Oh That Dreaded Health Care Law - Obama Cares!

That was previously addressed. There are twice as many applicants as their are positions in the classrooms. This is intentionally done in part to justify the costs of becoming a doctor (IMO). The solution is to accept more applicants.

But what are you implying? That fathers are thinking "No way will I allow MY daughter to marry one of those poor, lazy, deadbeats!"?

 

Well, I have been putting my wrinkly penis into her wrinkly vagina for 20+ years, and there is a common law marraige thing in Michigan. Need more details? As for my son, he's 20.

 

That's a horrible mental picture. Thanks for sharing that with us.

 

This was the only thing I could find and it says nothing about applicants

Anyhow, if you admit more applicants, you will be admitting those less capable or even not capable of doctoring. Please do not tell me that is what you really want. Like the college I attended only accepted 1 in 5 of their applications. They did not do that to accept the ordinary student. They did it to select the better student and that is just for a general undergraduate student. I am actually surprised they even accept 50% of the applications.

Implying? I was saying that despite your touting their great benefits that we have already agreed are not so great as you posted, the benefits do not make up for the work, pay, loss of freedom (since your "rights" to be treated trump their right to enjoy life), threat of law suits, etc. in many people's minds. If you improve those benefits, you will get a better doctors and more of them instead of becoming politicians or whatever.

 

The part about twice as many applicants versus those accepted was in my link... and is well known to be accurate. You have a point about factors that affect the school's decisions on selecting people, that they select the best candidates, but that doesn't mean there are no other candidates that were acceptable... only that the school had admission limits in place.

I'll step over to your side and argue one specific point that is important and hasn't quite been addressed, and that is cost. While a lot of people do go for it and make every effort to become doctors there is a financial burden in the training that puts some people off. It isn't cheap to become a doctor.

Stepping back to my side... my position remains that we can fill the demand for more doctors if needed, but acknowledge the time it takes to do so may become a factor... or it may not.

One thing you will never convince me of is that doctors are going to be the victims of PPACA. Doctors work their hours, just like less well-payed people, and that isn't going to change. Doctors work hard and are well-payed. As I mentioned earlier, the "wait time" is likely to increase as patient-loads increase, but not work hours per week.

So could you expand on this idea you have of doctors losing freedoms, or enjoying life, as a result of my being able to afford health care. Is this to say their work would become less valuable, in the aspect of wages. In a way, I can see how this may be true, as governments and insurances rarely pay 100%... but usally the remaining balance is paid by the patient, so I dodn't see that particular aspect harming doctors in any significant way.

Or am I completely missing your point?

 

I guarantee you that if the rewards were worth the trouble, there wold be more doctors than needed - absolutely guarantee. If there were enough qualified applicants, someone will build the schools to fill the need just to make money doing it.

"Doctors work their hours, just like less well-payed people, and that isn't going to change." OOPS! You told me you have a right to health care. That means that the doctors must serve your needs. Fewer doctors and more patients can only serve you "right" by working longer hours. BTW, in order to pass Obamacare, they deleted the "doctor fix". That means that a doctor will get about 30% less for medicare. And, unlike your "usally the remaining balance is paid", the doctor by taking the insurance agree to abide by their rates and terms. i.e.the medicare rates that are now 30% lower than they used to be.

 

So the divide in beliefs here is that you believe doctors will be required to work longer hours and/or receive less pay, and to that I disagree.

I've already stated that I believe the likely result of PPACA will be longer wait-times for appointments, and not additional hours imposed on doctors, and I'll leave it at that.

As for the rates of repayment, I've had some discussions about the subject with my doc over the years, and they were very informative about how the system works. I had suspected as much, but the discussions I had with him helped fill in some minor details and solidify my beliefs.

What he told me is that he gives me a reduced rate* specifically because the medical system** he works for charges at a much higher rate specifically to combat the lower rates paid by insurances and the state. As an example: If the care someone receives has an actual value of $100, the doctor charges me the $100, but the system recommends $140 since it receives an average of only about 70% from insurers and state.

So therefore, the doctors are not going to be losing money here. What they have already done is create a sytem of overcharging. it's in place and ready to go.

notations...

* I should say "used to" give me a reduced rate, the system has changed in the last year or so, they use computer programs now, and he can no longer charge me at a lower rate for a specific procedure entered into the computer. Effectively, I now pay a higher rate for service than most people since I'm not covered by insurance. He also appears much more happy and good-natured now that the decision to reduce someone's rate is out of his hands, and he therefore makes more money.

**There are no independant "hospitals" in our area anymore, only conglomerates called "health sytems", with locations in multiple states. These are large corporate entities with a different view on patient care than what the old local independant hospitals had. It's like a McDonalds now, and I'm a burger lol

 

You are not talking about the same thing I am talking about. If you negotiate with doctors for cash payments, you will definitely get a lowered rate. However, Medicare is not cash payment. In order to receive Medicare payments, the doctor signed a contract agreeing not to charge in excess of the rates negotiated with the insurance - i.e. the Medicare rates. Those rates will be some what lower than you negotiated cash payments. And, believe me I have talked a lot more to doctors than you have lately and had a lot more time with them to do so..

 

Good point. My question is now on how those rates were established.

Under my example, the rates were in effect, and reflected a 70% payment of what the hospitals charged. That is to say, that 70% is closer to the actual costs than what the hospitals charged, and was already set as "standard" costs.

If this is the case, there is no significant difference in the two (new Medicare cost -vs- old). If the new costs are at a lower rate then before then you have made your case. IMO though, they are the same.

It comes down to how rates are calculated. My guess is that the government looks, in part, at what all the "hospitals" in it's jurisdiction charge for a given procedure... and I'd also guess they ask experts of all sorts to aid them in determining the "standard" costs. In the old system, my example is set at 70% of what my local "hospital" charges. In the new system I don't see that changing.

 

Here! Try a few. It is LOWER - and I did not even bother to read anything from the links below.
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-dilemma-calls-for-immediate-medicare-reforms
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...care-fees-medicare-patients-medicare-spending
http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/health/article/Q-A-Fixing-the-Medicare-doc-fix-3367697.php

The rates are presently determined by the insurance companies (area normal and reasonable). I will not pretend to know how the government rates are determined for Medicare, but they are significantly below insurance rates in most cases. That is why many places are starting not to accept medicare. Remember that doctor shortage? How much do you think this will help?

 

Then for me it comes down to my faith in the corporate-world of health care. I believe they are profit-motivated and will do everything in their power to ensure the profits continue.

A general look at our points shows that on doctors hours we disagree, on doctors wages we disagree, and on rates we disagree. Not much else lol

I think we've looked at all the relevant points and done so in a much more respectful way than before, so that alone deserves note, but I think we'll be re-hashing old points or go into areas where there is no way to prove the point in any substantial way so I suggest we let it go at that. Maybe we'll have another point to make eventually, or someone else will, but I'm pretty satisfied with my arguments as they stand. How about you?

 

Let me put it this way, I have a lot more trust in the corporate world where actually answer to someone even if it is for financial reasons that you don't like rather than the political world where they answer to no one.

BTW, I am as courteous as I am being courteously treated. You have been on both sides. Moen does not yet have a clue.

 

Ditto to that, and that's one of the problems... the "eye-for-an-eye" thing means that in no time at all there's gonna be a lot of blind people takin' wild swings at each other. If one person can ignore a minor slight or insult or whatever and move on hopefully someone else will and so on. Not that it'll last, but it's a welcome break from pointless bickering.

 

Well, let's see....you frequently mention having to pay your girlfriend's bill so the logical assumption is that you make more money. As far as your son, didn't you just say he was getting his driver's license? This would be a behavior more typical of a minor than a 20 years old adult.
Hmmmm........

 

Why is that David? Why would getting a license at 20 be classed as the behavior of a minor?? My other half is 46 and never got her driving license until she was 43, I am 55 and never held a driving license (except for a motorbike) Not everyone can afford a car at a early age nor is it always a necessity to own one

 

Eh. I'll let him figure it out on his own. It's info on my personal life, and I've shared enough.

 

Check this out:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...bamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

I guess Pelosi wasn't lying when she warned us the law would have to be passed before we could find out the truth, huh?

 

Nancy Pelosi really did a number on this nation. I think even ignorant liberals can see that.