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.
Being from Massachusetts,
I've heard nothing of there being a shortage of doctors or internists here. Everyone here is doing just fine. If the MAMedical said 40% of doctors weren't taking on new patients its because 98% of the state already has medical coverage. We've all been covered and with a doctor for several years now.
Besides the new HealthCare Law gives more money and grants for people to go into the medical field. And that section of the Law doesn't come online until 2014, plenty of time to start training new doctors.
I wish you people would pull your out out of the sand and see how fantastic of a start this Law is. It's ok for the federal government to do this, as the Preamble of the Constitution states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." If that doesn't mean healthcare...then I give up.
Being from Massachusetts,
I've heard nothing of there being a shortage of doctors or internists here. Everyone here is doing just fine. If the MAMedical said 40% of doctors weren't taking on new patients its because 98% of the state already has medical coverage. We've all been covered and with a doctor for several years now.
Besides the new HealthCare Law gives more money and grants for people to go into the medical field. And that section of the Law doesn't come online until 2014, plenty of time to start training new doctors.
I wish you people would pull your out out of the sand and see how fantastic of a start this Law is. It's ok for the federal government to do this, as the Preamble of the Constitution states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." If that doesn't mean healthcare...then I give up.
If it meant free health care for all then why didn't they have that way back when they wrote that about "general welfare"?
They didn't pay for every medical procedure back in the days of the Founding Fathers because they didn't mean for the government to control every aspect of our lives and health.
If it meant free health care for all then why didn't they have that way back when they wrote that about "general welfare"?
They didn't pay for every medical procedure back in the days of the Founding Fathers because they didn't mean for the government to control every aspect of our lives and health.
General Welfare might be taken to mean the health and safety of the public. The framers are stating it's the duty of government, and in particular this one, to PROMOTE such activities.
You know in 1788 when it was written, a dentist would just pull the tooth, a surgeon would just cut the limb off, and they used leeches to "release toxins and evil vapours" from the body. That was the extent of 18th century medicine.
They are stating that the point of government is to promote and provide the things enumerated in the Preamble, the rest of the document is saying how the go about it. The Constitution is first and foremost a "social contract" between those who initiate it-the people, and those who are called to it's service-the government.
Don't forget slavery was very legal and Constitutional until the 13th amendment. They didn't enermate a lot of things in the document, not because they didn't want to, but because it's open-ended. They wanted future generations to determine its use and supremacy.
That's what this AP article says..shortages exist today of primary doctors and will only get worse.
Speculate and postulate all you want. Mass. has had this program for a while so we do have some "facts" to go on.
Start the search for a doctor before the stampede - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100328/ap_on_he_me/us_med_healthbeat_primary_care - broken link)
"Massachusetts offers a snapshot of how giving more people insurance naturally drives demand. The Massachusetts Medical Society last fall reported just over half of internists and 40 percent of family and general practitioners weren't accepting new patients, an increase in recent years as the state implemented nearly universal coverage."
If you do have a primary care physician it usually takes 6 months plus to get an appointment for a physical or any other non-emergency services.
Sutures, prescribing some antibiotics, advising on weight loss, maybe prescribing pills for high cholesterol, insulin. Routine test interpretation with scripted prescriptions or medication adjustments. More midwives in hospitals to do child birth, more routine pediatric and geriatric care that used to be with doctors.
I can train a medical assistant to do all of the above. Heck, I could train someone off the street in a year to do all of the above. The reason you need doctors is when there is a problem. We understand the pathophysiology behind these processes. When there is a problem and not everything works according to the cook book, you need someone who understand the pathophysiology intimately and figure out the problem. In medicine, there are a lot of exceptions to the rule and this is what usually separates doctors from nurses. And these exceptions is often what hurts patients so you want to see someone who is trained. Case in point, I saw a patient who was treated by a nurse practioner and was given high doses of a statin and fibric acid derivative. The NP thought it would be better to simultaneously prescribe both. What she didn't know is both drugs taken together increases one's risk of muscle breakdown (rhabdo)
General Welfare might be taken to mean the health and safety of the public. The framers are stating it's the duty of government, and in particular this one, to PROMOTE such activities.
You know in 1788 when it was written, a dentist would just pull the tooth, a surgeon would just cut the limb off, and they used leeches to "release toxins and evil vapours" from the body. That was the extent of 18th century medicine.
They are stating that the point of government is to promote and provide the things enumerated in the Preamble, the rest of the document is saying how the go about it. The Constitution is first and foremost a "social contract" between those who initiate it-the people, and those who are called to it's service-the government.
Don't forget slavery was very legal and Constitutional until the 13th amendment. They didn't enermate a lot of things in the document, not because they didn't want to, but because it's open-ended. They wanted future generations to determine its use and supremacy.
General welfare could also mean a comfortable and fast car, nice funiture and clothes.
The founding fathers did not mean to build a government that controlled every aspect of our lives and cared for us like we are little children. They tried to make a government that stayed out of our lives, left us alone.
They did not envision a government that would force us to buy insurance, or anything we didn't want to buy.
I can train a medical assistant to do all of the above. Heck, I could train someone off the street in a year to do all of the above. The reason you need doctors is when there is a problem. We understand the pathophysiology behind these processes. When there is a problem and not everything works according to the cook book, you need someone who understand the pathophysiology intimately and figure out the problem. In medicine, there are a lot of exceptions to the rule and this is what usually separates doctors from nurses. And these exceptions is often what hurts patients so you want to see someone who is trained. Case in point, I saw a patient who was treated by a nurse practioner and was given high doses of a statin and fibric acid derivative. The NP thought it would be better to simultaneously prescribe both. What she didn't know is both drugs taken together increases one's risk of muscle breakdown (rhabdo)
That sounds like a knowledge based issue rather than MD/NP training issue. I can't tell you how many residents butts I have saved from over-sedating, over-prescribing and ordering medications in a form that does not exist.
The government controls the health care industry now. The politicians will decide on this just like they decided on our jobs, our educational system, our housing industry, our postal system and everything else.
The states control the licensing of health professionals. We have nothing to do with the post office.
General welfare could also mean a comfortable and fast car, nice funiture and clothes.
The founding fathers did not mean to build a government that controlled every aspect of our lives and cared for us like we are little children. They tried to make a government that stayed out of our lives, left us alone.
They did not envision a government that would force us to buy insurance, or anything we didn't want to buy.
I can't decide which is more hilarious-your disreguard for the point of our federal government, or the idea you don't want to buy health insurance.
I bet you'd be thrilled if Obama bought everyone with a driver's liscense a brand new car. He could go on Oprah to do it. My guess is you'd get upset with him that it was a yellow car, because you really wanted a green one. Last time I checked, you could get some serious federal tax incentives for buying a new car...was that alright? That must be promoting general welfare.
The new law only mandates you buy health insurance, it doesn't dictate from what company, or what kind of policy.
How is telling you to buy health insurance total control of your life? They mandate you to buy car insurance, well the individaul states do, but the federal government tells them how to go about it and dishes out the highway money. They mandate you pay a percentage of your income. If you're male, they manate you join the Selective Services. They mandate you don't shoot anyone.
The federal government does for the collective states, what the individual states can't or won't do on their own. Proper health is the mark of a civilized society.
Would it better if the federal government said, "We will withhold ALL federal funding, unless the many states enact a health care law, that follows these guidelines....1, 2, 3,..."? Well guess what, they already do that already, for various things. The only way a state gets ANY federal funding is if the state has certain laws in place to assure the federal government. We don't live in 50 independent nations. Each state is a subnational entity, with absolutely no authority. The central government holds ALL power.
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.
