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.
Unless, because of its cost-efficiencies (hopefully), it can raise doctor reimbursements, as I said above.
Well, hey, congratulations! Seriously. You are at least 70 y/o, perhaps older? Are you going on staff with a hospital or a clinic? Many semi-retired docs just keep at it one way or another, but with fewer hassles.
Good luck to you. I've always had a lot of respect for doctors. Those I've known are very hard-working. This is coming from someone who's done a pretty good job of getting through life without a lot of doctoring. Decent genes don't hurt, but my good health at age 77 (no medication) is not an accident, imo. Never smoked, don't drink, eat fresh whole food prepared at home, control weight, exercise every now and then. Although, these days, lower back disc issues can restrict that a bit.
I can tell you that any more UHC plan would have to reimburse docs more, not less in order to get them behind it. For instance I've had no raise since 1988!
I'm 68 y/o and I quit the hospital 2012. The last primary doc by 2 years to quit.
I have to work four 1/2 days a week just to meet overheads. So cutting back to retirement is about impossible in the office.
I probably will continue to work part time at the hospital, since I'm not ready to go full retirement.
I do pay a bit more for that overhead. But I cannot add that to my patients bills.
i.e. overheads continue to rise, whereas charges/reimbursements don't.
After 40 years, this past Friday was my last official day in private practice as a result.
A more UHC system will not be conducive to private practice.
You're not considering the negotiating power and consulting process by which doctors within a single payer system go about negotiating as a group with only ONE entity for a raise in reimbursing payouts.
Instead of facing off against a horde of insurance companies with their one mandate being to maintain profits or shareholder benefits; you would instead be negotiating with an entity that has, at the end of the day your patients (voters) to answer to.
You're not considering the negotiating power and consulting process by which doctors within a single payer system go about negotiating as a group with only ONE entity for a raise in reimbursing payouts.
Instead of facing off against a horde of insurance companies with their one mandate being to maintain profits or shareholder benefits; you would instead be negotiating with an entity that has, at the end of the day your patients (voters) to answer to.
I can tell you that after more than 40 years we as docs have about zero power in these negotiations. We docs have not been able to effectively organize. The AMA, passe' IMO, has not represented many docs in a long time.
If we the people encourage our elected officials to make a fair wage for the docs, a more UHC system would have a much greater chance of succeeding.
I can tell you that after more than 40 years we as docs have about zero power in these negotiations. We docs have not been able to effectively organize. The AMA, passe' IMO, has not represented many docs in a long time.
If we the people encourage our elected officials to make a fair wage for the docs, a more UHC system would have a much greater chance of succeeding.
I've not heard anyone say that docs shouldn't make a good living. I've heard people argue (me) that people shouldn't use the health of others as in investment hedge.
I've not heard anyone say that docs shouldn't make a good living. I've heard people argue (me) that people shouldn't use the health of others as in investment hedge.
IMO an honorable moral statement. But how realistic, I'm not sure.
For instance I open a medical office to help folks with their health. I should make a profit. More than a subsistence wage.
How much would always be open to discussion. My needs, expectations and industriousness along with ethics, morals, reality and patients/societal needs all come into play.
IMO an honorable moral statement. But how realistic, I'm not sure.
For instance I open a medical office to help folks with their health. I should make a profit. More than a subsistence wage.
I have NO problem with you making a profit. I would have a problem if you wanted to put the business on the stock market.
Quote:
How much would always be open to discussion. My needs, expectations and industriousness along with ethics, morals, reality and patients/societal needs all come into play.
Make a profit. The problem is when someone sitting at home doing nothing wants to also profit on your clinic.
I have NO problem with you making a profit. I would have a problem if you wanted to put the business on the stock market.
Make a profit. The problem is when someone sitting at home doing nothing wants to also profit on your clinic.
Stark laws make it more difficult for docs to profit on ancillary medical services. While the hospitals are allowed. IMO that creates a problem. Because for instance Medicare pays hospitals maybe 3X what I could get for the same outpatient services.
Stark laws make it more difficult for docs to profit on ancillary medical services. While the hospitals are allowed. IMO that creates a problem. Because for instance Medicare pays hospitals maybe 3X what I could get for the same outpatient services.
I certainly do not know all these kinds of particulars. I imagine hospitals get a better deal because that is what Wall Street wants as so many of them are traded on Wall Street. It needs to end.
It's because many United States citizens have an irrational fear of "socialism." Never mind that they don't know what "socialism" actually is. Here's a hint: "socialism" means the nationalization of banks, railways, mining, and other industries. It is not "let's build big government that controls everybody." Neither is it "Let's round up all those that disagree with us, and put them in concentration camps." That is Stalinism. By that measure, Britain's NHS is hardly socialist.
Yet certain Americans still scream. "The NHS is socialist, and that means that Brits are halfway to communism!" No, the Brits are not. Neither are the Canadians, nor the Australians, nor the French, nor the Germans.
If you polled citizens of the above countries as to whether they'd prefer a US system, or a UHC system, I'd lay dollars to donuts that they'd prefer UHC. Why? Because they know what they're getting, as opposed to what they think they might possibly get, after a non-medical claims adjuster, and maybe one or two more non-medical functionaries, says they will get.
In the US, "socialism" has been largely used as a gratuitous verbal bomb for the last 90 years (since FDR's New Deal). You've laid out some rational definitions and context for socialism.
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.
