Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by alexasmyths 3138 days ago
What I find interesting is that it is in the 'professions'.

I would have thought it was massively wealthy equity owners/holders, hedge fund managers etc..

But yes - if we are paying doctors $1M/year then this will happen.

At a nearby hospital in Canada, technology improvements have allowed doctors to diagnose using x-rays a lot faster ... but the Unions have kept pay scale the same. The doctor at the Orangevill hospital earns over a million dollars a year, and he works from home. Swipe, swipe, swipe, swipe - done.

Faster tech = more money for the doctor. Savings not passed on to taxpayers.

Innovators thought they were improving healthcare, but they really were throwing more surpluses onto the value chain, to be captured by those with the most power: doctors, possibly drug companies.

One would think a private system would be more efficient ... but it's probably just as bad in the US.

3 comments

> One would think a private system would be more efficient ... but it's probably just as bad in the US.

The US health care system is not a "private system". It's a mishmash of private and public which combines the worst features of both. The reason we have it in the US is that during WW II, the government controlled wages, so businesses trying to compete for employees had to offer something else as an incentive, and they mainly picked health care benefits. Then, when the war was over and the government stopped controlling wages, instead of going back to competing on wages and dropping employer-provided health benefits, the system of employer-provided health benefits kept on growing. Which now meant it had to be regulated by the government, and so on, and so on...

Let's not forget that health care is a great point of leverage for employers, too. Because often, your spouse is also insured on that same plan, and leaving a job is not palatable if either one is dealing with significant illness.

If you wanted to create a legal equivalent of indentured servitude, company healthcare plus high healthcare cost would be a great solution. I don't think that was the plan, but it sure works out that way.

Employer provided health care stuck around because it was paid for with pre-tax dollars, while buying it individually was with post-tax dollars. This hugely incentivizes employer paid plans.

It has become so entrenched it has more or less morphed into a "right" that employers should pay for it.

> The doctor at the Orangevill hospital earns over a million dollars a year, and he works from home. Swipe, swipe, swipe, swipe - done.

What kind of doctor is this, radiologist? I'm not aware of any mobile apps in use clinically, but a radiologist's job is to look at images on a computer screen. It doesn't matter where they do it from. Very little of it is automated.

> One would think a private system would be more efficient ... but it's probably just as bad in the US.

Canada is one of three countries in the world in which the government has a monopoly on healthcare payment. The other two are Cuba and North Korea.

The United States has the least efficient healthcare system in the G20. Canada's is second least efficient. All of the others have two tier systems.

My family member sits on the board of the hospital and described to me the technology advances enabling the doctors to 'do more' in the same time.

The fact is he ears over $1M working from home, inspecting imaging.

Doctors should probably be highly paid but this is too much.

Interesting perspective on single-payer.
The AMA is empowered by government to restrict the supply of doctors. The purpose is to keep doctor compensation high.

See "Competition and Monopoly in Medical Care" by Frech