----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:46 PM Subject: Re: U.S. health care
>Well, I see the other side. I had a neighbor who was a blood >specialist..and couldn't find work in his specialty. He supplemented >his >income as a doc-in-the-box, at an urgent care center. He made >$50/hour for >doing this. That's less than temp agencies charge for draftsmen. Ackkk!!! That isn't the way one fairly compares such things Dan. My company charges around $80/hour for my services, but I'm grossing $24/hour or so. (My total package is around $45/hour). So if your specialist friend "Takes" $50/hour, what does the draftsman "Take"? What does the "Doc-in_the_box" charge for the "doc's" services compared to what the Temp Agency charges for a draftsman? I understand the point you are trying to make here and am not trying to disparage your sincerity in any way. But apple and oranges comparisons can distort perceptions and I'm wary of such in a post-Enron enviroment. As for the rest of what I wrote earlier, what I hoped would be taken from what I said was that there are a *lot* of inefficiencies in the system that could be eliminated. I understand that medical facilities feel the need to "market" but they do not to the extent they are. What I see happening is an overabundance of capacity and then a need to fill it. In the current enviroment there is a need to coordinate medical care. Not every facility needs to have the latest and greatest geegaw, just send the patients to the nearest geegaw. But it seems that every hospital wants to have that new geegaw and then they have to compete for patients. This is inefficient and this costs. (I've seen situations where a new catscan or MRI was used 10 or 20 hours a week in a facility that had several of each. But they had staff on hand for 40 to 60 hours a week to facilitate it's use) xponent Geegawgantic Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
