of the conspiracy thinking around 'doctors keeping the cure for cancer (or insert other condition here) secret' because powerful lobby groups insist that there is more money to be made in 'treating' than 'curing'. It is patently untrue. Firstly, it assumes that neither doctors, nor the scientists and researchers working in the companies and universities that drive medical progress forward, have an ounce of self-respect for either themselves, their family members or members of the community - because if true, either family members and themselves would never get cancer or other chronic diseases that we 'treat', or if they are somehow as vulnerable as the rest of the population to these conditions, that maybe there is a secret stash of 'cure' somewhere that they allow out to the people in the know. The conspiracy goes deep... Secondly, it throws out the window all the evidence around what we can actually cure and what health policy seeks to do. We have an entire field of medicine called preventative medicine that aims to stop conditions before they happen, by lobbying governments to ie. Ban or decrease rates of Smoking and alcoholism, to provide safe needle exchange so IV Drug Users don't get bloodborne diseases, to improve exercise rates, to provide vaccination programs - all of which stop disease from happening. The fact of modern life in a western country is that most of the burden of disease is related to lifestyle factors or age related - Osteoarthritis (Age and Obesity), Cancers (Lifestyle risks and age), Diabetes (Diet, exercise, genetics) Cardiovascular disease (Exercise, Age, Lifestyle risks, diet). It also ignores the tremendous advances that are still occuring. When I was in my final year of Medical school, 5 years ago, Metastatic Melanoma was a condition with an average survival of 6 months. It is now (thanks to some incredible, and incredibly expensive drugs - don't get into a debate about cost here, I live and practice in Australia and the cost for a patient is capped at $46.60 per year as it is on the PBS) more of a chronic disease with average survival in the 4-5 year range. Incredible, and this progress occured in 5 years. Similarly, Hepatitis C, a condition that in it's chronic form invariably results in liver cirrhosis and failure, can now be cured - this was unthinkable 5 years ago, and is now a fact, with a 12 week course of medicine. Please inform yourself and don't just trumpet that which you hear on the internet. Your ignorance is not as valid as my knowledge and to assume that in your version of this myth that insurance companies (but in the more common version of this myth, Doctors, Pharmaceutical Companies etc) are primarially interested in keeping the population teetering on the edge to milk them dry is disingenuous.
- bob_theslob646 9y ago
  > Your ignorance is not as valid as my knowledge and to assume that in your version of this myth that insurance companies (but in the more common version of this myth, Doctors, Pharmaceutical Companies etc) are primarially interested in keeping the population teetering on the edge to milk them dry is disingenuous. You really know how to talk to people haha. It seems like you were triggered by something I said even though it did not apply to you.Take a breath. It is okay for other people to have different viewpoints on the medical industry in the United States. >This is an absurd and oft-repeated claim that taps into variations of the conspiracy thinking around 'doctors keeping the cure for cancer (or insert other condition here) secret' because powerful lobby groups insist that there is more money to be made in 'treating' than 'curing'. It is patently untrue. Where are your sources? I never stated that they are hiding the cure for cancer? It is a fact that treating vs curing is a business model in the United States. The U.S outspends everyone yet gets them same results >https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/04/20/524774195/what-country-spends-the-most-and-least-on-health-care-per-person https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/04/20/5247741... It is also true that privacy data laws and business models are impeding the impact of disruption in healthcare where technology is disrupting every other field. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/alphabet-s-deepmind-is-trying-to-transform-health-care-but-should-an-ai-company-have-your-health-records https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/alphabet-...) I never mentioned anything about Australia, I was talking about the United States. I cannot speak for Australia. >Please inform yourself and don't just trumpet that which you hear on the internet. The fact that medical records are not electronic being a standard is laughable. I cannot speak for anyone else but the United States. HIPA laws are one of the reasons which makes it harder for researchers and doctors to actually get data they need to develop cures because of the need an individual signature for everyone. Regarding Supply of Doctors >In the United States, the supply of doctors is tightly controlled by the number of medical school slots, and more importantly, the number of medical residencies. Those are both set by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, a body dominated by physicians’ organizations. The United States, unlike other countries, requires physicians to complete a U.S. residency program to practice. (Since 2011, graduates of Canadian programs have also been allowed to practice in the U.S., although there are still substantial obstacles.) This means that U.S. doctors get to legally limit their competition. As a result, U.S. doctors receive higher pay, and like anyone in a position to exploit a cartel, they also get patients to buy services (i.e., from specialists) that they don’t really need. (https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/10/25/doctors-salaries-pay-disparities-000557 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/10/25/doctors-sal...) Limits on the supply of doctors a conspiracy? >https://mises.org/library/how-government-helped-create-coming-doctor-shortage https://mises.org/library/how-government-helped-create-comin... >https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/does-the-ama-limit-the-number-of-doctors-to-increase-current-doctors-salaries https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/does-the-a... >https://www.quora.com/Who-or-what-controls-the-number-of-medical-doctors-in-the-U-S https://www.quora.com/Who-or-what-controls-the-number-of-med... It is also a fact that insurance companies are the most powerful lobby in the United States. >https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-dea-agent-opioid-crisis-fueled-by-drug-industry-and-congress/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-dea-agent-opioid-crisis-fuel... Business Model Point >Imagine a portable, low-intensity X-ray machine that can be wheeled between offices on a small cart. It creates images of such clarity that pediatricians, internists, and nurses can detect cracks in bones or lumps in tissue in their offices, not in a hospital. It works through a patented “nanocrystal” process, which uses night-vision technology borrowed from the military. At 10% of the cost of a conventional X-ray machine, it could save patients, their employers, and insurance companies hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. Great innovation, right? Guess again. When the entrepreneur who developed the machine tried to license the technology to established health care companies, he couldn’t even get his foot in the door. Large-scale X-ray equipment suppliers wanted no part of it. Why? Because it threatened their business models. (https://hbr.org/2000/09/will-disruptive-innovations-cure-health-care https://hbr.org/2000/09/will-disruptive-innovations-cure-hea...)

robbiep 9y ago

This is an absurd and oft-repeated claim that taps into variations of the conspiracy thinking around 'doctors keeping the cure for cancer (or insert other condition here) secret' because powerful lobby groups insist that there is more money to be made in 'treating' than 'curing'. It is patently untrue. Firstly, it assumes that neither doctors, nor the scientists and researchers working in the companies and universities that drive medical progress forward, have an ounce of self-respect for either themselves, their family members or members of the community - because if true, either family members and themselves would never get cancer or other chronic diseases that we 'treat', or if they are somehow as vulnerable as the rest of the population to these conditions, that maybe there is a secret stash of 'cure' somewhere that they allow out to the people in the know. The conspiracy goes deep... Secondly, it throws out the window all the evidence around what we can actually cure and what health policy seeks to do. We have an entire field of medicine called preventative medicine that aims to stop conditions before they happen, by lobbying governments to ie. Ban or decrease rates of Smoking and alcoholism, to provide safe needle exchange so IV Drug Users don't get bloodborne diseases, to improve exercise rates, to provide vaccination programs - all of which stop disease from happening. The fact of modern life in a western country is that most of the burden of disease is related to lifestyle factors or age related - Osteoarthritis (Age and Obesity), Cancers (Lifestyle risks and age), Diabetes (Diet, exercise, genetics) Cardiovascular disease (Exercise, Age, Lifestyle risks, diet). It also ignores the tremendous advances that are still occuring. When I was in my final year of Medical school, 5 years ago, Metastatic Melanoma was a condition with an average survival of 6 months. It is now (thanks to some incredible, and incredibly expensive drugs - don't get into a debate about cost here, I live and practice in Australia and the cost for a patient is capped at $46.60 per year as it is on the PBS) more of a chronic disease with average survival in the 4-5 year range. Incredible, and this progress occured in 5 years. Similarly, Hepatitis C, a condition that in it's chronic form invariably results in liver cirrhosis and failure, can now be cured - this was unthinkable 5 years ago, and is now a fact, with a 12 week course of medicine. Please inform yourself and don't just trumpet that which you hear on the internet. Your ignorance is not as valid as my knowledge and to assume that in your version of this myth that insurance companies (but in the more common version of this myth, Doctors, Pharmaceutical Companies etc) are primarially interested in keeping the population teetering on the edge to milk them dry is disingenuous.

bob_theslob646 9y ago
> Your ignorance is not as valid as my knowledge and to assume that in your version of this myth that insurance companies (but in the more common version of this myth, Doctors, Pharmaceutical Companies etc) are primarially interested in keeping the population teetering on the edge to milk them dry is disingenuous. You really know how to talk to people haha. It seems like you were triggered by something I said even though it did not apply to you.Take a breath. It is okay for other people to have different viewpoints on the medical industry in the United States. >This is an absurd and oft-repeated claim that taps into variations of the conspiracy thinking around 'doctors keeping the cure for cancer (or insert other condition here) secret' because powerful lobby groups insist that there is more money to be made in 'treating' than 'curing'. It is patently untrue. Where are your sources? I never stated that they are hiding the cure for cancer? It is a fact that treating vs curing is a business model in the United States. The U.S outspends everyone yet gets them same results >https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/04/20/524774195/what-country-spends-the-most-and-least-on-health-care-per-person https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/04/20/5247741... It is also true that privacy data laws and business models are impeding the impact of disruption in healthcare where technology is disrupting every other field. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/alphabet-s-deepmind-is-trying-to-transform-health-care-but-should-an-ai-company-have-your-health-records https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/alphabet-...) I never mentioned anything about Australia, I was talking about the United States. I cannot speak for Australia. >Please inform yourself and don't just trumpet that which you hear on the internet. The fact that medical records are not electronic being a standard is laughable. I cannot speak for anyone else but the United States. HIPA laws are one of the reasons which makes it harder for researchers and doctors to actually get data they need to develop cures because of the need an individual signature for everyone. Regarding Supply of Doctors >In the United States, the supply of doctors is tightly controlled by the number of medical school slots, and more importantly, the number of medical residencies. Those are both set by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, a body dominated by physicians’ organizations. The United States, unlike other countries, requires physicians to complete a U.S. residency program to practice. (Since 2011, graduates of Canadian programs have also been allowed to practice in the U.S., although there are still substantial obstacles.) This means that U.S. doctors get to legally limit their competition. As a result, U.S. doctors receive higher pay, and like anyone in a position to exploit a cartel, they also get patients to buy services (i.e., from specialists) that they don’t really need. (https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/10/25/doctors-salaries-pay-disparities-000557 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/10/25/doctors-sal...) Limits on the supply of doctors a conspiracy? >https://mises.org/library/how-government-helped-create-coming-doctor-shortage https://mises.org/library/how-government-helped-create-comin... >https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/does-the-ama-limit-the-number-of-doctors-to-increase-current-doctors-salaries https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/does-the-a... >https://www.quora.com/Who-or-what-controls-the-number-of-medical-doctors-in-the-U-S https://www.quora.com/Who-or-what-controls-the-number-of-med... It is also a fact that insurance companies are the most powerful lobby in the United States. >https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-dea-agent-opioid-crisis-fueled-by-drug-industry-and-congress/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-dea-agent-opioid-crisis-fuel... Business Model Point >Imagine a portable, low-intensity X-ray machine that can be wheeled between offices on a small cart. It creates images of such clarity that pediatricians, internists, and nurses can detect cracks in bones or lumps in tissue in their offices, not in a hospital. It works through a patented “nanocrystal” process, which uses night-vision technology borrowed from the military. At 10% of the cost of a conventional X-ray machine, it could save patients, their employers, and insurance companies hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. Great innovation, right? Guess again. When the entrepreneur who developed the machine tried to license the technology to established health care companies, he couldn’t even get his foot in the door. Large-scale X-ray equipment suppliers wanted no part of it. Why? Because it threatened their business models. (https://hbr.org/2000/09/will-disruptive-innovations-cure-health-care https://hbr.org/2000/09/will-disruptive-innovations-cure-hea...)