Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Ouch.

Posted by John Kavanagh at November 4, 2004 11:25 AM

Attaboy Rand - go ahead and take someone else's medical problems to score a cheap political point.

Posted by Keith Cowing at November 4, 2004 01:15 PM

Rand, that was beneath you.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 4, 2004 01:21 PM

I knew that someone was going to say that. Nonetheless, the point remains. Senator Edwards will probably be fortunate, though, and not reap what he sows. And I'm even willing to sincerely hope that's the case.

As I said, my best wishes to them and their family.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 4, 2004 01:24 PM

I have no doubt that she can afford good medical care, what with the millions her husband got from 'channeling' dead infants in court and similar lawyerly shenannigans.

Posted by David Mercer at November 4, 2004 02:26 PM

Your explanation not withstanding your comments are just plain mean, insensitive, and beneath contempt.

Posted by Keith Cowing at November 4, 2004 03:00 PM

Your explanation not withstanding your comments are just plain mean, insensitive, and beneath contempt.

Ummm...OK.

Thanks for your opinion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 4, 2004 03:05 PM

I know he was harsh, but I agree with Rand on this one. People need to learn that there are potentially severe long-term consequences for their short-term greediness. Sadly, experience is sometimes the best teacher.

It's unfortunate that Mrs. Edwards might suffer from this, but how many thousands of doctors and patients have already suffered from the ridiculously high cost of their Medical Malpractice payments?

And who is most directly to blame for this?

And what incentive is there for lawyers to reign in their actions?

Is the problem getting better, or worse?

I must respectfully disagree with Keith that these are "cheap political points".

I wish her the best, but I certainly wouldn't put the Edwardses in the 'innocent victims' file. Maybe the 'harsh but ironic' one.

-S

Posted by Stephen Kohls at November 4, 2004 03:09 PM

Anyone who uses someone's breast cancer just to score a political point against her husband has a few screws loose. Indeed it is sickening.

Posted by Keith Cowing at November 4, 2004 03:25 PM

> Anyone who uses someone's breast cancer just to score a political point
> against her husband has a few screws loose. Indeed it is sickening.

Yet, if someone uses Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's, Christopher Reeve's spinal injury, Cheney's daughter, etc. to score political points, you will vote to make him President of the United States?

Interesting.

Posted by at November 4, 2004 03:39 PM

John Edwards claimed to be channeling a dead infant, repeating her tail of pain in the womb and her negative feelings of evil coming from the doctor. While she was in the womb, and pre-linguistic.

And nothing the doctor (or quite a number of others like him) did had any medical connection to what they were being sued for, at least not any peer reviewed one.

So Edwards has PERSONALLY lied and thereby destroyed lives for personal gain. That level of greed is widely considered 'evil' by those who believe in the concept, regardless of religious persuasion.

So yeah, the irony isn't QUITE as high as when Linda McCartney got breast cancer. I thought at the time that she shouldn't have been allowed to use any treatments that were tested on animals, as by HER standards that was 'evil'. She spent a considerable amount of her time and money campaigning against doctors and treatments she later wanted to save her life.

In both that case and Mrs. Edwards supposed "do it for the children" encouragement of her husband to practice his career as he did, I find the irony to be very deep.

So while I may not have much love lost for either Bush the Elder or his son, as a long-suffering apostate Reaganite, I can gladly feel some schadenfrude at Edwards dual commupance. Years of taking shit for Ronnie's later feebleness paid just a little back inside today.

Posted by David Mercer at November 4, 2004 04:42 PM

You people are *really* nuts.

Posted by Keith Cowing at November 4, 2004 04:56 PM

Implying that Christopher Reeve would be alive but for stem cell research was over the top, and frankly a stupid thing to say since it is such an easy target for the anti-research crowd. And comments about Cheney's daughter were rightly condemned. That doesn't mean that everyone should follow these examples. I didn't wan't Edwards as VP, I didn't like his "poor loser" speech, and I don't even like him very much. But I know how much it must hurt to both have this happen to his family and lose the election at the same time, and I don't believe in hitting a man when he is down.

Posted by VR at November 4, 2004 05:05 PM

I look at it from a different angle. Her doctors had better do their gods-honest best with this woman, because she's married to a damn good lawyer.

My best wishes to her and her family, I have friends going through it right now and its not fun.

Posted by John Irving at November 4, 2004 05:23 PM

I've said it once. No, actually, I've said it twice.

Apparently, it's necessary to say it again.

I wish the best for Mrs. Edwards and her family (as long as it doesn't involve his achieving any higher office than he's had).

I also wish that he hadn't made it more difficult for other families in similar medical situations to get affordable care. I don't think that those two wishes are in any way incompatible, or that pointing it out is a "cheap shot."

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 4, 2004 05:38 PM

If you don't see the insensitivity in what you originally wrote then there is not much more I can do to point it out to you.

Posted by Keith Cowing at November 4, 2004 05:44 PM

If you don't see the insensitivity in what you originally wrote then there is not much more I can do to point it out to you.

Well, the issue is not whether or not I see the "insensitivity." I certainly see (and in fact was aware at the time I wrote it) that some would view it as insensitive. I was also aware that others would not.

When it comes to sensitivity, I am most concerned about who has the sensibilities that will be injured. If I were running a column in the New York Times, I'd almost certainly have not put the two thoughts in the same post (or in that case, column). That's why I have a blog, so that I can write what I think. I'm reasonably confident that none of the Edwards family reads my blog, and thus it's unlikely that any of them will be in any way injured by anything I write here. If someone else chooses to forward the URL of my post to them, then it is that person who is being insensitive (indeed sadistic), not me.

My point remains.

And I continue to hope the best for Mrs. Edwards, and hope that she lives a long and healthy life.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 4, 2004 05:55 PM

Actually, my first thought about hearing of Mrs. Edwards' plight was, "Who's John gonna sue now?"

Posted by Simon Jester at November 4, 2004 06:50 PM

It's unfortunate that Mrs. Edwards might suffer from this, but how many thousands of doctors and patients have already suffered from the ridiculously high cost of their Medical Malpractice payments? And who is most directly to blame for this?

Let us get a grip, eh? Whoever is responsible, it isn't Elizabeth Edwards. She's not a medical malpractice lawyer. She's merely married to one. And even though John Edwards has indeed caused (with the help of a few citizen juries, don't forget) considerable harm to our civilization, civilized people do not punish wives for the actions of their husbands. After all, very similar and equally faulty logic was used on the left to suggest the President was personally responsible for Abu Ghraib. They're the party of hate, remember?

Let's take a clue from the President. When he learned Bill Clinton had to have bypass, he didn't say well, that's what the old amoral rake gets for living in the fast lane. The President spoke from Christian charity and humility. If he can do it, shouldn't we?

I also strongly agree with VR: They started it is no excuse for any wrong thing. I doubt any of us accept this excuse even from our children.

You people are *really* nuts.

Well, sure. We want to blast off for Mars in tin cans breathing bottled air just for the view, remember? What could be more nuts than that? But parenthetically may I suggest a more constructive rejoinder? Some felicitous rephrasing, for example?

Elizabeth Edwards has cancer. We all know how difficult her life has now become. We wish her the best of luck in her fight, and hope very much she is victorious.

One thing we are unable to realistically hope for, however, is that the medical treatment Mrs. Edwards needs will be reasonably priced. And that is largely due to the rapacious behaviour of America's medical malpractice lawyers, one of whom, in bitter irony, happens to be Mrs. Edwards husband. John Edwards made the fortune that later enabled him to run for Congress by litigating medical malpractice claims of dubious merit, in the process needlessly raising the costs of medical care in North Carolina.

The juxtaposition of Mrs. Edwards' unfortunate present plight and Mr. Edwards unfortunate past actions brings forcefully to mind the fact that America desperately needs medical tort reform. Indeed, the President has made it a second-term priority, which means even Mrs. Edwards might ultimately be thankful that her husband did not succeed in his quest to become our next Vice-President.

And now here's my screed on tort reform. . .blah blah foo bar baz. . .

Posted by Carl Pham at November 4, 2004 09:01 PM

If I was a doctor, given Edwards' history af suing members of my profession on a total lack of grounds, I would think long and hard before I accepted Mrs. Edwards- or any other malpractice trial lawyer, or member of their families- as a patient. There's too much risk that my ability to treat my patient will be affected by legal concerns.

As a side note, has anyone considered how the legal profession's habit of "crying wolf" on medical malpractice has negatively affected the quality of care? I would rather have a doctor who is interested in curing my ailments than one who is interested in insuring that he has a clean paper trail...

Posted by DaveP. at November 4, 2004 09:41 PM

Keith Cowing, your high-minded ideas on not bringing the political to mix with the personal would work wonderfully in a platonic marble-columned Olympus, where philosopher-gods discuss matters of music and beauty with no relation at all to the poor sap trying to ring up a doctor in the mountains of North Carolina. Ooh look, a pink pegasus just flew by.

Pff.

Did Mrs Edwards provide a moral centre against John Edwards's greed, or did she encourage it? I only know two things about her. One is that she didn't return her husband's ill-gotten gains back to the hospitals from which they were extracted. Another is that when asked if there'd be violence after the election, she responded "not if we win". So I think it is a fair bet to say that she encouraged him.

If she is Christian, she should pray for forgiveness first and for healing second.

Posted by David Ross at November 4, 2004 11:32 PM

You people are really twisted. Seriously.

Posted by Keith Cowing at November 4, 2004 11:50 PM

You are in a maze of twisty little comments, all alike.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 5, 2004 04:03 AM

Rand, whatever your excuse, your willingness to frame a cancer victim as the recipient of some sort of comeuppance, and to revel in her possible suffering, is disgusting to any normal person.

Posted by John Plato at November 5, 2004 07:54 AM

...your willingness to frame a cancer victim as the recipient of some sort of comeuppance, and to revel in her possible suffering...

Has any of the commenters of this thread read what I actually wrote, in both the original post and my own follow-up comments? Can you, or anyone, point out the specific words that I wrote that constitute "revelling in her potential suffering"?

I am not "framing her as a victim of comeuppance." She is a victim of breast cancer, something that had absolutely nothing to do with her husband. I continue to repeat, I sincerely hope that she recovers completely, as painlessly as possible, and lives a long and happy life, despite her behavior on the trail.

I am simply pointing out that there are other victims of his behavior who may not be as fortunate as her--the many cancer patients who get poor treatment, or can't afford good treatment, because of the high costs of defensive medicine, or the reduced amount of competition as a result of doctors who have gotten out of the business altogether because of people like John Edwards. Elizabeth Edwards will get the best possible medical care, because her husband got rich by helping wreck the system for those of us who aren't millionaires.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 5, 2004 08:08 AM

Thank you Rand, THAT was my main point too. The Elizabeth Edwardses and Linda McCartneys of the world don't suffer for their actions that make medical care for serious illnesses more expensive. And then we're just supposed to sit back and not point that out when the irony detector goes off; when there personal pain provides the perfect illustration of how their previous actions were, in fact, contrary to their own and societies greater good.

And we're not supposed to point this out?
That actions have consequences, and that not all beliefs and positions are equally good, and that some are harmful?

And for the poster above, yes, Mrs. Edwards did encourage her husbands suing ways, to 'help the children', in cases for which there is no scientific, merely a legal, case.

Personal responsibility truly must be dead here. That's why while THIS dope-smoking anarcho-capitalist agnostic: while I don't agree with George Bush's and the Evangelical wing of the GOP's principles, at least I can be sure they have some. They still believe in truth at least, even if I think they are mistaken.

Posted by David Mercer at November 5, 2004 08:42 AM

The more you try and defend your comments the creepier you sound.

Posted by Keith Cowing at November 5, 2004 08:43 AM

Yes, Keith. We get the message.

I'm "creepy."

You can stop wasting bandwidth and disk space repeating it any time now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 5, 2004 08:45 AM

They're more than "twisted", Keith. They are the opposition, the enemies of democracy. These are the hate-filled bigots who put Bush in the White House again. Walk away and let them show their true colors. It is time for everyone to see what drives them. It will disgust them.

Posted by billg at November 5, 2004 03:51 PM

billg - I think you misspelled your name.

Shouldn't it be "bile"?

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at November 5, 2004 05:11 PM

Maybe its supposed to be "bilge" Barbara.

Rand, the Left doesn't believe in consequences. They also hate the free market, and instead would prefer a free lunch. And every time the world slaps them in the face with TANSTAAFL, a few more lefties switch to the right, and the rest weep and wail and recruit fresh fodder.

Posted by John Irving at November 5, 2004 05:33 PM

Nah- what it is is that Edwards and his wife are now in the category of "victims"... which means they get an automatic free pass for everything they've ever said or done.

If they survive, they're "heros", and we must admire thier "courage".

Unless they're Republican, of course: then everything that happens to them is vengeance upon them and automatically grounds for rejoicing.

Posted by DaveP. at November 5, 2004 06:09 PM

You people are really sick.

Posted by Keith Cowing at November 5, 2004 06:16 PM

I saw nothing wrong with Rand's comments. There is no malice in pointing out the irony in the situation. Just because somebody is battling through some present hardship is no reason to completely absolve them of their actions. You can take this point to extremes by using Hitler or a serial murderer as the subject. If someone like them gets cancer, are they all of a sudden a victim? Please.

The facts are: Ms. Edwards has breast cancer. Mr. Edwards has made it tough for a great percentage of people to afford quality medical care. The irony is somewhat dulled by their wealth, but nevertheless it is significant.

It would be very interesting if the Edwards were unable to find a doctor who would treat her. What if they ALL claimed that they just couldn't risk it due to her husband's prodigious litigation? I know that it would never happen, but it sure seems like the presence of the Sword of Damocl... er, Mr. Edwards, will affect the quality of the medical care given to Mrs. Edwards.

Keith, simply pointing out that anybody who disagrees with you is "sick" or "twisted" is not an especially effective arguing technique. I do not consider myself left or right, and while I have noticed that this attitude seems to afflict a large percentage of liberals I also think that it exists very much on the right, especially among the evangelical Christians.

Posted by Greg M. at November 6, 2004 12:27 AM

So, at last the true face of "Compassionate Conservatism" comes to light. Would your Jesus approve of this sort of behavior? You have in-fact become the very thing of which YOU are the most scared. How does it feel to be the devil?

Posted by Billy The Blogging Poet at November 6, 2004 10:54 AM

Actually, it seems to me that the biggest problem with this whole thread is the underlying acceptance of the propaganda that Bush and the Republican spinmeisters have fed the masses, namely that the 'reason' that medical costs are high is because of those 'evil' trial lawyers and their 'nasty' lawsuits. This Orwellian technique of demonizing a subgroup in order to distract supporters from the real issues has become a surprisingly affective tactic of the conservative strategists. Sadly, life is not as simple as they would lead you to believe. Believe it or not, John Edwards is not the devil and is not singularly or, by association, corporately responsible for the high costs of health care. Blame is shared by the medical insurnce companies (an important lobby in DC and strong supporters of W), and the prescription drug companies who artificially inflate prices in this country under the guise of R & D. These companies have very strong ties to our conservative friends as well.

So, if you are going to stoop to taking cheap shots at the expense of Mrs. Edwards and her illness and the real grief that John Edwards must be feeling, you could at least have the dignity to take a shot that is not shallow or specious.

Posted by Michael at November 6, 2004 01:44 PM

John Edwards is not the devil and is not singularly or, by association, corporately responsible for the high costs of health care.

True statement.

Blame is shared by the medical. . .companies. . .and the prescription drug companies who artificially inflate prices. . .under the guise of R & D.

Brainless lunacy. My friend, the health care industry is as free a market as you are going to find in this imperfect world. The cost of medical care simply reflects the cost of providing it. If it did not, then some bright-eyed entrepreneur would jump in the game, undersell everyone else, and make a killing. Think of Michael Dell slaughtering Compaq in the PC market, or the Korean carmakers using their lower labor costs to undersell Detroit and steal market share. Since the health-care industry is pretty much unregulated, there's nothing stopping anyone from delivering slightly cheaper health-care and making big profits on big volume. It doesn't happen. That means it can't happen.

Anyone with a basic grasp of economics understands this. That's why when responsible people want cheaper health care, they look for ways to reduce its cost and not merely its price.

Are ending worthless malpractise lawsuits the answer? I'm afraid not. It would reduce the cost of healthcare, yes. Not so much by reducing the price of malpractice liability and allowing docs to lower their rates, but by reducing the huge practise of "defensive" medicine, in which many more tests are ordered than are medically necessary, and health care professionals are fanatical about documenting and backing up each and every decision, just in case. Just imagine how expensive your car-repair bill would be if your mechanic had to write down in triplicate and have his supervisor sign a justification for every single bolt he unscrewed or cotter pin he replaced.

If you want to know why the relative price of medical care is so high, the answer is actually pretty simple and discouraging: medical care is not expensive, it's just that everything else is cheaper. Technology and mass production drives down the price of computers, cars, satellites, roads, houses (excluding land), washing machines and pots and pans, year by year. But technology does not and cannot drive down the price of healthcare because health care can't be done by mass production.

Put it this way: suppose you assemble cars for a living. If you do it in 1910, then it takes 20 hours to assemble a car. You go see the doc. Assume his labor is worth twice yours, because he's more skilled. Then to get an hour of his time, you need to trade him two hours of yours, which is 1/10 the price of a car.

Fast forward to 2004. Now because of mass production technology it takes 30 minutes of your time to assemble a car. You go see the doc. To get an hour of his time you still need to trade him two hours of yours, but now that adds up to the price of two cars. Has the real price of health care skyrocketed? Not really. It's just that the real price of other goods and services has drastically declined.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 6, 2004 02:30 PM

One more thing. The bitching in the media about the high price of medical care ignores one very, very important point: where does that money go?

Well, it's not pocketed by unbelievably wealthy medical care robber barons. There's no pharmaceutical industry equivalent of Bill Gates sitting around raking in the billions and dispensing a few millions to charity now and then.

No, the huge amounts of money we spend on healthcare goes straight into the handsome salaries of the large fraction of working Americans who work in health care, or whose products are bought by health care. Notice the good wages paid to nurses? How about physicians' assistants, or respiratory therapists? Engineers in medical technology companies? What pays for all that is health care fees, naturally.

We must remember that the system is closed. If we as health-care consumers spend a lot (ouch, ouch) then it is equally true that we as health-care providers earn a lot (oh boy oh nice).

Yes, it's true that each of us on average devotes a larger fraction of our earnings to buying health care. At the national level this means a larger fraction of our economy revolves around health care. More of our GDP is generated by the health care industry.

We must think this through, however. Is it bad? What do we think are the industries of tomorrow? Is it really such a bad thing that the US is becoming the health-care industry giant? That the best and most cutting edge medicine is being done right here? That every other country imports our medicines and medical technology? That more and more of the high-paying jobs we offer to our young people are in the business of saving lives?

Let us think of that, and have some pity for Canada, where the best their grandchildren can hope for is a job in tourism, or Old Europe, where they might hope for a job as speechwriter to a Brussels Eurocrat. Our grandchildren can hope for a high-paying job as nurse, biotech engineer, genetic counselor, molecular biologist -- or in some health-science career we haven't even heard of in 2004, but which we can be sure will be invented right here.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 6, 2004 02:53 PM

>My friend, the health care industry is as free a market as you are going to find in this imperfect world.

Carl, I can't buy the premise that the healthcare industry is a free market. Too much of the industry is being articially influenced by non-market related forces, including litigation, government regulations, insrance (this blog won't let me spell out that word completly, strangely enough) regulations, paperwork, regressive technological practices, etc.

Posted by Michael at November 6, 2004 03:08 PM

Carl, what planet to you live on? Where are these wonderful salaries you are touting? I have first hand experience with this. BELIEVE ME when I tell you, the therapists, nurses, aides, etc, all are underpaid, and ALL are understaffed and overworked in the hospitals, rehab centers and nursing homes where they work. This is one of the great disgraces of the american medical system. We are equipment rich and personnel poor almost throughout this country.

Of course, the other great disgrace is we are closing hospitals (Detroit has the latest one) because we can't afford to take care of the poor who have no insrance. Where is this utopian health system you so happily describe?

Posted by Michael at November 6, 2004 03:20 PM

Mr. Pham, you obviously have never had a major medical problem or else you would not spout such blithering rubbish. A health consumer with coverage has almost zero choice about his or her care. Consumers without coverage have it even worse.

I watched both my parents -- who were insured -- suffer needlessly and die before their time after they were discharged from the hospital against the express wishes of their attending physicians. Why? Because the company bureaucrat on the other end of the telephone said so.

Tell me, what would you think about the Great American Health System if your mother's physicans came to you and told you that he was being forced him to discharge her even though he told them her life was at risk if she left the hospital? This is the wonderful system -- that spends more on advertising than on research -- that Bush and his Republican cronies like you think is so great. Well, it is great at lining their pockets at the expense of killing Americans.

I will never forgive or forget. And I will never condescend to stand by the lies you've posted here.

Posted by billg at November 6, 2004 04:59 PM

Critics! Ah, the joy of battle. . .

I can't buy the premise that the healthcare industry is a free market.

Michael, you have mistaken the costs of doing business for restraints on entrepreneurship.

Let me explain further. A market is free if it is possible (if perhaps quite expensive) for an entrepreneur to set up shop if he sees that existing shops are making big profits. History teaches us that there will always be some ingenious fellow or gal who says: Hey, those guys are making 35% profit. I can set my prices lower, make "only" 20% profit, steal every one of their customers, and retire rich! Let's go. . ! There's plenty of venture capital out there to fund people who can make that kind of case, too.

Now, everything you've mentioned -- the requirement that providers be licensed, that they follow certain safety standards, that they have to reserve money for lawsuits, are simply costs of doing business. Undoubtably they raise the price of the final product. But they do not prevent new competitors from entering the field.

How are markets made unfree? Well, the government might directly limit entry to the market (e.g. to set up shop as a TV station you must secure an FCC license, and there are only so many of them allowed per city). Or the government might hand a company or industry a captive customer base (e.g. California requires every driver to buy auto liability insurnce). Or the government might subsidize one or more existing providers, so they can sell their product or service for less than the true cost of production (e.g. Europe and Airbus, or the Feds and the Chrysler bail-out).

None of these applies today to the field of medicine. So, I repeat, if the providers of medical care really did make profits wildly above their costs of doing business -- including all the "nuisance" costs you mention -- then some bright ambitious Michael Dells and Carly Fionas would jump into the market, undercut the fat cats, and make a killing, driving prices down in the meantime.

Because this doesn't happen, we may conclude that the price of medicine is close to the cost of providing it. Bearing in mind, of course, that the cost of providing medicine may very well include things (paperwork, lawsuits) which reasonable people believe should not be part of the cost of providing medicine.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 6, 2004 07:50 PM

Where are these wonderful salaries you are touting? I have first hand experience with this.

Well, me too. Two of my family are physicians, another a PA, another an RN. They ain't hurting. But let's turn from anecdotal evidence to hard data, shall we?

For example, a May 2003 US Department of Labor press release begins this way:

Health care-related occupations. . .accounted for 8 of the 10 highest-paying occupations in May 2003, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor.

Further down, in Table A-1, we get some actual numbers -- average annual wages for various occupations. Just for comparison purposes, let's note that the median family income in the US is, according to the US Census Bureau, about $43,000. Let's assume 1.5 wage earners per household, i.e. half of US households are either single people, single parents, or married couples with two wage earners, and the other half are married couples with only one wage earner and a stay-at-home parent. (I think this is generous.) That means the average annual salary for employed Americans is about $30,000, which sounds reasonable.

Now let's look at those health care jobs. First, the top, where you need college plus professional school:

Family practitioners: $140,000
Dentists: $131,000
Biochemists: $67,000
Epidemiologists: $59,000
Pharmacists: $79,000

Nice, huh? Two to five times the average US salary. Now let's look further down, to jobs that require no college but do require a two-year program and some kind of license, typically:

Physicians' assistants: $65,000
Registered nurses: $51,000
Occupational therapists: $54,000
Physical therapists: $60,000
Dental hygienists: $59,000
Medical and lab technologists: $44,000

Also very nice, huh? Still looking at roughly twice the average annual salary, lots more than what the trash collectors and librarians and gas station managers are getting.

Now, I can't address your particular experience, of course. Not everyone who goes into the medical field does well, of course. But what I think the government statistics say is that on average people who go into the medical field do very well indeed. I defy you to name another career area where someone with a two-year associate's degree can earn on average $51,000 a year, as RNs do.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 6, 2004 08:19 PM

Well, your post is unenlightened self-pitying tripe. But for the sake of completeness, let me ask you to be a little clearer about your complaint with respect to having no "choice":

1. Are you upset because, when your employer pays for your health care, you must use the health-care plan he selects? That is, are you upset because, when you get something exceedingly valuable for free, it's not the exact color or model you would have picked out yourself?

2. Are you upset because your health care plan doesn't employ every health-care provider in the continental United States, so you are forced to choose from one of the mere thousands they do employ?

3. Are you upset because your health care plan decided how much medical care your premiums would cover? So "health care coverage" didn't turn out to mean "any kind of health care service you want, as much as you want, as often and long as you want"? Did the inhuman wretches actually put some kind of limit on how much medical care your $150/month was buying?

My angry young friend, this is America. Cruel as it may sound, our Constitution does not guarantee that the rest of us will take care of your every essential need after you reach age 18. It is, alas, up to you. We are not going to guarantee you a nice house in a nice neighborhood. We are heartlessly going to "force" you to pay the rent yourself. We are not going to guarantee you a tip-top education. We're going to "force" you to pay the tuition by breaking open your own little piggy bank, crying the bitter tears of the oppressed serf as you do.

And we are not going to guarantee you the best possible medical care. We are, like the selfish cold-hearted red-stated beasts we are, going to "force" you to pay for the level of care you want. If you want the right to demand the services of highly trained professionals as often and for as long as you want, then, unfortunately, you're just going to have to pay them what their time is worth.

There isn't a doctor in the country you can't see if you pay his fee. There isn't a hospital anywhere that will boot you out if you pay the room rate. What you're complaining about is that when you get medical care for less than its true cost -- because someone else is helping to pay for it -- then you give up some choice in exactly what kind and what quality you get.

Well, that sounds like the lament of a refugee from a workers' soviet paradise where Someone Else always foots the bill. So let me introduce you to the motto that governs the true ugly state of affairs here in hard, cruel America:

You get what you pay for.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 6, 2004 09:16 PM

Oh, ah. . .a little FYI for anyone still here who imagines I like HMOs and the like:

Not at all. By me they are mostly rapacious scum.

But, that doesn't mean the system is gronked and it's time to rethink whether Karl Marx was strictly wrong.

The right way to deal with lying, sneaking, gouging, unethical, two-timing, legalistic, heartless sh**head companies -- I think those adjectives probably cover the majority of health ins*rance firms -- is to take away their oxygen, i.e. sales. If you're an employer, choose another health plan. If you're an employee, work for employers with good health plans. If you're a health-care worker, work for someone else. If you're a stockholder, sell. And if you're a journalist or blogger, expose their foul misdeeds so the rest of us can help. The lovely thing about a free market is: we as consumers can destroy a business without government approval or action, and there isn't a damn thing those fools in Washington can do to stop us. Power to the people!

All right now, I promise no more coffee before reading TT. . .

Posted by Carl Pham at November 6, 2004 09:51 PM

This post, and the comments which follow it, is a gift from God.

Here, revealed in all its glory, is the empty core at the center of the conservative movement. Allegedly based on Christianity, it is instead centered on hate and derision.

A true Christian would not mock the sick.

Thanks. I appreciate this. I have copied it all and we'll be referring to it repeatedly.

Pray tell, which verse of the Bible requires you to laugh at the afflicted?

Posted by DrFrankLives at November 8, 2004 06:25 AM

And to the moron named David Mercer

If you can't make your point without lying, don't make it.

Edwards never "channeled" an infant. He held up the tape of the fetal monitor and said "here she is saying X. Here she is saying Y."

And through his lawsuits, he has saved lives, permanently changing pre-admission and pre-natal checklists at hospitals in North Carolina, replacing faulty swimmingpool drains, requiring safety and background checks of truck drivers, etc. All done because of his work.

What have you done to better the world, Mr. Mercer?

Posted by drfranklives at November 8, 2004 06:28 AM

DrFrankLives sez:

Here, revealed in all its glory, is the empty core at the center of the conservative movement. Allegedly based on Christianity, it is instead centered on hate and derision.

Followed almost immediately by:

And to the moron named David Mercer. . .

Personally, I think the best argument for the existence of God -- a God with a sense of humor -- is that there is far more wonderfully amusing irony in the world than one could possibly expect from mere chance.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 8, 2004 01:42 PM

Actually, Dr. Frank, I havent seen anyone here mock Mrs. Edwards for her illness. I have seen a lot of irony pointed out. Maybe when you refer back to this post you can bear that in mind.

Also, John Edwards pointed to pictures of a fetus and said "here she is saying X"? How did he know? What part of the legal discovery process lets you gather intelligble communication from a fetus, an entity under Mr. Edwards political beliefs that has no independent right to exist, and is not human?
Did he receive training in this, what school teaches it?

Posted by John Irving at November 8, 2004 04:36 PM

Rand and Friends,
Yes, Rand's statements about MISTER Edwards are harsh, and grate with good-hearted people across America. It is for precisely THAT reason that Rand reminds us that Choices Have Consequences!

Altho it may SEEM off-thread, we've allowed other choices to have less-than-quality consequences for Americans seeking help. If, for example, I suggest that there JUST MIGHT BE a relationship between Vitamin B-17 and cancer, many readers will jump to the confusion that I am a wierdo, fringe-believer, who bangs the gong for Amygdalin.

But WHO benefits from making a naturally-occurring anti-cancer agent illegal? Who benefits from being denied access to something which, scientifically, HAS been shown to be positively influential in reversing cancers BUT has been misrepresented, squelched and poo-poohed by 'entrenched orthodoxies' in America?

Rand is right: Choices have consequences. Mr Edwards just might find some of HIS choices curtailed now, for his wife, because of his professional efforts earlier in his career!

"Taste ye what your hands have wrought!"
The Glory of God

Posted by Carridine at November 8, 2004 08:30 PM

Here, revealed in all its glory, is the empty core at the center of the conservative movement.

You know, this comment might have a little more force if I were a conservative. Or a Christian.

Not a lot, mind you, given how devoid of argument or logic it is, but a little.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2004 07:10 PM

Rand:

I wouldn't have put your second paragraph in the original post. I would, on the other hand, have put it in the comments. Further, I'd remark that it's a brave physician who'd take the case, as with Breast Cancer, although the odds are usually strongly in favour of the patient nowadays, that's all they are. Odds. Care to wager your entire career and livelihood that a lawyer with a grudge, political connections and more money than God won't try to make you *pay* and *pay* and *pay* for something not your fault?

Personally, I think a Doctor who turns a patient away should be sued, not one who does his best when Mother Nature decides to be a Mother. But that's not how it works.

As I said, I wouldn't have put your second paragraph in the original post, because it seems... crass. Beneath you. Not as crass as me criticising you for it though. Your blog, your rules. Even then, I can't say you're wrong, just that I wouldn't have done it. I suspect you're not entirely comfortable with what you did, even if you'd do it all over again.

And to all those who are crying about the violence inherent in the system the hollow core of the "compassionate conservative", you're hypocrites - Rand at least gave good wishes, you just want to use a cancer sufferer to bash someone else.

I just hope that Elizabeth Edwards makes the same kind of recovery I did 25 years ago.

Posted by Alan E Brain at November 11, 2004 06:04 AM

Interesting post. Why do all republicans have to be Christian? I'm not and I could give a rat's tail about the "evangelicals." Honestly, I do not see a problem with with Rand said. It seemed fair to me. Wishing someone well and hoping they get better does not seem "sick." Nor does pointing out that a lot of people will not get better and who will die because of breast cancer because they cannot get good care, due to rising costs, caused, in part, by frivolous lawsuits.

As I work in the medical publishing industry, I have a fairly good idea of what docs go through. And Carl, the high cost of medicine has nothing to do with the free market. And the money is not going to R&D. The money is going to drug reps. 1 drug rep exists for every three practicing doctors in this country. On average a doctor gets a visit by a representative of a drug company 2 times a day.

Interesting, eh?

Oh, and don't forget that most drugs make money, not on what they are designed to do, but on alternate uses. For instance, doctors are not perscribing anti-depressants to help smokers quit. Doctors do this because the drug companies pay "consultancy" fees to doctors who promote and perscribe there very expensive drugs.

Also, Carl, I would double your salary estimates. Yes, those are the salaries of most doctors, but they get that much and more from drug companies through consultancies, corporate appointments, stock options etc. These start as early as medical school!

The Bush administration has asked for changes in programs such as Continuing Medical Education (CME) courses, which had previously allowed medical companies to do things like fly doctors to Hawaii for an hour long semiar....

Posted by Dave Allen at November 11, 2004 06:11 AM

Post a comment