Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Doctors are Stupid (Updated)

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]
[ed: File this under "great" (?) minds think alike - before I had the chance to push the "Go!" button on this post, my colleague Bill Halper had his take on the Spendulus Package. Please be sure to read it. And it appears that Bob will also be sharing his thoughts on it a bit later.]
Yup, that's what I said: as a group, doctors are stupid.
That bears repeating: as a group, physicians are stupid.
And on what do I base this?
Well, let's look at the headlines on the front page of the AMA website:
AMA Cheers New Law to Get Kids Health Coverage
AMA Wins Legal Victory for Physicians in Privacy Court Case
AMA Wins Victory with Record-Breaking Settlement in case against insurer
Not one word on the Spendulus package, which contains even more pieces of a nationalized health care system As Bloomberg News' Betsy McCaughey reports:
"One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective."
So let's review those AMA headlines in this new context, shall we:
AMA Wins Legal Victory for Physicians in Privacy Court Case. Nope, you can kiss that privacy goodbye. After all, the gummint's proven so adept at keeping private information private.
AMA Wins Victory with Record-Breaking Settlement in case against insurer. And that goes the way of the dodo, as well: can't sue the gummint. So when the bureaucrats in Washington say "jump," the doc's only response will be "how high, boss?"
These are folks who willingly gave up major chunks of their lives to study, work, even brreathe medicine. many of whom make (very) nice wages for these efforts. Yet they willingly risk throwing all of that away to make, what, a political point?
Okay, that's certainly their right and prerogative.
But it's also proof of my original thesis.
And there's this: If you're a "seasoned citizen," be aware (and beware) that this bill dramatically reduces your choices (and chances), as well:
"In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye."
[ed: as we reported last summer]
According to Ms McCaughey, "seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing." Talk about an uncertain future.
Carnival, anyone?
Oh, and for Economies With "Performance Issues," there's this:

[Hat Tip: Joe Kristan]

blog comments powered by Disqus