4 ms·

I'm surprised that the article doesn't mention the effect that the AMA has had on the medical community. The article points out that in France and the UK one a

by splat 17y ago

I'm surprised that the article doesn't mention the effect that the AMA has had on the medical community. The article points out that in France and the UK one aspiring doctors go to medical school for free immemdiately after high school, whereas in the US aspiring doctors go to a university before going to medical school and must pay tuition for both (not to mention the residency period afterward). This is a consequence of rules put in place by the AMA (which, in turn, are backed up by legislation). The AMA has ensured that doctors in the US tend to be quite good, but it has also restricted the supply. The result is that cheap, lower-quality doctors are forbidden from entering the marketplace. In many cases, this is good -- I wouldn't want to undergo open-heart surgery with a low-quality doctor. But if I break my arm, do I really need to see a doctor who has had over 10 years of training? I would likely be just as well off seeing a doctor who is not quite as good and has had only a few years of training. As a consequence of the AMA, patients are forced to see extremely well-trained doctors even for routine procedures. In many cases, this is just overkill. But the net effect is reduction in the supply of doctors, and an increase in their salaries.

gcheong 17y ago
The physician's assistant is a position that was created in order to fill the need for lower cost medical care where direct consultation with an actual physician is not required but it does not seem to have really taken off in the US as far as I can tell. One thing that does seem to have an effect in lowering medical costs long term is technology such as the Da Vinci robot which allows "regular" doctors to perform procedures that previously could only be done by highly skilled surgeons.
oldgregg 17y ago
SPOT ON. The AMA is an unconstitutional cartel that punishes the poor. All the changes they are talking about are total bullshit until this issue is addressed. And what about prescriptions? The vast majority of drugs are safer than a bottle of Nyquil, but oh, we have to protect you so you have to make a doctors visit for some freaking allegra. Prescriptions need to come to an end unless it's a highly addictive or dangerous (class II?). You can't let the "experts" dictate what is best for all those "dumb citizens" when they stand to dramatically benefit from fear-mongering. It's elitist idiocy. It's the same reason why I'm highly skeptical of most global warming policy. Maybe we have global warming, but we have no idea if we can even stop it to begin with-- so hell, let's just let the "experts" make stuff up ("change your light bulbs!")... while we dump tons of money into funding research projects. Dumb.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  What the hell are you talking about? Unconstitutional? The AMA is a professional association. A private professional association. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal and state governments and certainly doesn't have anything to say about the AMA... You can't let the "experts" dictate what is best for all those "dumb citizens" when they stand to dramatically benefit from fear-mongering. It's elitist idiocy. It's the same reason why I'm highly skeptical of most global warming policy. Maybe we have global warming, but we have no idea if we can even stop it to begin with-- so hell, let's just let the "experts" make stuff up ("change your light bulbs!")... while we dump tons of money into funding research projects. Dumb. Ahh... Ok... Global warming skeptic: this makes so much more sense. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about and, more to the point, are certainly not qualified to make any kind of judgment on "the vast majority of drugs." Please come back with some actual data next time.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
Locke1689 17y ago
Let me just clarify one point here: are you calling for the loosening of the requirements to become a physician or are you asking for the creation of a perhaps less accredited, more specialized practicing subfield? I can see the reason why that would be useful, however I can also see how that would be dangerous. Consider this example: someone has just gotten into a car accident. They come into the hospital after the EMT has checked them out with only a broken arm. However, what the EMT missed is that they have actually suffered appendiceal rupture (ruptured appendix) as well and will die of septicemia very soon if not operated on ASAP. I'm worried that a less qualified physician may miss such a diagnosis, whereas the general training should cover this case. In that case we could make a specific rule: people who get in car accidents need to see an MD physician. However, I think there are a number of cases where a full physician may catch something that someone with less training missed. Therefore, is it really cost effective to have someone less trained on the staff if they're only utilized in very specific situations? I'm not claiming that your idea is wrong, only that it may be a little more complex than it first appears. Edit: Peritonitis, I should say. If they've already developed septicemia, not only will it be pretty obvious (for the most part, so will appendiceal rupture), but there's a decent chance they'll die even with the best treatment.
kingnothing 17y ago
Perhaps you should start making appointments with nurse practitioners and physician assistants instead of full blown MDs for your routine health care needs.

by splat 17y ago

gcheong 17y ago

The physician's assistant is a position that was created in order to fill the need for lower cost medical care where direct consultation with an actual physician is not required but it does not seem to have really taken off in the US as far as I can tell. One thing that does seem to have an effect in lowering medical costs long term is technology such as the Da Vinci robot which allows "regular" doctors to perform procedures that previously could only be done by highly skilled surgeons.

oldgregg 17y ago

SPOT ON. The AMA is an unconstitutional cartel that punishes the poor. All the changes they are talking about are total bullshit until this issue is addressed. And what about prescriptions? The vast majority of drugs are safer than a bottle of Nyquil, but oh, we have to protect you so you have to make a doctors visit for some freaking allegra. Prescriptions need to come to an end unless it's a highly addictive or dangerous (class II?). You can't let the "experts" dictate what is best for all those "dumb citizens" when they stand to dramatically benefit from fear-mongering. It's elitist idiocy. It's the same reason why I'm highly skeptical of most global warming policy. Maybe we have global warming, but we have no idea if we can even stop it to begin with-- so hell, let's just let the "experts" make stuff up ("change your light bulbs!")... while we dump tons of money into funding research projects. Dumb.

Locke1689 17y ago
What the hell are you talking about? Unconstitutional? The AMA is a professional association. A private professional association. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal and state governments and certainly doesn't have anything to say about the AMA... You can't let the "experts" dictate what is best for all those "dumb citizens" when they stand to dramatically benefit from fear-mongering. It's elitist idiocy. It's the same reason why I'm highly skeptical of most global warming policy. Maybe we have global warming, but we have no idea if we can even stop it to begin with-- so hell, let's just let the "experts" make stuff up ("change your light bulbs!")... while we dump tons of money into funding research projects. Dumb. Ahh... Ok... Global warming skeptic: this makes so much more sense. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about and, more to the point, are certainly not qualified to make any kind of judgment on "the vast majority of drugs." Please come back with some actual data next time.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

Locke1689 17y ago

Let me just clarify one point here: are you calling for the loosening of the requirements to become a physician or are you asking for the creation of a perhaps less accredited, more specialized practicing subfield? I can see the reason why that would be useful, however I can also see how that would be dangerous. Consider this example: someone has just gotten into a car accident. They come into the hospital after the EMT has checked them out with only a broken arm. However, what the EMT missed is that they have actually suffered appendiceal rupture (ruptured appendix) as well and will die of septicemia very soon if not operated on ASAP. I'm worried that a less qualified physician may miss such a diagnosis, whereas the general training should cover this case. In that case we could make a specific rule: people who get in car accidents need to see an MD physician. However, I think there are a number of cases where a full physician may catch something that someone with less training missed. Therefore, is it really cost effective to have someone less trained on the staff if they're only utilized in very specific situations? I'm not claiming that your idea is wrong, only that it may be a little more complex than it first appears. Edit: Peritonitis, I should say. If they've already developed septicemia, not only will it be pretty obvious (for the most part, so will appendiceal rupture), but there's a decent chance they'll die even with the best treatment.

kingnothing 17y ago

Perhaps you should start making appointments with nurse practitioners and physician assistants instead of full blown MDs for your routine health care needs.