Dear f. John,
The British healthcare system AFAIK has been in place since shortly after
WWII. So the rules and rewards of the system are presumably well known to
all. So why can’t the market question to potential docs be – here is what
you’ll get paid if you join the system – you decide if that reward is with
the time and sacrifice for training?
If the British have an acute shortage of docs (I don’t know but I don’t
think so) then the market would be saying that the salaries are not
In your reply to me you said, “Quality free health care is easily
It is impractical to think that anyone can get to St. Jude’s. And as for
city ER’s – who is paying for that now? Either we the taxpayers who have
to pay for people for who there is no affordable alternative to the ER,
which has to treat (stabilize) anyone who walks in. Under the ACA there
will be less expensive ways to treat people for routine care saving us
money. And the other way that people with no insurance get paid for is by
higher rates for those who do. That’s what’s not right about saying people
can go uninsured. Catastrophe will strike some of them – and the rest of
us will have to pay some of the bills. Another point about ER’s – they are
obligated to stabilize someone, but not to care for an underlying illness.
So if I have a cancer or other condition that might cause pneumonia and I
go the ER – all they have to do is get my pneumonia under control to the
point where I can be discharged – no obligation to do anything about my
There has to be a better way to care for us all. I prefer single payer or
national healthcare, but I don’t think you can make the case that the
present system or a totally market driven system is or would be adequate
to provide health care for all.
Thanks for your efforts with JJ and for keeping the conversation going.