Thought Exercise - Why Socialism Fails, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 05:11 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by Connector

So, tell me how Canadian doctors wages would be determined if every healthcare system in the world was a socialist system.

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 05:19 PM by Connector

reply to post by mnemeth1

And if you would have read more closely, my first paragraph a couple of posts up, you would see that yes, I said there is salary included in the cost ( determined by the mechanisms I mentioned) There is no PRICING on the final product. Have you ever run a business????????????

[edit on 19-3-2010 by Connector]

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 05:22 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by Connector

Buddy, I just explained to you that the LACK of a PRICING MECHANISM is why socialism is doomed to failure.

There are most certainly "prices", in the fact that a doctors wage is a necessarily a price on a product.

The product being his service.

Because there is no pricing mechanism in socialism, the prices will always - ALWAYS - be wrong.

Only the market can determine the correct prices, bureaucrats can not determine the correct price for a good.

SO, continuing on here - please explain how Canadian doctors wages would be determined if the entire world was a socialist system.

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 05:39 PM by mnemeth1

Don't think too hard about it, you might hurt yourself.

There is no answer.

Hence, why socialism will ALWAYS fail to preform as well as a free-market system.

It can't work, its never worked, it sucks.

It barely works now because America is still around to set some type of actual prices based on a barely functioning market.

The American healthcare market is grossly distorted because of government intervention, but at least the insurance companies are around to try and keep the costs under control.

What we see in America is what happens when you have socialism without price controls. Because government is pouring gigantic amounts of money into healthcare without price controls, the natural tendency of the market is to increase prices until the supply reaches is natural limit.

What we see in Canada and other countries that have price controls in place is rationing - which is ALWAYS the outcome of price controls. The Canadians have simply made up their minds that its better to have government determine who gets care rather than the market.

However if the market was allowed to function correctly - EVERYONE would be able to afford care because competition would force prices back down until everyone could afford it.

See the prices for cancer care for dogs. - EVERYONE could afford to treat their dog for cancer if the HAD to. They might have to take out loans and get a credit card, but they could afford it.

Now imagine if no one had to pay medicare tax or all the other healthcare taxes - everyone could afford medical care at veterinary prices.

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 05:55 PM by Connector

reply to post by mnemeth1

SO, continuing on here - please explain how Canadian doctors wages would be determined if the entire world was a socialist system.

OK...one last post since you seems not to understand the mechanisms I listed before.

There is NO set salary for doctors across Canada. It can be different in every province and even municipality.

It is determined by;
education
experience
other salaries of professionals in the area
local taxes
quality of living
and yes, Supply and Demand

If one area is short of doctors, they will pay the current ones more to keep them, plus to try and attract/entice new ones to the area.

If one area has a surplus of doctor's, the wages will be lower.

Doctor's wages are completely capitalistic even in our form of socialized healthcare.

Still nothing on my other points?

Done. Adios....

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 06:29 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by Connector

So, how do they know the wage is the correct price?

What if its too high or too low?

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 06:43 PM by melatonin

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It was published on the NEJM's own site.

Link to the NEJM career site:
www.nejmjobs.org...

Link to study hosted on that site:
www.nejmjobs.org...

While the NEJM didn't commission the study, they published the study on their site.

Hence, "published by the NEJM" is a valid statement to make.

Except the statement wasn't 'published by the NEJM'. It was 'published in the NEJM'.

The New England Journal of Medicine is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This is a trade 'newsletter' which is produced by the advertising arm of MMS and promotes advertising space for people in the trade. That is, organisations hiring and placing quacks in posts - employment/recruiting/search agencies.

If the statement was 'it was published in Recruiting Physicians Today', then it would be a valid statement.

One of those things is not like the other.

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 06:51 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by melatonin

Fine, I'm not going to argue the point.

The fact is its a valid study and one that should not be dismissed.

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 07:01 PM by melatonin

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Fine, I'm not going to argue the point.

The fact is its a valid study and one that should not be dismissed.

Why not?

To assess its reliability and validity would mean examining its method and sample. Not just taking it at face value.

A recruiting firm taking a random sample from its limited database isn't the best ever representative sample. Firstly, it would depend on their reach as to how well the sample generalises across the US, then we would also want to consider how well people on the database of a recruiting firm speak for the wider population of quacks.

If the sample was a random selection of working MDs from across the US, then it would appear more robust. But, hey, sampling, scientific methodology, and statistics are way beyond my pay grade...lol.

Anyways, each time you hear the ideologues using the 'published in the NEJM', you'll now know its misinformation. It's been doing the rounds for weeks.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by melatonin]

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 07:18 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by melatonin

The method of survey sampling from a random list is no different from the methods used by political pollsters.

The sample size is adequate, the selection random, and the locations and specializations were also random.

Even if its off by 10% up or down, the numbers ARE STILL out of control.

Could you imagine if 10% of physicians left the workforce?

That's a HUGE problem.

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 07:42 PM by melatonin

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The method of survey sampling from a random list is no different from the methods used by political pollsters.

The sample size is adequate, the selection random, and the locations and specializations were also random.

Even if its off by 10% up or down, the numbers ARE STILL out of control.

Could you imagine if 10% of physicians left the workforce?

That's a HUGE problem.

I can imagine lots of things.

It is very different than political polling. Taking a stratified random sample from a large public record (i.e., landline records) is much different. However, even those are potentially biased for various reasons.

You see, it's not a random list. It's a list of people on the records of a firm which headhunts and recruits doctors.

What that data tells us is that a decent chunk of a random sample of MDs from a recruiting firm's database said they might think about leaving the industry.

If you want the opinions of a more robust sample:

In April 2009, we obtained data on a random sample of
6,000 physicians from the American Medical Association
(AMA) Physician Masterfile which includes current data
on all U.S. physicians, regardless of AMA affiliation. We
excluded physicians from U.S. territories because health
care reform questions may not be as relevant to them and
excluded physicians in training because of the limited
experience most trainees typically have with insurance
leaving a sample of 5,157. We categorized physicians
into four groups: 1) primary care (internal medicine,
pediatrics, family practice); 2) medical subspecialists,
neurologists, and psychiatrists; 3) surgical specialists
and subspecialists; and 4) the remaining, or “other,”
specialties. We randomly sampled approximately equal
numbers of individuals from each of the 4 specialty
groups. Sampling weights were created to correct for the
stratified sampling design in our analyses. The study
was approved by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Institutional Review Board.

content.nejm.org...

They eventually had over 2000 responses. 62% supported public and private options together, 9% public alone. 27% private alone. So, in sum, over 70% supported at least the current suggestion.

This was a big sample, well collected, piloted questionnaire, and thorough analysis.

It also was published in the NEJM, rather than some obscure trade newsletter which some would prefer to misrepresent as a credible journal.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by melatonin]

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 08:49 PM by mnemeth1

Yeah, some slight problems with your study.

1. it was conducted back in 2009

2. it doesn't ask how physicians feel about the currently proposed legislation.

Its also odd that other polls during the same time period have quite different findings.

www.investors.com...

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors' positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 08:54 PM by mnemeth1

I find it interesting that the Medicus poll and the IBD poll taken a year ago MATCH each others responses.

The NEJM survey seems to be the odd one out.

I find it suspicious that third party surveys clearly show doctors to be against the proposed legislation and the public option, yet the NEJM study says differently.

I suspect the NEJM is playing with the numbers

reply posted on 19-3-2010 @ 09:09 PM by melatonin

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yeah, some slight problems with your study.

1. it was conducted back in 2009

2. it doesn't ask how physicians feel about the currently proposed legislation.

It's a pretty general question and covers the concepts. And scientific studies take time and effort. Any dufus can send out a bunch of emails or letters and play 'scientist'.

Its also odd that other polls during the same time period have quite different findings.

Thus far you have a poll from a bunch of physician recruiters and now some real clowns:

The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors' positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.

Dude, those 'pollsters' are jokers. They haven't got a clue. No credible group would collect ongoing poll data like they suggest.