Doctor shortage

[John Adams]

We discussed this when the health care debate was at its fever pitch. My biggest concern all along has been supply and demand--there are not enough doctors to provide services to everyone. Not that it's stopped the government from pushing ahead.

 

What this will mean: longer waits, fewer treatments, and poorer health.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...hp_mostpop_read

 

 

 

The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.

 

Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

 

That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.

 

The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.

 

The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.

 

A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients.

 

...

[3rdnlng]

I think this might be more a problem with just not having enough doctors period, and not any specific healthcare law. If you are going say there are not enough doctors due to any new law passed, then I feel like you are conceding that some humans in this country just don't deserve to see a doctor. If everyone had money and everyone could pay for their own doctors then there would also be a doctor shortage.

 

It seems to me your main premise relies on some portion of the population not being able to afford a doctor, and that poorer sect not deserving to see a doctor because they are poor.

 

Did I explain that well? Do you understand what I am saying?

 

Less people going to medical school. What with Medicaid & Medicare & the new healthcare bill I would think that the profession is less attractive.I

[Magox]

I think this might be more a problem with just not having enough doctors, and not any specific healthcare law. If you are going say there are not enough doctors due to any new law passed, then I feel like you are conceding that some humans in this country just don't deserve to see a doctor. If everyone had money and everyone could pay for their own doctors then there would also be a doctor shortage.

 

It seems to me your main premise relies on some portion of the population not being able to afford a doctor, and that poorer sect not deserving to see a doctor because they are poor.

Funny you mention that. Yesterday I posted this exact same link on my facebook.

 

 

 

And one of my liberal friends responded:

 

The reform as it stands is open to valid criticism from all sides (and you've made your opinion on it abundantly clear), but to make light of this particular consequence, as if to justify your contrary stance is petty at best.

 

So then... all those in need, who were unable to get access, would be better served without health care so as not to inconvenience us? Because why? Because we're obviously better human beings?... See More

 

I fail to find the love in that

 

To which I responded:

 

My point was that many of the provisions that are in the bill, be it well intentioned, are structurally flawed. I could go on at length regarding this topic, but I will just touch on the subject of the link.

 

Most people have health insurance, approximately 83%, and generally speaking most people are happy with their health insurance, the main complaint being the rising costs of premiums, which this bill fails to address effectively, but that's a whole another matter.

 

The vast majority of people have their primary care physician, and in most cases they have been working with their doctor for many years. There is already a shortage of primary care physicians, adding 30 million people to medicaid means that many doctors will have to lessen the quality of care by reducing time to many of their patients because of the shortages. Patient doctor relationships are valued by many people, and the possibility of the dynamics of that relationship changing in an adverse manner causes much anxiety to many people, and understandably so. ... See More

 

I care about this subject very much. There is nothing more than I want then to have a system that benefits most people, but at the same time, it has to be sensible, non disruptive and fiscally responsible.

 

I could share with you my ideas, but it would be extremely lengthy and I'm sure you wouldn't want to get bored with it.

 

His response was very similar to yours. I think this is a classic conservative vs. liberal argument. Generally speaking the liberal responds to the morality of the issue, whereas the conservative criticises the construct of it.

 

Your post just reminded me of that.

[John Adams]

I think this might be more a problem with just not having enough doctors period, and not any specific healthcare law. If you are going say there are not enough doctors due to any new law passed, then I feel like you are conceding that some humans in this country just don't deserve to see a doctor. If everyone had money and everyone could pay for their own doctors then there would also be a doctor shortage.

 

It seems to me your main premise relies on some portion of the population not being able to afford a doctor, and that poorer sect not deserving to see a doctor because they are poor.

 

Did I explain that well? Do you understand what I am saying?

 

Healthcare and doctors are a resource with a limited supply. The best way to ration out that supply is by charging for it. Some people can't afford the best medical care and thus won't get it.

 

The problem of limited doctor supply is greatly exacerbated by 30M people about to get free healthcare. Who loses in that scenario? The people who have been working and paying for their medical care all along (ie, the great majority of people and the people who are working hard and earning their living).

 

So yes, poor people get less. Not nothing. But less.

[IDBillzFan]

Healthcare and doctors are a resource with a limited supply.

While it is easily dismissed as a right wing talking point, the simple truth is that American's should be stunned and amazed that a health care bill designed to add 30 million people to the health insurance rolls goes out of its way to ensure we can hire enough IRS employees to GET the money, but does nothing to address the most obvious issue of doctor shortage. We're told "Well, nurses can do most of this stuff, anyway," and that's supposed to make everything better.

 

It's becoming increasingly clear that the biggest problem with this bill is that so few people seem to understand how stupid and out-of-touch you have to be to not only write it and vote for it, but to also sign it into law. Fortunately, the number of people who want this law off the books is growing every day (Rasmussen had it up four points to 58% yesterday).

 

As I said just before it was passed, this is gonna get ugly. Really, really ugly. November is going to be wicked.

[PastaJoe]

Healthcare and doctors are a resource with a limited supply. The best way to ration out that supply is by charging for it. Some people can't afford the best medical care and thus won't get it.

 

The problem of limited doctor supply is greatly exacerbated by 30M people about to get free healthcare. Who loses in that scenario? The people who have been working and paying for their medical care all along (ie, the great majority of people and the people who are working hard and earning their living).

 

So yes, poor people get less. Not nothing. But less.

 

30 million people aren't getting free healthcare. They're going to have access to affordable healthcare insurance.

 

And of course people who can't afford healthcare don't work hard to earn a living.

[Magox]

And of course people who can't afford healthcare don't work hard to earn a living.

Well, generally speaking, that is true.

[KD in CA]

Don't worry, I'm sure Obama will put a stop to the runaway lawsuit culture that is driving people out of the profession by the thousands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OCinBuffalo]

30 million people aren't getting free healthcare. They're going to have access to affordable healthcare insurance.

 

And of course people who can't afford healthcare don't work hard to earn a living.

No they aren't. This is perhaps the biggest of issues with this thinking = it is emotion-based, and not reason-based. Giving something away for free doesn't mean it costs any less.

 

Every single salient detail points to massive insurance premium increases. So, while it MAY be true that these suddenly "privileged" 30 million are going to get some health care for a while. In 2-3 years they simply won't be able to afford it..and you will have solved nothing.

 

The government will not be able to subsidize them without going bankrupt. Period. Why? Because, unlike Medicare, which is based on people paying in for 50 years and then drawing out for 10 or so, if they live long enough, this would be based on people paying in and other people, your "special" 30 million, immediately drawing out.

 

There is no way for that to happen unless oppressive taxes are imposed, in which case we may find that your "solution" to a problem has, once again, caused an even bigger problem = open revolt.

 

Or, again, the subsidies are curtailed, and ultimately the 30 million simply can't afford the premiums. In either case, this whole idea sucks, has sucked, and will continue to suck, until it is replaced by something that actually contains real cost control.

[Dante]

This is no problem for Obama. It actually fits into his overall socialist agenda and government job creation very well. Standards for medical school will be lowered to accommodate the unemployed and disenfranchised youth. Just think, inner city youth will finally get their chance and social and economic equality given the opportunity to become doctors. Obama will even give them low cost forgivable student loans(after 10 years) to get them in. Employment generated by his majesty's genius. Another resource to supply doctors is maybe he can fast track illegals(after amnesty of course we have to be on the up and up) for medical training.

[Magox]

With this type of misinformation, I don't really feel inclined to respond to your other posting.

"misinformation"? ok. You keep believing what you want, meanwhile, I'll stay here in the real world.

[John Adams]

With this type of misinformation, I don't really feel inclined to respond to your other posting.

 

He said that generally, "...people who can't afford healthcare don't work hard to earn a living."

 

He didn't say it was a law. There are certainly a lot of people living off the system and not working hard for a living.

[OCinBuffalo]

He said that generally, "...people who can't afford healthcare don't work hard to earn a living."

 

He didn't say it was a law. There are certainly a lot of people living off the system and not working hard for a living.

Yes, spend any time working at any county or state highway department and all doubt of this statement will be removed. I would only add: "while being grossly overpaid" to the end of that sentence.

[John Adams]

Yes, spend any time working at any county or state highway department and all doubt of this statement will be removed. I would only add: "while being grossly overpaid" to the end of that sentence.

 

Those people get healthcare. We're talking aout the subset of people who can't afford it and their general state of hard work and diligence. It seems that Picnic Table Effer believes they are a paragon of sweat and rigor.

[erynthered]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_...b2N0b3JzaG9ydGE-

 

 

Nurses to pick up the slack? Maybe.

[Doc]

No they aren't. This is perhaps the biggest of issues with this thinking = it is emotion-based, and not reason-based. Giving something away for free doesn't mean it costs any less.

 

Every single salient detail points to massive insurance premium increases. So, while it MAY be true that these suddenly "privileged" 30 million are going to get some health care for a while. In 2-3 years they simply won't be able to afford it..and you will have solved nothing.

 

The government will not be able to subsidize them without going bankrupt. Period. Why? Because, unlike Medicare, which is based on people paying in for 50 years and then drawing out for 10 or so, if they live long enough, this would be based on people paying in and other people, your "special" 30 million, immediately drawing out.

 

There is no way for that to happen unless oppressive taxes are imposed, in which case we may find that your "solution" to a problem has, once again, caused an even bigger problem = open revolt.

 

Or, again, the subsidies are curtailed, and ultimately the 30 million simply can't afford the premiums. In either case, this whole idea sucks, has sucked, and will continue to suck, until it is replaced by something that actually contains real cost control.

Exactly. It won't be affordable, just like it isn't in Massachusetts. Speaking of which, I saw Mitt on Fox trying to defend his ****ty "Romneycare" and when O'Reilly confronted him about Massers having the highest premiums in the nation, his only response was "they were the highest to begin with."

 

And no one has ever been denied health care. If you go to the ED, you have to be treated. And if you want to visit a doctor, he/she would be more than happy to take your out-of-pocket payment. The problem is that for a lot of people, getting a checkup means not having cable for a month. Or a cell phone. Or a pack-a-day of smokes. And they're entitled to those things.

[Doc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_...b2N0b3JzaG9ydGE-

 

 

Nurses to pick up the slack? Maybe.

Yeah, until they start to have to pay malpractice as high as REAL doctors. Under Barry's vision for the future, anyone with a doctorate will be able to give medical care!

[Magox]

Exactly. It won't be affordable, just like it isn't in Massachusetts. Speaking of which, I saw Mitt on Fox trying to defend his ****ty "Romneycare" and when O'Reilly confronted him about Massers having the highest premiums in the nation, his only response was "they were the highest to begin with."

 

And no one has ever been denied health care. If you go to the ED, you have to be treated. And if you want to visit a doctor, he/she would be more than happy to take your out-of-pocket payment. The problem is that for a lot of people, getting a checkup means not having cable for a month. Or a cell phone. Or a pack-a-day of smokes. And they're entitled to those things.

It's not all Romney's fault, you have to remember one of the duties of our elected officials is to represent his constituency well. Universal healthcare was sought after amongst the people of Massachusetts, and he was fulfilling their desires. That is the main difference between Romney and Obama Care, in Massachusetts they wanted and celebrated the passage of Romney Care, on the other hand, Obama Care has been rejected amongst the US constituency and has divided this country because of it.

 

What Romney needs to do is make that case, communicate to the public that it is proof that this sort of care doesn't bring down premiums and that he will look to repeal it and replace it with the ideas that he should of pursued when he was governor.

[PastaJoe]

It's not all Romney's fault, you have to remember one of the duties of our elected officials is to represent his constituency well. Universal healthcare was sought after amongst the people of Massachusetts, and he was fulfilling their desires. That is the main difference between Romney and Obama Care, in Massachusetts they wanted and celebrated the passage of Romney Care, on the other hand, Obama Care has been rejected amongst the US constituency and has divided this country because of it.

 

What Romney needs to do is make that case, communicate to the public that it is proof that this sort of care doesn't bring down premiums and that he will look to repeal it and replace it with the ideas that he should of pursued when he was governor.

 

I was for health care before I was against it.

[Magox]

I was for health care before I was against it.

That's what he should do. It's obvious that the Massachusetts health care bill, which is similar to Obama's sucks, and he would come off better admitting it already and saying something along the lines of "Ya, the health reform bill that the pres. passed is similar to the one I helped craft in Mass. and you know what? It failed to control costs, and you know what will happen to the one that just passed? Yup, you guessed it, it will also fail to control costs, so here is what we need to do....."

 

You catch my drift?