When was the last time you got in to see your doctor in our system in under two months?

Paul,

I can call my doctor on a Saturday and he will come to my house (so long as I have coffee and cake).

If I walked into any hospital and see a doctor within minutes if I was dying.

I can see a doctor referred within the same week (if not the same day if I am at the hospital).

I can schedule surgery within less that two weeks.

I just saw my doctor on at the beginning of the month--I called him at 11am and went to see him later that day at 3pm.

Our system certainly isn't perfect...but one of the graphs in Goodman's paper illustrates his points: the percentages of patients having to wait more than four months for elective surgery in the last two years: US 5%, Australia 23%, New Zealand 26%, Canada 27% and Britain 36%. Part of the problem in this country is the AMA actually creating a shortage of doctors by dictating how many are allowed in medical school at any given time. It's how they keep the money in the pockets of a select few. And no, I have not had to wait two months to see my doctor.

Great posts, Pam! Glad you're comfortable with Movable Type!

Thanks Aaron! :-)

What's that about the AMA limiting admissions to medical schools?

Here is a quote from a USA Today article:

"The marketplace doesn't determine how many doctors the nation has, as it does for engineers, pilots and other professions. The number of doctors is a political decision, heavily influenced by doctors themselves."

Read the whole article; the link is below. You might find it interesting!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm

So medicare cuts aren't from budgetary constraints and Republican desires to make the federal government smaller, but rather from the AMA's control of Congress?

Bigger government doesn't mean better government. Look at the post office, for example...constant increases in prices, but what increases in service? Companies like FedEx and UPS can do a lot better job at more competitive prices because if they don't, no one will use them and they'll go out of business. I ride MetroNorth into NYC every day, which is a government-run system. The trains are all at least 30 years old, filthy and disgusting. Yet unless I want to drive into the city every day (a nightmare I don't want), then I have no choice but to ride the train. They just upped our fares yet again, yet do we get improved service? No...just surly conductors and trains that break down more often than I'd like. Free markets are the way to go. Competition makes companies who offer services try to improve over the other guy in order to get business. Do you go to a restaurant that has lousy waitstaff and terrible food? Of course not; you go to the restaurant that offers great food and service. You might even be willing to pay more for it! Just like I would patronize a train service that gave me a comfortable, guaranteed ride at a reasonable price IF I HAD A CHOICE. And the subways? Don't even get me started on those...

Read the Constitution when you have a minute, and see what our framers had in mind when they talked about limited government. Our government is not meant to babysit; it's meant to protect us when we are under attack and provide a few other LIMITED services.

Oh, and did you read the part in the article about how Congress plays a role in the limiting of doctors? Why is that okay?

Who said Congress limiting the number of doctors was okay? I didn't. In fact, your argument for limited government is one of the primary justifications Republicans use to cut funding for doctors.

The founding fathers' vision of limited federal government is completely unworkable in today's world. You really want to be in a world where the Fed doesn't control interest rates? I don't. The founders did.

And, of course, the CIA is just lying when they rank all of those countries with socialized medicine with lower infant mortality than the USA.http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html. When will those looney liberals learn? They think that that is what the founders meant when they put "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare" into the constitution.