"soul crushing rejections"..Obamacare recipient unable to find doc who will take her. (abuse, doctor)

[bUU]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Hmmmmmmm.............

In other words, you needed a second to think up more vacuous nonsense to spew, to try to defend the self-serving vitriol for civic responsibility that you prefer. Thanks for making the morally bankrupt nature of what you support so clear, but I'm done placating your refusal to reply to comments made with integrity.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by bUU

In other words, you needed a second to think up more vacuous nonsense to spew, to try to defend the self-serving vitriol for civic responsibility that you prefer. Thanks for making the morally bankrupt nature of what you support so clear, but I'm done placating your refusal to reply to comments made with integrity.

Wow-

I guess you cannot adress any of the points I made and seek the warm refuge of deflection. I am, again, amused by your presumption of moral and intellectual superiority. I think you should read the link. I sometimes have patients, just like you, who come to me with their "internet" diagnosis and a treatment plan. They only need me to write some scripts for them to carry out thier plan. I understand that, to you, all of my education and medical training is meaningless, because you JUST KNOW how right you are!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

You have not adressed ANY of the points I have made, which shows that your desires are based in impractical fantasy and reveals one who has no clue as to how the health system or a medical practice operates.

Let's cut and paste them again-

1. One cannot force any physician to see any patient electively (13th amendment). On call (which is deemed "emergent") one must accept any patient.

2. An average of $300K in debt is accumulated by physicians in training. Why would anyone go into medicine when they could not pay off thier debt?
a. do you assume the feds would pick up that tab?
b. do you understand that Obamacare looted $750 billion from medicare?
c. do you understand that residency slots are funded to a great extent by medicare?

3. Medicaid pays less than one fifth what private insurance does. ANY PRACTICE that opened its doors (without rationing) to medicaid would be bankrupt in a few months.
a. do you understand that we pay 45% in overhead?
b. do you understand that nurses and staff have to be paid, regardless of revenues?
c. do you understand that rent and supplies have to be paid, regardless of revenues?
d. what happens to those practices that go bankrupt by your rules? Are those physicians allowed to retire, or are they forced to pay to practice until they are personally bankrupt?

4. If one is to "force" physicians to see certain patients and work at the will of the feds, then-
a. what other occupations will be forced to work for the pleasure of the feds?
b. are physicians allowed to retire?
c. do physicians get any vacation time?
d. what do the feds do if we choose to simply quit? Do they arrest us?

5. Our license is conferred by the state, therefore they have no power over us
a. do you think that states will concede that authority to the feds?
b. do you realize that state boards have different discipline rates and actions?
c. do you realize that state boards have different CME and education requirements?

6. If you cut reimbursement, such that making a living is difficult-
a. why would anyone go into medicine?
b. why would those over age 50 continue to practice?
c. do you realize that there is already a physician shortage?
d. do you realize that PAs, NPs, and CRNAs bill the same amount as physicians?

7. Do you realize that medicaid patients-
a. have a high incidence of drug abuse?
b. are abusive to staff?
c. "no show" quite frequently?
d. complain about $1 co-pays?
e. are poorly compliant?

8. Do you realize that the poor already have healthcare coverage- better than those with insurance?
a. emergent care cannot be denied
b. patients are not "balanced billed" for very expensive care
c. CHIP programs provide for children
d. county clinics and hospitals offer care free, which is not available to those with insurance

9. Society determines salaries and reimbursement based on what the market determines
a. how much do you think physicians should be paid?
b. given that many of us work 80+ hours, should we be paid by the hour?
c. should 13 years of post high school education be a consideration?
d. should the high GPAs and MCATs required to get into med school be considered?
e. should the relative stress of medicine, compared to flipping burgers, be considered?
f. should the debt and time without income be considered?

[bUU]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

I guess you cannot adress any of the points I made

Don't confuse my dismissing your nonsense for anything other than what it is. I've provided myriad responses to the points you try to defend. You have failed to demonstrate the slightest bit of integrity in reading my comments for understanding and replying to what I wrote rather than distorting it into something you are capable of replying to. I've mentioned this several times already, a fact that underscores just how consistently you fail to reply with integrity, claiming here that I haven't already done so.

Your comments are being dismissed. Live with it.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by bUU

Don't confuse my dismissing your nonsense for anything other than what it is. I've provided myriad responses to the points you try to defend. You have failed to demonstrate the slightest bit of integrity in reading my comments for understanding and replying to what I wrote rather than distorting it into something you are capable of replying to. I've mentioned this several times already, a fact that underscores just how consistently you fail to reply with integrity, claiming here that I haven't already done so.

Your comments are being dismissed. Live with it.

I would expect nothing else. You have provided no refutation of any points I have made, only a few lines of emotional deflection backed by no facts whatsoever or any rational, practical plans. Just trite, short comments as above, claiming that you have actually adressed and refuted (which you have failed to do in any of your posts) my points.


Here is the post to which you claim you adress my points:

"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."

Tell me, just where does your snippet adress any of the 9 points (and multiple subpoints) I have stated? All I see is emotional blathering and opinions with no factual basis. The reason you presume this response as an actual dismissal of practical, factual issues is that you have an illusory concept of academic superiority based in complete ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

"It ain't the things we don't know that get us into trouble. It is the things that we know for sure that just ain't so".

-Mark Twain

[Suncc49]

awesome response and absolutely spot on.... you can't argue with people who can't see through the tree's though

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Hmmmmmmm.............

It is interesting indeed that you claim you respond to any of the points I make about the costs of medical care and why "forcing" physicians to see certain patients is not practical.

You have not (in a single post) adressed ANY OF THESE POINTS, yet ramble on about being an "expert" in morality. Your "morals" constitute childish demands and sacrifices of OTHER PEOPLE in order to satisfy some sense of guilt or conscience that YOU HOLD that have no practicality in the real world. However, YOU DEMAND other people sacrifice time, money, and effort, to satisfy your wishes.

Want to put your money where your mouth is? Work hard in undergrad, get straight As, apply to med school, go through residency, accumulate debt, go several years without an income, then YOU WORK FOR NOTHING IN ORDER TO SATISFY YOUR GUILT AND MORALITY. I would bet that would last about two weeks!

Let us review (again)

1. One cannot force any physician to see any patient electively (13th amendment). On call (which is deemed "emergent") one must accept any patient.

2. An average of $300K in debt is accumulated by physicians in training. Why would anyone go into medicine when they could not pay off thier debt?
a. do you assume the feds would pick up that tab?
b. do you understand that Obamacare looted $750 billion from medicare?
c. do you understand that residency slots are funded to a great extent by medicare?

3. Medicaid pays less than one fifth what private insurance does. ANY PRACTICE that opened its doors (without rationing) to medicaid would be bankrupt in a few months.
a. do you understand that we pay 45% in overhead?
b. do you understand that nurses and staff have to be paid, regardless of revenues?
c. do you understand that rent and supplies have to be paid, regardless of revenues?
d. what happens to those practices that go bankrupt by your rules? Are those physicians allowed to retire, or are they forced to pay to practice until they are personally bankrupt?

4. If one is to "force" physicians to see certain patients and work at the will of the feds, then-
a. what other occupations will be forced to work for the pleasure of the feds?
b. are physicians allowed to retire?
c. do physicians get any vacation time?
d. what do the feds do if we choose to simply quit? Do they arrest us?

5. Our license is conferred by the state, therefore they have no power over us
a. do you think that states will concede that authority to the feds?
b. do you realize that state boards have different discipline rates and actions?
c. do you realize that state boards have different CME and education requirements?

6. If you cut reimbursement, such that making a living is difficult-
a. why would anyone go into medicine?
b. why would those over age 50 continue to practice?
c. do you realize that there is already a physician shortage?
d. do you realize that PAs, NPs, and CRNAs bill the same amount as physicians?

7. Do you realize that medicaid patients-
a. have a high incidence of drug abuse?
b. are abusive to staff?
c. "no show" quite frequently?
d. complain about $1 co-pays?
e. are poorly compliant?

8. Do you realize that the poor already have healthcare coverage- better than those with insurance?
a. emergent care cannot be denied
b. patients are not "balanced billed" for very expensive care
c. CHIP programs provide for children
d. county clinics and hospitals offer care free, which is not available to those with insurance

9. Society determines salaries and reimbursement based on what the market determines
a. how much do you think physicians should be paid?
b. given that many of us work 80+ hours, should we be paid by the hour?
c. should 13 years of post high school education be a consideration?
d. should the high GPAs and MCATs required to get into med school be considered?
e. should the relative stress of medicine, compared to flipping burgers, be considered?
f. should the debt and time without income be considered?



You live in a childish world in which YOU CLAIM the high ground of "morality", when in fact your wishes and "demands" are totalitarian in nature and disregard the effort and work of others for your personal emotional needs. Amazing

READ THIS LINK

Dunning

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by Suncc49

awesome response and absolutely spot on.... you can't argue with people who can't see through the tree's though

Yep-

Amazing, isn't it? Here are the two posts in which "buu" delivers his definitive rebuttal, in which all of my concerns with his wishes are "adressed" in a detailed, point by point fashion. If I did not know better, I would call this random, emotional rambling that did not deal with any of the actual, practical economic concerns with a medical "open door" policy. Perhaps, however, to one who is "morally omnipotent" these responses reveal all. I just cannot seem to find any details in either of the statements:

1. "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."

2. "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."



I guess it must be like the old Ryan O'Neil movie, "Love Story"- Liberalism means never having to make any sense.

PS- Hospitals are accredited through JCAHO, not the states. But then again, maybe you know more than JCAHO and they can stop accrediting hospitals. JCAHO has nothing to do with us, as physicians. So what organization are YOU going to use to "force" physicians to see patients they don't want to see?

I have my license through the state and my certification with the National Board of Medical Examiners, neither of which has anything to do with the federal government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Commission

[Katarina Witt]

For all the poor, benighted doctors (and other health care providers) and their supporters on this forum:
Medicare Kept Paying Indicted, Sanctioned Doctors : Shots - Health News : NPR
"In August 2011, federal agents swept across the Detroit area, arresting doctors, pharmacists and other health professionals accused of running a massive scheme to defraud Medicare.

The following month, several of those arrested, including psychiatrist Mark Greenbain and podiatrist Anmy Tran, program for the poor.

But the indictment and Medicaid suspensions didn't deter Medicare from continuing to allow the doctors to treat elderly and disabled patients — and didn't stop the physicians from billing taxpayers for their services.
New data show how much individual physicians received in 2012 from Medicare.

In 2012, Medicare paid Greenbain more than $862,000, according to newly released data on Medicare payments to physicians. Tran received $155,000."

I am a health care provider myself and I'm not anti-doctor. Just sayin'!

[le roi]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

Ebony: Obamacare supporter's exchange coverage turned down 96 times | The Daily Caller

What good is car insurance if no body shop will agree to perform the repairs? It's worthless. Ebony writer Danielle Kimberly says that she got 96 "soul crushing" rejections in her attempt to obtain health care under the Obamacare plan that was supposed to cover her.

Exchange coverage?

the article says she's on medicaid.

[Darkatt]

She should find a Doctor, Pay them out right, and then file a claim for reimbursement, and then learn why doctors won't accept new medicare patients.

[citizenkane2]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

Ebony: Obamacare supporter's exchange coverage turned down 96 times | The Daily Caller

What good is car insurance if no body shop will agree to perform the repairs? It's worthless. Ebony writer Danielle Kimberly says that she got 96 "soul crushing" rejections in her attempt to obtain health care under the Obamacare plan that was supposed to cover her.

LOL!!

AND SHE'S HAPPY!! SMH..........

[youtube]
=nZMuBIJxmnA[youtube]

This is more than creepy by a half...........