Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The author appears to be on expanded Medicaid - but why a magazine writer is on Medicaid is unknown.
"when the rush of the formerly uninsured came knocking, doctors in my New Jersey town began closing their doors and promptly telling insurance companies that they had no room for new patients."
So the problem is helping the uninsured get covered when there is insufficient supply. Under Republican logic it's better these people suffer without insurance rather than with insurance.
Actually, we'd like a solution that allowed healthcare to become more affordable, not just the insurance premiums. Rationed care will force more and more doctors into retirement or into concierge clinics where they won't accept insurance at all. And far less people will go to medical school. This doctor shortage is only going to get worse.
Why couldn't they make pharmaceutical companies offer cheaper medicines and include some tort reform to make that possible? In England they can't sue their doctors, or it's very difficult. I don't think they can sue pharmaceutical companies either.
Because you're attempting to deflect our conversation away from what I wrote. The ACA issue is about moral prioritization - putting the basic needs of the most vulnerable in society over comfort and luxury of the rest of us. If you want to reply to my comment to discuss what I wrote (such as challenging the moral prioritization between luxury and basic needs, which is what I put forward), then please do. If you want to reply to my comment to discuss something else, which isn't what I wrote, then prepare to have such scurrilous deflection be repudiated each time you attempt it. If you want to post your own tangential thoughts, then go ahead and do so, as standalone comments, but don't try to hide behind posting replies to others' messages, nor expect that anyone has to pay your comments any mind.
No, you wrote about the ACA being a moral obligation. Yet you talk about morals but refuse to admit the ACA was an immoral law passed the way it was passed. You want to know what happens to a doctor who's granted a license to practice medicine in a state and than it's found out he's lied about previously acts (no matter how benign they were?) They throw out his license. That's the point I am making about the ACA. It's a law passed on lies. You support the law, you support lies.
See you can't play the moral card selectively.
You think I am diverting away from the subject? That is far from the purpose. And I know you are way too smart (or think you are) to be lead into the trap I wanted to lure you into admitting. That's why the non answer on your part.
Many things are moral obligations. But moral obligations automatically loses its muster once lies are told to obtain it. The ACA is an immoral law the way it was passed.
You want to support a moral health care system that supplies basic needs to all citizens. The ACA doesn't do that. I just can't believe you would say the ACA fulfills a moral obligation to ensure basic health needs when it's going to leave millions uninsured with or without it.
The AMA doesn't have much political clout any more. It's been that way for a very long time.
The ABMS (american board of medical specialities) and it's individual members have all the political clout.
The funny thing about the title of the article you mention is the word "strongest trade union". You realize doctors in the USA are forbidden to join unions because of anti trust laws.
Self-employed physicians cannot unionize because it would lead to monopolistic business practices, collusion, and price fixing. Yet if they sell out those same practices to hospitals and private corporations, than those private corporations can collude and force insurers to pay more.
Go figure. The ACA has forced more doctors to sell practices to companies and hospitals. Those same companies and hospitals can fight the battles doctors cannot do on their own.
doctors dont like mean rude hostile law suit happy patients, there-- the big secret of today enjoy. if you think that is a violation of civil rights wait til k12 voucher system kicks in.
True words-
Medicaid patients (our practice picks them up from our neurosurgeons while on call) tend to be-
1. prone to substance abuse
2. often "no show" for appointments
3. are rude to staff
4. poorly compliant
5. suffer from obesity, smoking and drinking habits
6. have a higher incidence of social/psychological issues
.................. they are not pleasant patients and require more work than other patients. With lower reimbursement and more work, they are (on the average) not the patients we like to see.
There are a number that went to a cash based system for billing already to not deal with the red tape created through Obamacare.
Not as many as you'd think from the articles written about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Sure-
4. If physicians are forced by the feds to perform compulsory labor, what other occupations will also be pressed into government forced labor? Lawyers? Accountants? CEOs? Teachers? Pilots.
Actually, some states and some law firms require lawyers to do pro bono work.
Go figure. The ACA has forced more doctors to sell practices to companies and hospitals. Those same companies and hospitals can fight the battles doctors cannot do on their own.
Doctors have been merging , selling or closing private practices in substantial numbers for more than 15 years.
My long time OB/GYN who has delivered serious thousands of babies made the business decision to cease performing obstetrics because of enormous medical malpractice premiums in her private practice. She was miserable. She eventually closed her practice and signed on with a hospital owned group and loves being an employee and once again doing what she loves to do, obstetrics.
Younger doctors embrace being employees , not being on call 24/7, letting their employer deal with medical malpractice insurance premiums, insurance companies, collections, accountants , drug peddlers, employee issues and more.
Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners have increasingly been handling routine patient care within Family Practices.
Some Rural areas have historically been under served while there is excess capacity in some urban/suburban areas.
And none of this has anything to do with the ACA legislation.
Doctors have been merging , selling or closing private practices in substantial numbers for more than 15 years.
My long time OB/GYN who has delivered serious thousands of babies made the business decision to cease performing obstetrics because of enormous medical malpractice premiums in her private practice. She was miserable. She eventually closed her practice and signed on with a hospital owned group and loves being an employee and once again doing what she loves to do, obstetrics.
Younger doctors embrace being employees , not being on call 24/7, letting their employer deal with medical malpractice insurance premiums, insurance companies, collections, accountants , drug peddlers, employee issues and more.
Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners have increasingly been handling routine patient care within Family Practices.
Some Rural areas have historically been under served while there is excess capacity in some urban/suburban areas.
And none of this has anything to do with the ACA legislation.
The practice of buyouts mergers or whatever u want to call it have accelerated in the past 4-5 years in specialities expected to be hurt my ACOs like radiology, anesthesiology, emergency medicine.
You see the squeeze is on. Many senior MD partners (usually in their 50s) with about 5 years of practice remaining at selling their practices. They anticipate big hits with the ACA.
I think such Chicken Little cries are without merit. The doctors who would quit are probably mostly people who were just looking for an excuse, and what ACA does is far more important than keeping doctors who would quit in the discipline. If we have to do something about some imagined doctor shortage, then we should do that too, because ensuring more of America's most vulnerable have some kind of access to healthcare is more important.
Some people are just looking for any excuse to place their own personal comfort and luxury over the basic needs of others, or to engage in petulant marginalization of the poor. That's what needs to be fixed more than anything else.
Kind of like people being saying No, You will not be able to keep your plan?
Leftist lie to get what they want...
Once again playing the flase moral high ground to claim victory...bUU how you lead by example and give up your personal comfort and luxury so others can have their basic needs filled....Dont be greedy..
Kind of like people being saying No, You will not be able to keep your plan?
Leftist lie to get what they want...
Once again playing the flase moral high ground to claim victory...bUU how you lead by example and give up your personal comfort and luxury so others can have their basic needs filled....Dont be greedy..
I know. I am done with bUU's stance. Been arguing all day. They want to take higher moral ground. Claiming we need to provide for those most vulnerable.
Funny thing they keep talking about most vulnerable all the time. We already take care of those most vulnerable without the ACA (kids through mostly state/fed Medicaid programs) pregnant women, those disabled (through medicare), and the old (medicare).
I'd be more concerned about the resolution being dictated solely by those in the healthcare field. What the government can and cannot force, through pass-through regulations and otherwise, is far more than you're willing to admit. There were those who said that you couldn't force private hospital ERs to accept critical patients without a means to pay. They were just as wrong. And yes, hospitals are also licensed by the state.
The real issue here is how to cover basic needs of all while still leaving the industry viable. However, don't let your bias cloud your ability to understand the bottom-line: It is not acceptable to favor any level of failure to provide affordable access to basic healthcare. We're in a better situation now than before, but there is still further to go, and if the industry needs to be part of the solution then it should be part of the solution.
Even if you don't like it.
Must be nice. I wonder if you realize that you undercut most of your argument by proudly claiming that our society allowed you to overcome hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt, and actually beyond that accumulate enough riches to retire, by age 50 - or will you be so blinded by your bias that you would defend such claims with self-ratifying self-aggrandizement.
That is right, He is the greedy one, working hard for his wealth instead of making other providing him with their wealth via taxes and welfare..
I mean he is the greedy one, not others wanting his time, skill, and labor, for greatly reduced or for free..
We are not in a better situation then we were before, no matter what you say or how big your lies you leftist can not change this fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
