🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jun30.200946.14708@mprgate.mpr.ca> vanderby@mprgate.mpr.ca (David Vanderbyl) writes:
>There seems to be a misconception about the cap on doctors fees.
>This is not a cap on the fee per visit, but rather a cap on the
>total yearly fees a doctor may bill the government for, without
>regard to the doctor's overhead etc.

It would seem that the doctor would simply then decide how many patients
to see to earn that $300 000.

>The cap has been arbitrarily set at about $300,000 per year.
>This cap affects very few doctors, but the doctors it does
>affect will simply treat less patients (would you work for free?).
>Thus the patient will have to see another doctor with their
>problem, so its obvious that this cap will not save the government
>any money (except for doctors who accidently see too many patients).

Would this not also encourage doctors to charge more per visit?

>This cap also unfairly affects doctors such as opthamologists, who
>require expensive equipment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
>When they reach their cap, their equipment sits idle.

Perhaps if a portion of the patients fees went to the equipment, not the
doctor, and that portion was not subject to the same cap...

- Iain -
-- 
Iain McVey (mcvey@mprgate.mpr.ca)   | -  Go ahead, ask me the questions;
Software Designer                   |    I'm not afraid. - Brave sir Robin
MPR Teltech Ltd.                    | -  Default .mailrc files are the
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC        |    invention of the anti-christ.