Thomas Sowell's Doctor, On Why He's Retiring

AquaAthena

America First...MAGA
Gold Supporting Member
Feb 16, 2010
17,350
14,966
2,415
Central Coast
The future of proposed universal health care, no doubt. ---Aqua*

Article by Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com 3/5/10. Currently Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif.


"Some years ago, one of my favorite doctors retired. On my last visit to his office, he took some time to explain to me why he was retiring early and in good health.

Being a doctor was becoming more of a hassle as the years went by, he said, and also less fulfilling. It was becoming more of a hassle because of the increasing paperwork, and it was less fulfilling because of the way patients came to him.

He was currently being asked to Xerox lots of records from his files, in order to be reimbursed for another patient he was treating. He said it just wasn't worth it. Whoever was paying-- it might have been an insurance company or the government-- would either pay him or not, he said, but he wasn't going to jump through all those hoops.

My doctor said that doctor-patient relationships were not the same as they had been when he entered the profession. Back then, people came to him because someone had recommended him to them, but now increasing numbers of people were sent to him because they had some group insurance plan that included his group.

He said that the mutual confidence that was part of the doctor-patient relationship was not the same with people who came to his office only because his name was on some list of eligible physicians.


The loss of one doctor-- even a very good doctor-- may not seem very important in the grand scheme of heady medical care "reform" and glittering phrases about "universal health care." But making the medical profession more of a hassle for doctors risks losing more doctors, while increasing the demand for treatment.

A study published in the November 2009 issue of the Journal of Law & Economics showed that a rise in the cost of medical liability insurance led to more reductions of hours of medical service supplied by older doctors than among younger doctors.

Younger doctors, more recently out of medical school and often with huge debts to pay off for the cost of that expensive training, may have no choice but to continue working as hard as possible to try to recoup that huge investment of money and time.

Younger doctors will probably continue working, even if bureaucrats load them down with increasing amounts of paperwork and the government continues to lower reimbursements for Medicare, Medicaid and-- heaven help us-- the new proposed "universal health care" legislation that is supposed to "bring down the cost of medical care."

The confusion between lowering costs and refusing to pay the costs can have a real impact on the supply of doctors. The real costs of medical care include both the financial conditions and the working conditions that will insure a continuing supply of both the quantity and the quality of doctors required to maintain medical care standards for a growing number of patients.

Although younger doctors may be trapped in a profession that some of them might not have entered if they had known in advance what all its pluses and minuses would turn out to be, there are two other important groups who are in a position to decide whether or not it is worth it.

Those who are old enough to have paid off their medical school debts long ago, and successful enough that they can afford to retire early, or to take jobs as medical consultants, can opt out of the whole elaborate third-party payment system and its problems. What the rising costs of medical liability insurance has already done for some, other hassles that bureaucracies and politicians create can have the same effect for others.

There is another group that doesn't have to put up with these hassles. These are young people who have reached the stage in their lives when they are choosing which profession to enter, and weighing the pluses and minuses before making their decisions.

Some of these young people might prefer becoming a doctor, other things being equal. But the heady schemes of government-controlled medicine, and the ever more bloated bureaucracies that these heady schemes will require, can make it very unlikely that other things will be equal in the medical profession.

Paying doctors less and hassling them more may be some people's idea of "lowering the cost of medical care," but it is instead refusing to pay the costs-- and taking the consequences."
 
The future of proposed universal health care, no doubt.---Aqua*

Nope. The state of CorporateCare.

CorporateCare is placing all these burdens on medical service providers. CorporateCare looks for everything it can find to deny claims. Denying claims is where the profit is.
 
I have a great Doctor. He actually wants to help Obama. I asked him what he meant, and he said he needs operate on him..... to put in a brain. :lol:
 
So, was it just me, or is Thomas Sowell's Dr. retiring for something that has nothing to do with universal health care?

It seems he's used his Drs. frustration with the current situation in healthcare to bash universal healthcare.

That is somewhat of a non-sequitur.
 
So, was it just me, or is Thomas Sowell's Dr. retiring for something that has nothing to do with universal health care?

It seems he's used his Drs. frustration with the current situation in healthcare to bash universal healthcare.

That is somewhat of a non-sequitur.

Except that universal health care will cause more of what's making him want to retire.
The basic issue is that the people buying healthcare and the people paying for it are not the same. That increases costs and difficulty in getting reimbursed.
 
The future of proposed universal health care, no doubt.---Aqua*

Nope. The state of CorporateCare.

CorporateCare is placing all these burdens on medical service providers. CorporateCare looks for everything it can find to deny claims. Denying claims is where the profit is.

Yes, because government plans NEVER do that . . . oh, wait, they do. And gosh, the government's the single largest payer in the health care industry right now, isn't it?

Go wade through Medicare red tape sometime, and then tell me how it's only "Corporate Care" putting burdens on medical service providers, Chuckles.
 
JS' comment is particularly silly given that Government provides/pays for 60% of health care in America - i.e., dictating the prices and services.
 
JS' comment is particularly silly given that Government provides/pays for 60% of health care in America - i.e., dictating the prices and services.

Not to mention that it's the government that writes the regulations that health care insurers and providers have to follow. Anyone ever hear of HIPAA? While I will unequivocally state that patient privacy and control of records is a good thing, it is also a fact that this increases the amount of paperwork and work in general that doctors' offices have to do, and it's far from the only government-mandated regulation they're under.
 
So, was it just me, or is Thomas Sowell's Dr. retiring for something that has nothing to do with universal health care?

It seems he's used his Drs. frustration with the current situation in healthcare to bash universal healthcare.

That is somewhat of a non-sequitur.

Except that universal health care will cause more of what's making him want to retire.
The basic issue is that the people buying healthcare and the people paying for it are not the same. That increases costs and difficulty in getting reimbursed.

Okay....

So this Doctor's retirement has nothing to do with universal health care.

And basically, Sowell has just pimped the issue to grind his own axe.
 
The future of proposed universal health care, no doubt.---Aqua*

Nope. The state of CorporateCare.

CorporateCare is placing all these burdens on medical service providers. CorporateCare looks for everything it can find to deny claims. Denying claims is where the profit is.

Yes, because government plans NEVER do that . . . oh, wait, they do. And gosh, the government's the single largest payer in the health care industry right now, isn't it?

Go wade through Medicare red tape sometime, and then tell me how it's only "Corporate Care" putting burdens on medical service providers, Chuckles.

Try again, Chuckles.

Medicare does demand documentation but it's not for the ultimate purpose of denying claims. It's because that's what the law demands.

CorporateCare, however, wants to deny claims. Health insurance is profitable because it collects premiums for services it won't deliver.

Delay, deny, defend. Those are the 3Ds of private health insurance. Delay the processing, then deny the claim, then make the claimant sue.

It pays.
 
Nope. The state of CorporateCare.

CorporateCare is placing all these burdens on medical service providers. CorporateCare looks for everything it can find to deny claims. Denying claims is where the profit is.

Yes, because government plans NEVER do that . . . oh, wait, they do. And gosh, the government's the single largest payer in the health care industry right now, isn't it?

Go wade through Medicare red tape sometime, and then tell me how it's only "Corporate Care" putting burdens on medical service providers, Chuckles.

Try again, Chuckles.

Medicare does demand documentation but it's not for the ultimate purpose of denying claims. It's because that's what the law demands.

CorporateCare, however, wants to deny claims. Health insurance is profitable because it collects premiums for services it won't deliver.

Delay, deny, defend. Those are the 3Ds of private health insurance. Delay the processing, then deny the claim, then make the claimant sue.

It pays.

Oh, really? Medicare only does paperwork because it's what the law demands? And that's NOT what the law demands of private insurance? Oh, but you just "know" that THEY are doing it because they want to fuck people over. Yes, because that's how one keeps a huge corporation in business for decades, right? By fucking all of its customers over? Incredibly obvious YOU weren't a business major.

And Medicare doesn't want to deny claims? Is that what you think? Then why is it that, of all the major health care payment providers, Medicare is the only one that DOESN'T guarantee payment? Every other insurer on the market has a contract with its customers, stating that if the terms and conditions are met, payment will be made, and they can be sued successfully if they don't fulfill that contract. Medicare, on the other hands, guarantees NO payment, and all services are provided purely on speculation. They reserve the right to turn down any and all claims as they see fit. Why is that? And why is it that they DO, in fact, reject claims just as often as any other insurer and force people to jump through the exact same hoops?

Pull your head out of your ass and figure out that the government bureaucracy does NOT love you and care about you, no matter how much you want to believe its your momma and daddy. I'd rather deal with someone who has the honest and upfront motivation to make a profit than someone who just enjoys having power over other people. But then, I'M not a pathetic loser who fears being responsible for myself, so . . .
 
Yes, because that's how one keeps a huge corporation in business for decades, right? By fucking all of its customers over? Incredibly obvious YOU weren't a business major.

Yes, that's exactly how they stay in business and rake in HUGE profits, by fucking people over on a regular basis because they CAN and are the only gig in town for most. Most people do not have a choice of an insurance carrier, but must go with they one they get through their workplace . You know this! Most people ALSO cannot afford private individual insurance. I couldn't... And the only insurance I am offered through work is Cigna. What other choice would I have?

THERE IS NO AFFORDABLE INSURANCE CARRIER. NOT ONE.
 
Last edited:
The future of proposed universal health care, no doubt.---Aqua*

Nope. The state of CorporateCare.

CorporateCare is placing all these burdens on medical service providers. CorporateCare looks for everything it can find to deny claims. Denying claims is where the profit is.

Yes, because government plans NEVER do that . . . oh, wait, they do. And gosh, the government's the single largest payer in the health care industry right now, isn't it?

Go wade through Medicare red tape sometime, and then tell me how it's only "Corporate Care" putting burdens on medical service providers, Chuckles.

Or spend some time trying to figure out what Medicare will or will not pay. One patient having necessary eye surgery to keep from going completely blind has Medicare including Part B supplemental insurance, AND President Bush's wonderful (NOT) prescription drug program for Seniors. Her copay for two of the medications necessary as a result of that surgery - $100 each. And yet the copay for another much more costly and much less mandatory medication - $5. There's no rhyme or reason to it and it is maddening for both doctors and patients.

Presumably the AMA is behind President Obama's scheme for government control of the healthcare system, but I have not found a single person in medical practice--physicians, nurses, techs, anybody--who is in favor of Obamacare.

The more the government has become involved in healthcare at any level, the most costly is has become and the more user unfriendly it has become. What possible reason could anybody have to think that giving the government total control would make it better?
 
Yes, because that's how one keeps a huge corporation in business for decades, right? By fucking all of its customers over? Incredibly obvious YOU weren't a business major.

Yes, that's exactly how they stay in business and rake in HUGE profits, by fucking people over on a regular basis because they CAN and are the only gig in town for most. Most people do not have a choice of an insurance carrier, but must go with they one they get through their workplace . You know this! Most people ALSO cannot afford private individual insurance. I couldn't... And the only insurance I am offered through work is Cigna. What other choice would I have?

THERE IS NO AFFORDABLE INSURANCE CARRIER. NOT ONE.

No, fucknut, that is NOT how businesses stay in business over the long term. And I don't personally know of ANY insurance carrier who is "the only gig in town". Perhaps you can enlighten us to where you live that only has one insurance company?

Even given the massive amount of government interference and fuckery, this is still a capitalist country at heart, where the only true monopoly is the government itself. Despite the liver-eating class envy you minimum-wage slaves have been conditioned to, no business can survive long-term with a business plan of screwing every one of its customers, because it WILL stop having customers.

Oh, and here's a tip. If you didn't read the contract on your health insurance coverage and got denied for not meeting the criteria, that's not technically the company "screwing" you. That's YOU screwing you, and no one's problem but yours.
 

Forum List

Back
Top