Yes they do. That said, just like anywhere that offers multiple plans where some are more expensive than others (and presumably better), the fact that senators and representatives make more money means they are more able to afford the better ones than the guy cleaning bathrooms at BFE National Park. But there is no plan that you gain access to with your Capitol Building office.

(Not to mention many of them are independently wealthy.)

Them too.

One of the other issues with the current state of medicine is the litigious society we live in. Malpractice insurance is through the roof because people sue for everything that goes wrong - and the papers they sign with the risks involve mean nothing in court. Those malpractice insurance costs are passed on to us.

The evidence that malpractice claims are a significant contributor to medical costs or inflation is spotty at best. And the evidence that capping malpractice awards reduces the rate of inflation ("tort reform" is the buzzword on that) is even spottier.

But there's definitely a perception that it is a problem and that affects how and where doctors practice.

Humm. I just know what my mom pays as an R.N. with no claims against her and over 35 years of experience. Insanity.

Oh, doctors and nurses certainly pay a lot for malpractice insurance. But that doesn't mean it is a major component of total cost or inflation.

It's kind of like most CEO's caught up in the outrage over bank failures. Sure they may be paid too much and that may be a moral outrage. But paying Dick Kevocovich $15 million to be chairman of Wells Fargo is not a significant drain on the bottom line.

Or the impact of earmarks on the federal budget. Most are outrageous but they don't do serious damage to the bottom line and eliminating them won't help at the macro level.

OK.....so it is OK for specialists and surgeons to make lots of money, but not for chemists who develop a new medicine. Why? What about the people that think that those surgeons make too much, as you say you think those pharmaceutical researchers make too much?

And what about the person who thinks the medical equipment used to diagnose something is too expensive? I have no idea how much an MRI machine costs, but i bet it's a pretty penny. I am certain the machine costs exponentially as much money as the parts that go into it. I bet the person who holds the patents (if any) makes a lot of money on those. If the government simply sets a price on those machines, then the tests are cheaper for the people that need it and insurance costs less.

I was agreeing with you! They should be compensated for their talents. The CEO of the insurance company should not be compensated for saving money because they denied care to people.

OK - my bad. I thought "them too" meant they were paid too much, not that you equated them with the doctors that you don't mind what they make.

What should the CEO of an insurance company be compensated for? This is where what GD brought up applies. They are a business. They were set up to make a profit. Some don't think that's OK. 252 million people currently insured would therefore not be insured if those companies did not exist.

Yes, Leo, that's exactly what I'm advocating. :rolleyes:

I do not have an issue with a CEO being compensated for running a business. I do have an issue with Executives receiving bonuses that are tied to the amount of money they save by denying coverage/care to people who are covered by their insurance.