garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (07/16/85)
> >>From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) in <863@bunker.UUCP>: > >>>It is already more lucrative for > >>>a doctor to perform abortions than to take care of mother > >>>and child through a complete pregnancy. > >>False. Abortions cost around $250. Hospital birth *alone* is > >>reported to cost at least $1000, to say nothing of pre-natal > >>visits, post-partum checkups, etc. Your conflict of interest > >>is a straw man. > >>Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" > Gary Samuelson writes in reply to my reply to his article (whew! :-)): > >The conflict of interest is quite real, and it ain't hay. > > > >The figures you mention are the costs to the *patient*; what I am > >talking about is how much a *physician* can make. I know that *one* > >hospital birth costs *the patient* more than *one* abortion. However, > >the *physician* can perform several abortions in the same time it > >takes to attend one birth. > Gee, I was under the impression that OB's could attend to several births > at once; your argument so far doesn't appear to hold water. No one can be two places at the same time. An OB can keep track of more than one woman in labor (by timesharing), but can only attend one actual delivery at a time. In the same way, an abortionist can keep track of more than one abortion patient at a time, by having separate rooms and letting (for example) a nurse do some of the preparation and cleanup. Note: throughout this article, I use "OB" to mean a physician (obstetrician- gynecologist) who cares for a woman throughout her pregnancy, incuding delivery. "Abortionist" means a physician who performs abortions. > >Furthermore, the hospital charges for birth are divided among > >more people than the abortion fee. > OK, but birth costs more than abortion, so there's more money to go > around. The point remains: the fact that the patient pays more is negated by the fact that the money is divided among more people. > >For example, during my wife's pregnancy, her doctor charged a fee > >of between $600 and $700, which covered prenatal care and delivery. > >[...] > > So at a minimum, assuming your $250 figure is > >accurate, he could have made $2500 performing abortions > >instead of the $600 to $700 he made. Therefore, for the > >individual physician, performing abortions is about *four times* > >more lucrative than caring for a pregnant woman through a > >full term pregnancy. > Note, however, that the doctor chose to attend your wife, instead of > making all of that extra money -- perhaps this "conflict of interest" > isn't nearly so bad as you think. Well, I guess some doctors are better able to resist temptation than others (what kind of reply did you expect?) > My SO just walked up and advised me that I should probably take > your figures for prenatal costs to be up to an order of magnitude *low*. The figures I gave are no estimate; they are from an actual case history (my daughter's birth). What does your SO know about what we paid out? > For a lay midwife (no hospital), she says, it cost $800 in Austin, > Texas in 1981 (a friend of ours had a child then). Around the same > time, another friend of hers had a baby in the hospital; it cost > them $3000. I have already pointed out that what the *hospital* receives is irrelevant. How much of that $3000 did the *doctor* receive? The fact that a midwife can make more than an OB is interesting, but also irrelevant. > The amount of money paid to the doctor is claimed to > be hidden in a morass of accounting. Probably true; and it applies equally to OB's and abortionists. So what? > Some OB's cost more than > this because they specialize in out-of-the-ordinary cases: first > children (when the mother is over 30), hormonal problems, infertility, > previous difficult births, and the great money-maker: caesarian > sections. A normal gynecological visit of 10 minutes or less can > run anywhere from $30 to $50, or more. First, we're not talking about "normal gynecological visits" -- we're talking about the care of a pregnant woman through a full term pregnancy. If that's what you meant, fine. Ten minutes for a pre-natal examination seems awfully low; but supposing it to be correct, and taking your high figure ($50), that means $300 per hour. (I'm ignoring the useless phrases "or less" and "or more" -- my calculator doesn't have those functions.) A suction abortion takes 15-30 minutes (or less?) and can cost (see your figures below) $200-230 (or more?) (hmm, your previous article said $250 -- is someone having a sale?) Well, let's take the maximum time (30 minutes) and the minimum fee ($200). That comes out to a minimum of $400 per hour. Thus, an OB can, by becoming an abortionist, give himself a raise of 33%, according to your figures. Thanks for proving my point. (If I take the opposite ends of the ranges to favor my argument, the OB makes $150 and the abortionist $1000.) > Abortion clinics incur costs that other clinics do not... (and vice versa)... You provide no figures for these other costs; this makes actual comparisons rather difficult (to say the least). > horrendous property insurance, How many dollars in a "horrendous"? > malpractice insurance sometimes calculated on tables other than > those used for OB insurance, "Other than" means "not equal" -- which is greater? > expensive equipment, (see below) > tissue disposal services, You haven't been paying attention. For some abortion clinics, this "expense" has actually become a source of revenue. > etc. This is because abortion is a surgical procedure > whereas a straight examination is not, and does not require the > equipment... Keep in mind that equipment is a capital expense, not an operating expense. Thus, the abortionist wants to do as many abortions as possible, to help pay for that equipment. And I doubt that the abortionist's equipment is significantly more exotic than the OB's; would you like to substantiate the implication that it is? I'm referring to the equipment the OB has to have for treating the whole pregnancy, including delivery, which must be available, even though it is not used every time the patient comes in. > ...and caution. How much does "caution" cost? What are you trying to say here? > In non-profit clinics, in 1983, a > straight abortion (including followup care) ran $150. A private > physician could charge approximately $200-$230, for the same service, > depending on anaesthesia (nitrous oxide, used also in dental offices), > etc. > The actual difference in the prices for the same services may not > reflect the doctors' "take" because sometimes non-profit clinics > receive funding from charitable organizations enabling them to > offer lower-cost abortions. So your figure of $150 is misleading. Thank you for pointing that out. Also, does "charitable organizations" include the government? > Therefore, it would require a thorough > audit by a CPA taking into account geographical location (reflected > in regional differences in medical costs) to determine the profit > margins of the various physicians. That may be the only thing we'll agree on regarding this issue. But, based only on the figures you yourself have provided, an abortionist stands to make considerably more than an OB. If you expect me to come to some other conclusion, you'll have to provide some different figures, and explain what's wrong with the ones you already gave. > Also, please note that nurses > and other professionals in non-profit clinics of all types receive > much lower pay than those in the private (for profit) sector. > [End of communication] First, private != for profit. There are privately run non-profit organizations. But in any case, the point is irrelevant. You might compare a non-profit abortion practice with a non-profit OB practice, or a for-profit abortion practice with a for-profit OB practice, but to compare a non-profit abortion practice with a for-profit OB practice is invalid. > If she is correct, your argument doesn't hold water at all, not to > mention being outright insulting to the non-profit clinics. As you said yourself, the "non-profit" clinics still charge a fee for their services, and with charitable contributions and government assistance, I suspect that the total revenue per abortion is not vastly different from the for-profit clinics. The fact that a corporation (clinic or otherwise) is non-profit means only that the corporation itself makes no money; it says nothing about the salaries that employees of said corporation make. And my argument is simply that volume can make up for low per-unit profit, which is true in any business. > >> Experimentation on live aborted fetuses is wrong and should be > >> stopped. But that does not imply that abortion should be stopped > >> also. > > > >[Gary Samuelson] > >I am glad you agree that the experimentation on live aborted > >fetuses should be stopped. But it seems inconsistent; if the > >fetus truly has no rights, is not a person, and so forth, why > >do you oppose such experimentation? > > Mostly out of personal revulsion -- I did not intend the statement > to sound like an ethical imperative. Well, if you only meant that you personally find it distasteful, then you should have said so. Furthermore, you have no grounds for saying that it should be stopped -- presumably those who likewise are revolted by the practice aren't engaged in it. > I note, however, a possible > source of confusion: I do not assume that the fetus has no rights, > and I made no assumptions above about its personhood. The notion > that I do put forward is that there can be no such thing as a right > to violate the rights of another. An unwelcome fetus is in violation > of its mother's right to control her property; the notion that it > might have the right to remain there anyway is nonsensical. More simply put, you are saying that the right to control one's property is more important than the right to live. Or you are saying that the fetus doesn't have the right to live. > The right > of the mother to remove the fetus from her body does *not* mean that > it "truly has no rights", only that it may not violate its mother's. But she may violate the fetus's right to live? or are you saying that the fetus has some rights, but living is not one of them? And if the latter, of what use are any rights at all, if the right to live is not among them? > Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys