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.
I never said it did but I would think any doctor worth his or her salt would put the patient before $$.
Yet, that Physician also has to be realistic and practical.
If they have a Medical Practice, and have an office, with employees, and equipment etc., they have to make sure there is sufficient money to pay for all of these things - elst they go out of business.
This is one of the reasons why many physicians have discontinued taking Medicare and has caused many seniors to seek other doctors. It isn't that the doctors doesn't care about the patient - they do. But, unfortunately they (the doctor) can't keep their doors open with the Medicare patients.
Yet, that Physician also has to be realistic and practical.
If they have a Medical Practice, and have an office, with employees, and equipment etc., they have to make sure there is sufficient money to pay for all of these things - elst they go out of business.
This is one of the reasons why many physicians have discontinued taking Medicare and has caused many seniors to seek other doctors. It isn't that the doctors doesn't care about the patient - they do. But, unfortunately they (the doctor) can't keep their doors open with the Medicare patients.
And again, there is nothing wrong with making an exception or two.
I'm not asking for all physicians to take on people who don't intend to pay but there are many physicians out there giving free care. They volunteer their time at free clinis or allow uninsured people to come to their practice on certain days.
It's not as if the beaten man had no intention to pay but he had just been robbed, could barely speak because his face had been so hurt, etc. and you have nurses and doctors demanding money up front.
Maybe I'm too empathetic a person and I'm too sympathetic. I just don't see how any person could think that was right. Here you have a doctor who is looking at a person who has obviously been beaten, has blood running down his face and yet he refuses to help him because the man doesn't have any money on him.
Maybe you're okay with that. I wouldn't be surprised.
And again, there is nothing wrong with making an exception or two.
I'm not asking for all physicians to take on people who don't intend to pay but there are many physicians out there giving free care. They volunteer their time at free clinis or allow uninsured people to come to their practice on certain days.
I understand full well about the clinics you mention. My wife is a Physician and does a lot of volunteer work. We spend many a night, on the streets, treating the homeless populations
However, there are Doctors who are barely scraping by now. There is this stereotype out there that all doctors are wealthy - they all drive fancy cars, live in Mansions.
Well, I can tell you that is flat wrong.
They have to make sure their practices have sufficient revenue to stay open. And, as I mentioned, many are right at that fine line now. Many do see indigent patients. Or, Medicare patients and the like. But there is only just so many of those types of patients that they can see - without going out of business.
I understand full well about the clinics you mention. My wife is a Physician and does a lot of volunteer work. We spend many a night, on the streets, treating the homeless populations
However, there are Doctors who are barely scraping by now. There is this stereotype out there that all doctors are wealthy - they all drive fancy cars, live in Mansions.
Well, I can tell you that is flat wrong.
They have to make sure their practices have sufficient revenue to stay open. And, as I mentioned, many are right at that fine line now. Many do see indigent patients. Or, Medicare patients and the like. But there is only just so many of those types of patients that they can see - without going out of business.
Kudos to your wife.
I understand not every doctor is living in a mansion. Trust me.
I'm all for a single payer system. It eliminates the need for hiring a bunch of staff people to wrestle with insurance companies.
I also like setting prices and having them be across the board. They do this in Japan. Every doctor knows how much he or she can earn for every procedure and every patient knows how much he or she has to pay out of pocket for certain things. I hate all these hidden prices and charging patients different prices.
My wifes staff includes ONE PERSON who deals with insurance companies.
The rest are nurses, x-ray techs, NP's, schedulers etc
In the common practice - your single payer would only eliminate a few people overall
In my previous doctor's office, she had three people to deal with insurance companies.
In my dentist's office, he has one.
In the office I went to for an oral surgery consultation, he had three women that dealt with billing and insurance companies.
It's different everywhere.
Think of all the people hospitals have to hire to deal with insurance companies.
Plus there is a lot of administrative waste that we can reduce just by having one payer.
One insurance company wants their claims to be filled out one way, the other insurance company wants the claims faxed, the other wants it emailed, the other wants it mailed, etc.
In my previous doctor's office, she had three people to deal with insurance companies.
That's nice. Like you said - everywhere is different.
Now, let me ask you this - and please, don't say it can't happen:
Your single payer play. The plan reduces the reimbursements lower and lower to "save costs". Doctors who are NOW stuggling will REALLY be struggling. They now have to lay off some of their staff - it could impact patient care.
OBTW - the prime example of my scenario? Medicare.
That's nice. Like you said - everywhere is different.
Now, let me ask you this - and please, don't say it can't happen:
Your single payer play. The plan reduces the reimbursements lower and lower to "save costs". Doctors who are NOW stuggling will REALLY be struggling. They now have to lay off some of their staff - it could impact patient care.
OBTW - the prime example of my scenario? Medicare.
Is there some reason you think reimbursements would be low? It isn't like there's some "single payer rule book" that says reimbursements must be low.
I'm not opposed to co-pays. If a doctor feels their reimbursement is too low, there shouldn't be anything prohibiting him or her from collecting a modest co-pay. No more than say 40-50 bucks. Even with a single payer system, I think there should be co-pays that way you don't have people running to the doctor for every little sniffle. I'd also like more focus on preventative care and giving bonuses to doctors who try to keep their patients healthy. They do this in Britain and often doctors can double their salaries.
I also like the German system as well and I think SOME who are single-payer naysayers could tolerate the German model.
This H.R. 3200 in the House and the Baucus Bill won't do much, if anything, to curb costs. It mainly just gives the insurance companies more customers.
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.
