“Heaven forbid a Doctor should be allowed ownership in a hospital. That might lead to things like pride, improved service, and innovation.”
I believe in the free market but doc owned hospitals are run the same way as any other for profit. The profit comes first.
Well of course they’re run to make a profit. But doctor-owned hospitals are usually much cleaner (at least in Texas) and the docs on the Board get to set hospital policy. Docs setting policy is good for patients.
“I believe in the free market but doc owned hospitals are run the same way as any other for profit. The profit comes first.”
And with Obamacare after a very short while the object will be to save a buck. Would you rather be doctored by someone who’s trying to make an honest living or by someone who’s been ordered to cut costs, with the power of law and the full weight of the gov’t on his side ?
Indeed. And in a properly functioning marketplace, how does one profit? By things like pride, quality service, and innovation.
To be sure, there are many ways in which government rules and regulations have changed the health-care system away from being a properly-functioning marketplace, but the solution is not to shift things even further from one. Rather, the solution is to shift things toward a model where services are allocated based on people's willingness to pay for them.
If a doctor has time to treat one of two patients for some condition, and patient #1 would rather have $500 cash than receive the treatment, while patient #2 would rather give up $1,000 cash than go without treatment, having the doctor treat patient #2 would be a far more efficient outcome than having him treat patient #1. If patient #2 gave $667 to patient #1, and gave $167 more to the doctor for treating him than he would get for treating patient #1, then patient #1 would get $667 for a treatment he would have gladly surrendered for $500, the doctor would get $167 more than he otherwise would have gotten, and patient #2 would only have to pay $834 to get a treatment for which he would have gladly paid $1,000. Having the doctor treat patient #2 instead of patient #1 would be a win for everyone.