Your Opinion

Tell us what you think!  Enter your comments below.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Your Opinion

  1. Dr. Wax, thank you for providing a forum for liberty-oriented physicians to exchange opinions and ideas. It is important to have the free market / libertarian viewpoint represented to the public. While I appreciate that the Left is motivated by good intentions such as generosity to the poor, they fail to factor in real-world effects such as the Laws of Unintended Consequences (e.g. the more you help someone, the more dependent they become). Yes, there is a place for a social safety net in a humane society, but we should not allow the safety net to become a luxury fur-lined hammock that nobody ever wants to emerge from. It seems to me that the editorial boards of the top medical journals (JAMA, NEJM, BMJ, Lancet, and so on) are dominated by the Left. And, following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, they hew to the principle that the best way to propagate their views is to deny any forum for their opponents to even debate them. Since they will not allow us to debate them in the pages of the journals they control, we need to establish alternative forums. Your blog is a good place to discuss these issues – let’s hope that its influence and visibility increase. May this be the year it goes viral !

  2. Dear Fellow Osteopathic Physicians:

    In a recent exchange of e-mails with the COO of the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons, I learned that we are, as of yet, unable to come up with 5 DOs motivated enough to form an osteopathic counterpart to this board. It seems the NBPS has done a lot of the homework for us. Let me reproduce part of that exchange:

    “We need a DO leader to put together a board that other DOs will respect and follow. I have had several say they will help but nothing ever happens. If you bring me a list of 5 DOs to form the board we will create the NBOPAS (domain is already reserved by us).”

    So I would ask, “What’s up with that?” If we recognize the scam the AOA is running on us and we go to the trouble to complain about it, why would we not take the next step and form boards that truly represent our interests? I guess I can’t put much stock in all of these complaints in the absence of taking action when an alternative is clear. If this is the best we can do, the non-clinical cubicle denizens at the AOA have little to worry about.

    Any DOs that might be interested in serving in this capacity should contact Amanda Blommaert, MHA, (COO – National Board of Physicians and Surgeons) at this e-mail address:

    ablommaert@nbpas.org

    Five? Five? C’mon guys and gals. Five of us.

  3. Interesting, just read the complaint. It seems to me that time limited certification physicians have also been defrauded by the AOA. By implementing OCC and retroactively attaching it to existing/current certifications, the AOA reneged on its contract for those physicians by unilaterally applying new stipulations in order to recertify (I am among this group and have been very vocal with my speciality board, as well as immediate past president Becher and current president Buser.

    As a 501(c)3/not for profit organization, the AOA must publish its federal financial statement annually; at the beginning of 2013 (the last year for which published data are available), the AOA held assets in excess of $63 million dollars).

    Any settlement – in my opinion – must include the following:

    1. Elimination of OCC/recertification, immediate conversion of all certifications to lifetime, with the stipulation that lifetime certification cannot ever be changed

    2. Separation of AOA certifying boards from the control of the AOA.

    Additionally – and we have this power through the existing process of modifying the AOA constitution and Bylaws through the House of Delegates – the procedure for selection to the Board of Trustees, elected officers and bureau chiefs has to be revised wholesale.

    The needs of physicians early in career, at mid career, and late in career are different. As it now stands, only late in career physicians ever gain access to these positions and the rest of us are denied seats at the table.

    My 2 cents.

  4. Apparently we now have an Osteopathic counterpart to the NBPS. I consider this to be a favorable development.

    Dr. Damon, I really appreciated your comments as well. In my opinion we have certainly been defrauded by the AOA and I would welcome any effort in opposition to this unilateral decision they have made and imposed upon us.

    I was certified by two different AOA boards. Both certifications have now lapsed and I have no intention of participating in this “continuous certification” scheme. We need to speak the truth, and the truth is that this qualifies as nothing more than a scam. Given that I am no longer board-certified and have no intention of playing along, I now can come up with no good reason, at least in my own situation, to remain a member of the AOA. The day after my last certification lapsed I went in and treated patients just as I had the day prior.

    I have watched, over the years, the honorable vocation of “physician” turned into something akin to an industry – usurped by the MBAs and other bean-counters who saw a field ripe for the picking. Decisions that only we are qualified to make are now taken over by these people. In the end, the fault is ours. We gave it over. Now we dance to their tune. My salary is about 20% that of the CEO of the ” not-for-profit” corporation I work for and everyone cries about the cost of healthcare?

    Three years have passed and four of us have taken the time to comment on this issue. In medical school I was impressed, not always favorably, by the strong personalities of my fellow students and physicians in general. How did it happen that we allowed this situation to occur? We turned out to be servile followers, not leaders.

  5. Every government intervention in the payment mechanism over the last half century has had the effect of shielding the patient from the cost of care. It is axiomatic from a policy perspective that if you want more of something, you subsidize it. If you want less of something, you tax it. Whenever consumers of any desirable service, such as  health care, are shielded from the real costs of the consumption decision, demand for that service will be virtually infinite—and so will be the aggregate cost of its consumption. Ignoring that basic law of economics is what has caused the explosion in health care costs.

    I believe, however, that this situation is in the early stages of a long overdue self-correction. If you’d like to facts that justify that optimism, please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWlptsEmvII and let me know what you think.

    Frank Brady

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s