Peter Schiff Talks Trumpcare: Different Plan, Same Problems

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Peter Schiff via Euro Pacific Capital,

With his widely followed, and positively reviewed, address to Congress last week, President Trump showed how easy it could be to unite Washington around a big-budget centrist agenda on health care, immigration, taxes, infrastructure and the military. But the continued accusations surrounding his campaign’s alleged Russian connections, and the President’s conspiratorial responses, have insured that the battle lines have only hardened. However, anyone with even a casual concern with ballooning government debt should take notice just how easily both parties in Washington would agree to vastly expand the gushing red ink if a political truce can be brokered. Those fears should galvanize around the newly-issued Republican replacement for Obamacare.  If such a monstrous bill could successfully navigate Congress, we would find ourselves stuck deeper in a deficit deluge than we can possibly imagine. 

Obamacare attempted to rewrite the laws of economics by preventing insurance companies from charging high-risk customers more than low-risk customers. But to make this work without bankrupting the companies, all agreed that the young and healthy would need to be forced to buy insurance.  The flaw that doomed the law was that the penalties for not buying were too low to actually motivate healthy people to buy.  Consumers were charged just a few hundred dollars per year to forego insurance that would have cost many thousands. Given that they could always decide to get insurance in the future, at no added cost, the choice was a no-brainer. Without these healthy people keeping costs down, insurance premiums have risen alarmingly.

Ironically, the Supreme Court noticed this flaw as well. In sustaining the Law’s constitutionality, Justice Roberts argued that the relative lightness of the penalties was insufficient to compel anyone to buy insurance and, as a result, he considered them to be a “tax” that could be voluntarily avoided rather than a coercive penalty to force commercial activity. (Presumably had the tax been high enough to actually work, it would have rendered Obamacare unconstitutional – see my 2012 commentary).

However, the Republican replacement plan, which removes all taxes on individuals who don’t buy insurance, and all penalties on employers who do not provide insurance to their employees, will actually make the problem far worse.

The only reason healthy people buy health insurance is that they know that if they wait until they get really sick no insurance company will sell them a policy.  The same principal holds true for all insurance products.  You can’t buy auto insurance after you get into an accident. You can’t buy life insurance at a reasonable cost after your doctor has given you six months to live. The fact that your car is already wrecked, or your arteries already clogged, are pre-existing conditions that no insurance company would be expected to ignore.

Allowing voters the low-cost option to buy health insurance after they actually need it is very popular. It’s like promising motorists they can stop paying their monthly auto insurance premium and just buy a policy after they have an accident.  If the government were to require this, all auto insurance companies would quickly go out of business (unless they were bailed out by the government).

Obama’s solution was to use the penalties to force healthy people to buy insurance before they actually needed it.  As the years wore on, the relatively low cost of the subsidized exchange plans and the availability of those plans to anyone proved popular.  However, the mandates and penalties, as well as skyrocketing premiums for non-subsidized policies, were clearly unpopular. 

The Republicans have taken the “brave” political approach of keeping the parts that are popular (subsidized access, pre-existing conditions waivers, expansion of children’s coverage until age 26) and jettisoning those that are not (the mandates and the penalties).  The new plan pretends to offer a replacement to the Obamacare penalties by allowing insurance companies to charge a 30% increase to the premium for those who come back into the system after having previously allowed their coverage to lapse. But the problem here is that the premium increase is far too small to force anyone healthy to buy insurance. In fact, it is so low that any healthy person currently insured may decide to drop coverage.

The effect of this law, were it actually enacted, would be the death of the health insurance industry.  As the law removes the requirement that larger employers provide insurance, I believe that big companies would look to self-insure employees for routine care.  For example, employer and employees could pay into a common risk pool that would set their own deductibles and co-pays. For employees who incur medical charges in excess of the cost of an actual policy, the pool could provide funds to pay for outside insurance at the increased 30% premium. As a result insurance costs would be encountered only if there is a need.

Self-employed individuals would only buy insurance if the total cost was less than the tax credit provided by the new plan.  If they can’t find such coverage, they would likely buy a new form of insurance that this law may create: A policy that would pay for health insurance premiums if the user ever got sick enough to need them.  Such insurance would be very cheap, as the maximum exposure to the insurance company is only 130% of the premium for a standard health insurance policy.  

In the end, the only people buying health insurance would be those who can buy it for free using their tax credits and really sick people for whom insurance premiums are cheaper than their medical bills.   But as insurance companies lose money on the latter group, they will be forced to raise their premiums on the former.  This puts us right back in the box we are stuck in with Obamacare.

As premiums soar well above the amount of the tax credits, more people will drop out.  Unless the amount of the tax credits rises substantially, which will cost a fortune, all health insurance companies will eventually go out of business.  The end result will be socialized medicine, only it will be Trump not Obama that gets the blame.  It seems to me that this would be a political loser for the conservative cause. I would rather we go down in flames with Obamacare as then, at least, we will have a chance at a free market solution that could actually work.

The government has a very poor track record with containing the cost of a service when it gives consumers money to buy it. Think student aid and college tuition.   Plus the plan is constructed in a way that makes it ripe for potential abuse.  Whenever the government is giving away money, people always game the system to get it.  Think about the wide-spread fraud in welfare, food stamps, disability, and even cell phone credits. Trumpcare will be no different. Many people will buy catastrophic plans with extremely high deductibles just so they can pocket the difference between the tax credits and the costs of the plans.  If they actually incur a medical condition that results in a high out-of-pocket expense, they can just switch their coverage to one with a much lower deductible.  Such a switch may even be possible without the 30% premium for lapsed coverage.

If Trump and the Republican leadership can push this monstrosity through, despite the obvious mathematical shortcomings, look for them to make similar efforts on infrastructure and defense spending. All this adds up to uncounted trillions in new debt, and a giant step closer to the utter bankruptcy of the nation. But the real danger lies in the possibility that the law is voted down by conservative Republicans and Trump turns instead to Democrats.

In contrast to the former mission statement of the Republican Party, Trump believes that government solutions can work as long as they are “smart.”  The opening weeks of the Trump presidency were dominated by combative rhetoric, conservative and pro-business appointments, and nationalistic executive orders. And while this approach sent Democrats and the media into convulsions, it solidified the loyalty of Trump’s political base, and allows him to pivot toward the center if he wants. If he could peel off some “Red State” Democrats, he would be in a position to enact some of the biggest spending increases that the country has ever seen, even if fiscally conservative Republicans bolt.

If those conservatives defeat the new health care bill, Trump could look to partner with Democrats in a heartbeat. Of course, to get that support, he would have to make the current bill even more generous. Let’s hope that his self-inflicted wounds continue to prevent such an unholy alliance.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
buzzsaw99's picture

that's because we went from the land of the free to the land of the free shit bitchez.

Mr. Universe's picture

Because once we went to a "take it out of your paycheck" acceptance, the end was in sight. Imagine if they had to actually collect taxes from the people?

FireBrander's picture

Two "Solutions" to Health Care "Problem".

1. Pump a few more trillion into the current system.

2. Withdraw a few trillion from the current system.

Why is an MRI $100 in Japan and $4000 in the USA?


Pure Evil's picture

Why does an X-Ray cost a $1000?

Actually saw a medicare statement where they charged $1000 to take an x-ray.

Normalcy Bias's picture

...because the systemic greed of the sick-care system can be used as one of the most effective tools toward the elimination of the Middle Class.

Escrava Isaura's picture

As long as healthcare is for profit, talking solution is pointless.


flicker life's picture
flicker life (not verified) Escrava Isaura Mar 12, 2017 6:33 PM

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do...

Bumpo's picture

Do whatever you want, as long as i can sign up for Catastrophic Care ONLY at $50 a month for the family. I don't need your shots or yearly doctor's visit. If I want to get a blood test, viagra, or anything else, Ill pay for it out of pocket, in Cash.

slightlyskeptical's picture

Catastrophic Care ONLY at $50 a month

Sure but with a $10,000 maximum benefit. After a couple of days in the hospital you are on your own. Catastrophic and cancer policies are much worse insurance products than Obamacare policies, which do suck by the way, but at least provide you a meaningful benefit in case a true catastrophe occurs. 

They are rip off policies like the dental that offers $1,000 max benefit. People think they are getting real insurance with these things when they truly are not. 

"I'm sorry sir but we don't pay for that life saving drug. I can however give a number for hospice."

TruthHammer's picture

It's Ryancare or RINOcare, not Trumpcare.

Escrava Isaura's picture

Who cares!

Paulo: I am just re-reading JM Greer’s Dark Age America. Written before Trump, I am astounded at just how he has rung the bell. It is very interesting in light of today’s rabid calls for the repeal of the ACA and a reduction of medicaid for poor folks by people who are insider millionaires/billionaires who already sport a nifty little congressional health plan and a defined benefit pension; (as if they need either).

When the desperate wake up to this latest wealth-robbing scam are they ever going to be pissed!! Plus, the relaxation of environmental regs and a speed up of new pharmacy products to go with ‘access’ to health insurance, man oh man it’ll be like going to a fall fair and watching a rube say, “Wait a minute, I thought…..”


TruthHammer's picture

The problem with your post, beyond the link that no one cares about or will click, is your claims are silly and blatantly false:

"today’s rabid calls for the repeal of the ACA and a reduction of medicaid for poor folks"

No one is calling for taking healthcare from poor people, let alone "rabidly".  The very fact that you try to call Obamacare the "ACA" is proof positive of your shill ways.  Even people who love and support the "ACA" will still call it Obamacare, because its now in the vernacular.  Only partisan HACKS, refer to it as the ACA.

Further, the "ACA" was written BY the drug companies and the insurance companies.  It does NOT help poor people, and it massively massively harms regular middle class people.  It guarnatees high prices, high deductibles, unusable insurance, and massive wall street profits.  Even a raving commie-socialist should be against that.

Trump is not wrong when he says Obamacare will fail if left alone, everyone covered by the ACA will lose their "unusable" faux healthcare, massive deductibles and all, NO MATTER WHAT.

The options with Obamacare, and replace it after it fails and millions lose their faux-care, or transition them into something else.

"When the desperate wake up to this latest wealth-robbing scam"

If they are desparate, they dont have any wealth to rob, and they arent paying into the system, they are being subsidized by the non-desparate.


Ryan/RINO care is Obamacare lite, or for the shills ACA-lite, it too will fail and lead to continued sky-rocketing costs and unusably large deductibles.

America has two valid choices, Single Payer and everyone pays way more taxes (ie what I have in Canada), or Meet all of Trump's goals outlined in his joint-speech, and do it by modifying Ryancare with some of the free-market stuff Rand Paul wants.  If you get co-operative bargaining of the small frys, no special deductions for corps., and a very aggressive US government forcing down drug costs for Medicaid/care, the US could pull off a decent capitalist alternative.

Single-payer will always provide the "best" coverage for a population, but it only works because it is stealth supported by NON-single payers in other places.  ie, the US pays a fortune for drugs and offers premium pay-services for the rich, so their nieghbour (us in Canada), can get away with cheap drugs and single payer.

The future for Canada's healthcare, and for all single payers, will ultimately be a public/private hybrid.  People with money HAVE to be allowed to pay to get immediate service, and any treatment they want (what person would not try to save a loved one if possible), will the non-wealthy "public" service has to be protected from becoming "2nd-tier" healthcare.  Free market competition mixed with non-lobby run oversight of public services is likely the final outcome.

That being said, the US will NEVER EVER allow single-payer.  It's too far against their DNA as a nation and society.  Given single payer will never happen in the US, Rand Paul's principles, adjusted to include a better safety net for the marginalized, is the best and likeliest outcome for the US to succeed with.

Wulfkind's picture

Trump is pushing it as his very own spokesmouthpiece said the administration will be putting on a "full court press".


Lord High Maximus Orange Julius (May His Name Be Praised Forever) owns this shitburger.

TruthHammer's picture

good to see you are still mad, and still stupid.

try again in 8 years

Wulfkind's picture

Hey AssHammer......try again.  Trump supports the bill.  His administration is putting on a "full court press' to get it passed.

Trumpcare is his.  There is no "REPEAL".....only PARTIAL REPLACE.....with kickbacks to employers and insurance agencies.

And you're 8 years we will be trying AGAIN to unfuck SICKcare.  ALL of us

Bumpo's picture

Im looking for minimum only. Your going to pay the first $6000 anyway, Ill go to Mexico or India have my by-pass done for the same price.

PT's picture

Priorities, priorities.

My income is very unreliable.

If I don't know how I am going to feed myself next week then I don't care if some would-be health-care-provider has the same problem. 

If I don't know how I am going to feed myself next week then I'm certainly not thinking of any health problems I may or may not have in 20 years time, ten years time, or even tomorrow.

If things were going good then I would have time to worry about what I had to lose and then health insurance would become important to me.  It's these simple little things that are overlooked in these discussions.

The Gauleiter's picture

I'm in the same boat....go to the VA only when necessary. premiums but marginal care.....grateful I have my health 

Wulfkind's picture

Over 50% of ALL Americans can't even write a check for 500.00 to handle an emergency of ANY sort.

That's why....for one....the whole idea of a HSA ( Health Savings Account ) is a non starter. 

That's why the whole debate about tax credits and savings is meaningless.

Single Payer or just law of the jungle....the weak die, the strong get stronger.   That's it folks.....that's your choice.

bigkahuna's picture

The mastahs get more benefit by just fucking with their people instead. They will not allow this logic.

Normalcy Bias's picture

Profit drives innovation.

Why don't we try 'up front pricing' for procedures, results related reviews of physicians and facilities, and nationally available insurance plans first?

A little honest competition would significantly lower prices in short order.


Wulfkind's picture

Profit also drives greed.  Greed drives Graft.  Graft drives Cost increases from others joing the Graft.

We are either going to get....


Single Payer ( Government run healthcare )

Corporatist run healthcare.   ( And government WILL STILL be involved because of the fascist like revolving door between Government and Big Business )



chubakka's picture

you mean as long a disease is for profit.  and this is the real problem.  the system thrives on people being sick.  

bobdog54's picture

That is bullshit. Allow actual and real competition in the industry (for the first ever), allow nothing but PUBLIC lobbying by all healthcare entities, set a maximum of $50,000 or less for any and all malpractice lawsuits (this amount includes ambulance chaser fees) and set pre-existing condition inclusion clause ONLY IF individual was insured when got condition (babies/kids under parents policy).

No govt subsidies, tax credits, exemptions or exceptions - NOTHING. HEALTHCARE IS NOT A RIGHT BUT EARNED WITH GOOD LIFE DECISIONS.

FedEx and UPS make a profit because they are competitive. The USPS has and always will have half-assed services while being a money pit because Congress is the boss. Medical services is at least a full order of magnitude more complex than mail services.

Say NO to government intervention.

chosen's picture

Hospitals make up cost numbers, and make them as high as possible.  Then insurance companies and/or Medicare tell the hospitals how much they will actually get.  The only person screwed is the person who is not insured or on Medicare.  Even then he can contest the charges or ask for charity.  Of course, if he was an illegal, he would just throw the bills in the trash knowing that the hospitals cannot deny him ER service.  The whole system sucks.

Escrava Isaura's picture

We need a universal healthcare. And not insured provided healthcare. And the government needs the power to negotiate prices and graduate more doctors and nurses.

US insurance healthcare is almost a fraud as Wall Street.


BigJim's picture

Right! Like we need universal auto insurance, universal housing insurance, universla housing provision, universal car provision, universal food supply, universal clothes supply, universal university supply.

Certainly worked well in the USSR.

Peanut Butter Engineer's picture

Exactly, we need a freaking universal healthcare system like Medicare for everyone, not some public insurance policies for business to profit from!

Increase the rate on Medicare tax, and give Medicare coverage to everyone. Start more public hospital, and import cheaper meds and equipment.

Of course get some accountability going so that we don't over pay for supplies like $10000 toilet!
The End.

chosen's picture

Many people do not understand the fact that Medicare is not free and that it is optional.  If you sign up, you pay $105 a month for Part B which is automatically deducted from your Social Security.  But that only pays 80% of normal bills.  If you go to the hospital you pay a $1000 deductible right off, every time you go.  I have a "Supplement" that pays for all these extra charges, but it costs about $3000 a year.  If you need expensive drugs, you might have a problem, although there are plans (Part D) for that, and they are not too expensive (ranging from $20 to $100 a month).  Medicare for everybody would be good, but if you don't sign up and then show up at a hospital, be prepared to end up sitting on the curb.

Peanut Butter Engineer's picture

I understand that, however, it's better off that we just pay for more in healthcare tax rather than more in INSURANCE which only lines the pocket of those private companies.

There need to be a way for Medicare to cover all basic care, and I'm willing to let them tax me at higher rate for the Medicare tax than having us buy private insurance which is just like what you described already with high deductible.

We don't need new program, just expand the current Medicare and allow free basic coverage for colds annual check up etc at government non-profit hospitals.

The cost for medication is also due to our existing health care structure, if all gov entities start using import generic medicines then the cost will be reduce automatically and by pass all insurance companies.

chubakka's picture

because they can.  because the government will pay it like they 500.00 for a hammer. 

PT's picture

1.  Because every Capitalist believes it is his God-given DUTY to maximize profits.
2.  Because every one else is a sucker and no even breaks will be given.
3.  Because some clever Capitalists have worked out that writing legislation is much more profitable than free market competition.  Perhaps I should have put this one first.
4.  Because once you reach a large enough scale, buying politicians is the greatest ROI you will ever make.
5.  Allow me to contrast that last one by rephrasing it:  Because once you reach a large enough scale, it's open-season on your hard-earnt gains and you'd better have your hands on some heavy artillery if you wish to maintain what you earnt.

It really is a fine line between points 4 and 5.  And you sure as hell don't want to be on the wrong side of that line.

FireBrander's picture

"Without these healthy people keeping costs down, insurance premiums have risen alarmingly."


Premiums have risen "alarmingly" because MediCare, Medicaid and ObamaCare FORCES, BY LAW,  THE GOVERNMENT TO PICK UP THE BILL FOR THE "POOR"!

The ENTIRE SYSTEM is set to to promote, GUARENTEE, "alarming" increases in rates!

Remove the government subsidies and the price of care will be what people can afford...which is  at least 1/20th the current price...

crossroaddemon's picture

To make your plan politically palatable you have to provide a smooth upgrade path. Right now you're throwing out a solution that would in the short term (which could be longer than you think) cause considerable disruption in the system, and no politician is going to go there. So what's your upgrade path?

Escrava Isaura's picture

Your suggestion is not a valid suggestion, because the US would become a third world nation under such low prices. America doctors would move overseas for better pay.

Second, Obamacare helped create more low tech jobs, such as nurses and scanners operators.



Croesus's picture

"Why is an MRI $100 in Japan and $4000 in the USA?"

Because "Medicine" in the US is big business, and the patient is getting middled a bunch of times.

It's not just between you, your doctor, and the technologist giving you the test...

It's between you, the doctor, the doctor's staff, the staff at the MRI place, the MRI technologist, the EMR maintenance people, the insurance company, the legal compliance people, the third-party billing company, and the government.

When Obama said "give people Access to healthcare", he was talking about your Healthcare, but it was more about "giving OTHER BUSINESS PEOPLE ACCESS to billing you for healthcare...".

PT's picture

Every now and then, some sneaky person figures out how to remove the problems of competition and affordability from his business model.

FreeShitter's picture

Land of the Free loaders and Home of the debt slaves!

NiggaPleeze's picture

The most logical solution is something along the German model:  a basic insurance policy with single payer, that is contributed to in taxes like Medicare, with options to purchase supplemental insurance for better service (e.g., single-bed room instead of 3-bed room during hospital stays).

Insurance is not the real problem in US healthcare:  The real problem is the corrupt and monopolistic American Medical Association (AMA).  The AMA tries to eliminate all competition (homeopathy, chiropractors, etc.) through laws and strictly limits the number of medical schools (by making MD immigration almost impossible, strictly limiting the number of medical schools and residency programs, etc.).  The result is a severe shortage of doctors leading to long wait times (not compared to Canada, they have a different bottleneck, but compared to Germany, yes) and monopolistic wages.  Doctors in Germany earn a decent Euro 50,000 per year (except for a very few department heads) as it is covered by a national union.  Can you believe that?  A UNION that results in substantially lower wages/costs than the US "free market" - but the US market is only "free" if you ignore the AMA monopoly, the most greedy and corrupt union in the history of mankind.  The AMA would rather have countless patients die and undergo unnecessary "treatments" than risk reducing the salaries of their greedy members.

High doctor incomes account for roughly 80% of healthcare costs (bear in mind high doctor salaries affect also insurance companies, who must higher doctors to review bills, medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies, who must also higher doctors, sales teams, etc. - it affects the cost structure of the entire industry).  If doctor salaries were cut from $200,000 / yr to $50,000 / yr, healthcare costs would plummet (and so would the premiums).  Even nurses are affected by the absurdly elevated doctor wages, and many nurses make more than doctors in other industrialized countries.

It's time we got doctors who go into medicine to practice medicine, not to become millionaires.  And there is no need for doctors (or lawyers) to waste 4 years getting an undergraduate degree - straight to medical or law school after high school.  Reduce artificial barriers to entry!  Why does a dentist or an oncologist need to study philosophy or economics any more than a brick layer?  She doesn't.

Croesus's picture

A better solution:

- Ban Pharma from marketing to the public. (Drugs cost what they do, mostly because advertising is expensive).

- Eliminate all the garbage additives from food.

- Standardize costs for medical products/services nationwide.

- Simplify the health code regulations, for SSDI, Medicare, etc.

Less government is better government.

The German model works, as long as you're not subsidizing millions of people who shouldn't even be in the they, and we are.

NiggaPleeze's picture

(Drugs cost what they do, mostly because advertising is expensive)

And if that advertising did not pay for itself, and then some, a rational company wouldn't do it (though I agree about banning this advertising - legalizing that was a Clinton "gift", one, like with repeal of Glass-Steagal, off which he no doubt profited handsomely).

Eliminate all the garbage additives from food.

You're not proposing the government do that, are you?

Standardize costs for medical products/services nationwide.

Single payer would do tha, though you'd have to adjust for cost of living (a doctor in NYC should not make the same as a doctor in Rugby, North Dakota).

So, I don't think any of these proposals would lower medical insurance costs.  Even more-or-less banning smoking has not brought costs down, as doctors continue to demand lavish salaries to be bothered to do their job. 

Which brings us to:

Less government is better government.

The problem is the AMA is a government mandated monopoly.  The government requires a license to practice medicine - and the AMA controls the licensing in a number of extremely anti-competitive ways.  By design.

In essense the AMA is a government-sponsored medical monopoly but it represents only doctors and not patients or insurance payors.

By the way, there are two ways to reduce costs, once you realize the VAST component of medical care costs is MD salaries (whether these MDs work at insurance companies, in government, in hospitals, or at Big Pharma):  reduce MD salary, and/or reduce MD hours.  My proposal for reducing MD salary is straightforward:  eliminate the quasi-governmental AMA monopoly.  Reducing MD hours is tougher, but every country uses some sort of "death panel".  Nobody is going to spend $1 billion to save an insured life.  Once you agree with that proposition, you've agreed to death panels - the only question is, at what point below $1 billion is the line drawn.

peippe's picture

doctor training runs 10-12 years, 

so how will paying doctors of varying talent (rehab doctors who are glorified babysitters, all the way to surgeons willing to get brutal & bloody)

$50,000/year fix anything? Would someone spend a decade learning the medical trade actually accept $50,000/year?

Or just walk away? Not all docs are equal, some actually have talent, way more than $50,000/year worth. I've met them.

NiggaPleeze's picture

The vast majority of doctors in the world work for under $50,000 per year.  Greed does not make you a good doctor and, in fact, there are strong arguments (unnecessary procedures, over-working such as 24-hour shifts for interns, etc.) for why it is harmful to doctors generally.  The US has by far the hightest medical salaries, but nowhere close to the best medical outcomes.  It is true that some cutting edge research is done in the US and that these doctors are spectacular, but, that is not the norm, and many times these doctors aren't the very rich ones either.

Doctor training is no different from lawyer training.  To be a "partner", you spend 4 years getting BS, 3 yeas in law school, and 7 years as an associate, leading to 14 years training.  Yet not every law partner demands $300,000 per year, it's absurd.

But I tell you what, here is how one fixes it:  as I noted in my previous post, eliminate the BS requirement, that adds nothing but shaves 4 years off the training.  Straight from high school into a 4-5 year MD program.

Second:  interns are already paid a full doctor salary (over $50K), in the vast majority of countries in the world anyway, including Germany.  They are just not paid the 5-mansion-vacation-property-owning salaries to which doctors believe themsleves entitled.  The training period really needs to be only 4-5 years, same as a nurse, engineer, chemist, or economist.  And no reason to make a greater salary.

BTW, many patiends already engage in "medical tourism" to escape greedy US doctors.  If all insurance would cover these trips, and pay the patients even a small percentage of the savings, this kind of tourism would go up astronomically.

LetThemEatRand's picture

"that's because we went from the land of the free to the land of the free shit bitchez"

Yes, free shit for those who don't contribute, while the middle class (not the wealthy) get the bill for said free shit.  It's almost as if they are trying to destroy the middle class on purpose.

847328_3527's picture

Better then before, peter.

Bottom line...stay healthy!

swamp's picture