Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
Here's a doctor in Forbes citing some facts and figures about doctor's overwhelming disapproval of Obamacare:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2012/10/11/what-do-actual-doctors-think-about-obamacare-now/2/

Some other opinions along the same line:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2012/09/17/forget-about-providers-what-do-doctors-think-of-obamacare/

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/07/09/a-doctors-opinion-of-obamacare/

I started looking into what doctors think about Obamacare since the election by asking some I know and checking out articles. One of my friends who teaches anatomy at a local Med School tells me the students there are wondering if it's worth continuing on or if they should seek other professions. He also tells me that once things get going full swing, doctors will be turning patients away since the insurance will be next to worthless, and we will start losing doctors faster than they are being replaced. According to him, a lot of those that can do it are quitting now.
It's not going to be an attractive proposition for someone to either spend money for medical school and never be able to repay the loan or find themselves in bondage to the government because of loans they took and can't repay.
I will end this by saying this isn't certain to happen but is the most likely scenario he and other doctors he knows envision.

I know my doctor has already dumped Medicare patients and specifically had a note with "thank Obama" up for six months. I'm just waiting to see if our Bank will dump coverage for everyone. I'm giving it 50/50. Its cheaper for them just to pay the fine.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Oh noes!!!1

Now you'll have to 'settle' for the kind of doctors like those found in Canada. Somehow, despite not being paid a million dollars a year, our doctors manage to perform their jobs. Maybe that's because the kind of doctor you want is the one with his/her own internal motivation for helping people, and not the one that's only in it for the paycheque.

This.

Also, I am unsure if some doctors nowadays know that there's something called the Hippocratic Oath. I know, it's old school... maybe we should consider renaming it to the Romney Oath? Or how about the Trump Oath?

"I solemnly swear I will do my work ethically and honestly... as long as it gets my pockets loaded. If not, feth the people who I am meant to help!"

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course if we had single-payer, we'd have fewer regulations, rules, payment schemes and less complicated paperwork. Because doctors, their administrative staff, and patients wouldn't have to deal with the vast labyrinth of private insurance policies, conflicting coverages, varying benefits and claims procedures.

I'm curious about the statistics quoted. I'd like to see the survey in question and its methodology.

"High malpractice premiums" is a concept frequently raised by insurance company and corporate tort reform lobbyists, trying to sell a false promise that said premiums will go down if legislatures prevent juries from levying appropriately high judgments. A concept that's never worked out in practice.

The Medicare bureaucracy disagrees with you.

Now in other countries that may be the case, but our ability to feth stuff up is just below Italy's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How do all these other countries even function without having doctors that are able to practice due to not having free market capitalism everywhere...

We don't. Ever wonder why other countries are portrayed as being so much more healthy? It's because one bad papercut and you're done. I remember when Grandma Netta once got a splinter in her thumb. We all tearfully said goodbye, as dad took her out behind the shed. Never saw her again.

Fafnir wins the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Oh noes!!!1

Now you'll have to 'settle' for the kind of doctors like those found in Canada. Somehow, despite not being paid a million dollars a year, our doctors manage to perform their jobs. Maybe that's because the kind of doctor you want is the one with his/her own internal motivation for helping people, and not the one that's only in it for the paycheque.


The silly little first-year-economics-student-with-a-pedestrian-and-patriarchal-worldview-and-decided-to-write-an-article is silly, and should to masturbate to Atlas Shrugged again. The OP's article is about as credible as the myriad "I'm moving to ________ if Obama wins" articles out there.

Do you keep the same GP and specialist up there? For example, if one had a heart doctor who monitored ongoing long term conditions, would you keep the same doctor as well as your same general practitioner or is it luck of the draw up there?
This is not an attack but a real question.

If 43% of your Drs. can retire in the next 5 years then you're fethed anyway.

I don't think we be around for the next five years for that to happen. We probaly be playing RL survivor overhear

 Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Oh noes!!!1

Now you'll have to 'settle' for the kind of doctors like those found in Canada. Somehow, despite not being paid a million dollars a year, our doctors manage to perform their jobs. Maybe that's because the kind of doctor you want is the one with his/her own internal motivation for helping people, and not the one that's only in it for the paycheque.


The silly little first-year-economics-student-with-a-pedestrian-and-patriarchal-worldview-and-decided-to-write-an-article is silly, and should to masturbate to Atlas Shrugged again. The OP's article is about as credible as the myriad "I'm moving to ________ if Obama wins" articles out there.

Do you keep the same GP and specialist up there? For example, if one had a heart doctor who monitored ongoing long term conditions, would you keep the same doctor as well as your same general practitioner or is it luck of the draw up there?
This is not an attack but a real question.

I don't know what it's like in Canada, but I can tell you a little about what it's like here in Australia. You can always keep your own GP, though only some are "bulk billing", where you can have the entire doctors fee covered by the government. Others have a set fee, and the government then refunds you a certain amount (So if your doctors fee is $55 for your appointment might get $35 back). If you need to see a specialist, you can go through the public system, with a waiting period, or see a specialist through the private system, and pay for it (yourself, or though insurance). Usually, once you have a specialist, you'll keep seeing the same one, even when going though the public system, but not always (public systems are organised by the states, by the way).

A little video on it.



Remember, it's a video by an insurance company, but it's still pretty accurate.

Cool. I like that. I'm actually ok with a good single payer system if thats the case.

Here's another question, why do they still have private systems? Doesn't that set up: 1) crappy system for the worker drones; 2) a good system for the wealthy?

 Frazzled wrote:
Cool. I like that. I'm actually ok with a good single payer system if thats the case.

Here's another question, why do they still have private systems? Doesn't that set up: 1) crappy system for the worker drones; 2) a good system for the wealthy?

It's better than no system for the 'worker drones'. Anyway, the public system isn't too bad, though I will always have private insurance for preference. However, because the government still pays for a lot of the costs even if you go through the private system, insurance is far cheaper here - I can get pretty decent coverage for under $70 a month.

Also, despite the government covering everyone and still paying a large amount of insured people's costs, we still spend fewer tax dollars per capita on health care (going by OECD stats). Yes, you heard that right, you guys spend more tax money covering just the old and poor than we do covering everyone. What the hell do you spend the money on?

 Maddermax wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cool. I like that. I'm actually ok with a good single payer system if thats the case.

Here's another question, why do they still have private systems? Doesn't that set up: 1) crappy system for the worker drones; 2) a good system for the wealthy?

It's better than no system for the 'worker drones'. Anyway, the public system isn't too bad, though I will always have private insurance for preference. However, because the government still pays for a lot of the costs even if you go through the private system, insurance is far cheaper here - I can get pretty decent coverage for under $70 a month.

Also, despite the government covering everyone and still paying a large amount of insured people's costs, we still spend fewer tax dollars per capita on health care (going by OECD stats). Yes, you heard that right, you guys spend more tax money covering just the old and poor than we do covering everyone. What the hell do you spend the money on?

End of life stuff. When mom was in the hospital she had three types of Xrayee tests and then the MRI in the same morning. All had been ordered that morning.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cool. I like that. I'm actually ok with a good single payer system if thats the case.

Here's another question, why do they still have private systems? Doesn't that set up: 1) crappy system for the worker drones; 2) a good system for the wealthy?

It's better than no system for the 'worker drones'. Anyway, the public system isn't too bad, though I will always have private insurance for preference. However, because the government still pays for a lot of the costs even if you go through the private system, insurance is far cheaper here - I can get pretty decent coverage for under $70 a month.

Also, despite the government covering everyone and still paying a large amount of insured people's costs, we still spend fewer tax dollars per capita on health care (going by OECD stats). Yes, you heard that right, you guys spend more tax money covering just the old and poor than we do covering everyone. What the hell do you spend the money on?

End of life stuff. When mom was in the hospital she had three types of Xrayee tests and then the MRI in the same morning. All had been ordered that morning.

Yes, but other countries spend a lot on end of life care as well - we don't just take people out behind the woodshed at a certain point. I'm still trying to figure out how you pay more for far less in terms of services, and I'm just not understanding it.

 Maddermax wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cool. I like that. I'm actually ok with a good single payer system if thats the case.

Here's another question, why do they still have private systems? Doesn't that set up: 1) crappy system for the worker drones; 2) a good system for the wealthy?

It's better than no system for the 'worker drones'. Anyway, the public system isn't too bad, though I will always have private insurance for preference. However, because the government still pays for a lot of the costs even if you go through the private system, insurance is far cheaper here - I can get pretty decent coverage for under $70 a month.

Also, despite the government covering everyone and still paying a large amount of insured people's costs, we still spend fewer tax dollars per capita on health care (going by OECD stats). Yes, you heard that right, you guys spend more tax money covering just the old and poor than we do covering everyone. What the hell do you spend the money on?

End of life stuff. When mom was in the hospital she had three types of Xrayee tests and then the MRI in the same morning. All had been ordered that morning.

Yes, but other countries spend a lot on end of life care as well - we don't just take people out behind the woodshed at a certain point. I'm still trying to figure out how you pay more for far less in terms of services, and I'm just not understanding it.

Your assumption we pay more for less is not supported. Its supposition only.

More tax money spent. Fewer people covered.

I'll guess prescription costs.

 Maddermax wrote:

More tax money spent. Fewer people covered.

That doesn't mean less care. That means more care for that group.
math, its a wonder.

Oh no, you guys, I voted for Obama!!!! Can I take back my vote???????

I was going to point out how flawed the survey was--however Max and Sebster already made great posts addressing that very fact. I would also add that, given the education level of the writers in question, there is little doubt that they understood the flawed methodology of the survey--and knowingly published inaccurate facts to mislead readers.


I would also add this--as someone that works with physicians on a daily basis, implementing portions of the ACA and planning systems to follow new healthcare regulation---I have yet to meet a physician that hates or loves Obamacare. I have met a great deal of physicians that back portions of the bill and have reservations about other parts of the bill. Which would be expected with any bill that addresses the complexity of national healthcare.

And on a philosophical note, I believe the real issue with physicians that may oppose Obamacare is much deeper than just simple reimbursement. Older physicians came up through med school in an era where they were the sole driving force behind care and individual decision making/plans of care were celebrated. A patient might be seen by one or two physicians for a particular illness--with the primary driving care.

Now, given that our knowledge base in medicine has grown to the point of it being literally impossible for one physician to 'know' everything, teams of physicians work on patient care--and care is becoming more Standard of Care and data driven every year. This is a pain point for many older physicians.

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Oh noes!!!1

Now you'll have to 'settle' for the kind of doctors like those found in Canada. Somehow, despite not being paid a million dollars a year, our doctors manage to perform their jobs. Maybe that's because the kind of doctor you want is the one with his/her own internal motivation for helping people, and not the one that's only in it for the paycheque.


The silly little first-year-economics-student-with-a-pedestrian-and-patriarchal-worldview-and-decided-to-write-an-article is silly, and should to masturbate to Atlas Shrugged again. The OP's article is about as credible as the myriad "I'm moving to ________ if Obama wins" articles out there.

Do you keep the same GP and specialist up there? For example, if one had a heart doctor who monitored ongoing long term conditions, would you keep the same doctor as well as your same general practitioner or is it luck of the draw up there?
This is not an attack but a real question.

No worries! I've had the same GP since I was seven or eight. The way it works up here is pretty basic: go see whatever doctor you want, and hand them your medical card. Generally speaking, the rest of the paperwork is between the doctor's office and the government. The only obstacle may be whether that particular doctor is accepting new patients or not.

Conversely, if you go to any walk-in clinic, you're playing roulette to see which doctor will help you. Typically there will be 5-6 working at any given location, and you'll just happen to get whichever of those 5-6 are available when they call your name. The paperwork is essentially the same, though: just give them your medical card, and you're good to go.

Specialists are another story. They generally only see you based off of your doctor's referral. So you're highly likely to deal with the same specialist over and over if need be, as your GP is unlikely to start shoutng random names for you to go talk to. However, your GP might only refer you to a location or group, wherein you might be dealing with 2-3 different specialists who all share an office, etc. For example, my GP's office is above the offices of an X-ray tech's lab, which is shared by 4 techs. So outside of the ER, I've had 4 different X-ray techs take skeleton pictures of me, all of whom operated from the same office. Had it only been one person that set up shop there, then in theory I might've only ever seen that one person. However, with something like a cardiologist, you'd likely keep the same doctor, or else a rotation of 1-2 that work together, depending on their availability.

The functional part of the system is basically the same as it is in the US if you just cut out the insurance company middlemen. Every procedure has a set price, which has been negotiated ahead of time between the federal government and the hospitals. Private practitioners can charge less for services, I suppose, but I doubt that they do. With this 'menu' in place, all the consumer needs to do is go see the doctor and get evaluated and treated. Then the bill is passed on to the federal government, who pays the tab. That set pricing structure ensures that the system is regulated and doesn't price gouge, and it must keep the doctors happy because there are doctors.

Now, there are 'private' options, as well. For example, if you break your leg, you can hop into the hospital and the government will pay for your bone to be set and a plaster cast put on. But if you want to spend the extra money, you can upgrade that to a fiberglass cast, for an additional fee (let's call it a $100 surchage). That service is optional, though. But there are no procedures that are only available to paying customers; the patient can choose their entire treatment (within the doctor's recommendations, that is. You can't choose 'morphine' as your treatment for the flu).

Maddermax wrote:Yes, but other countries spend a lot on end of life care as well - we don't just take people out behind the woodshed at a certain point. I'm still trying to figure out how you pay more for far less in terms of services, and I'm just not understanding it.

Because of the bureacratic middlemen. When you need treatment, your doctor's office phones the insurance company to determine what procedures are covered. That requires someone like Whembly (I think I remember him saying he does something like that, but I could be wrong...) to sit in a call centre and look up your file, run that through his manager, and tell your doctor what will be covered by the insurance. Now, that call centre has overhead, the employee needs to be paid, the management needs to be paid, etc. In other words, the insurance industry's operations are plugging up the patient-doctor system, and thus adding on increased costs.

Sounds like a plan.

Oh well we have the ACA. I'm sure that will be 2x more awesome...:(

Good rundown Azazel... but that wasn't me.

I work in the IT clinical world...

Frazzled wrote:Sounds like a plan.

Oh well we have the ACA. I'm sure that will be 2x more awesome...:(

Yeah... I'm in support of the ACA because it's a crucial step forward... once people have a taste of universal healthcare (so to speak) then you can never take it away from them without violence. Any government would be fool to even try.

But honestly, to me the ACA is just a sad reminder of what should have been, and isn't.

 whembly wrote:
Good rundown Azazel... but that wasn't me.

I work in the IT clinical world...

Really?
What do you do Whembly?

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Good rundown Azazel... but that wasn't me.

I work in the IT clinical world...

Really?
What do you do Whembly?

pm'ed ya.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And now... I'm stirring up the conversation a bit here...

 Maddermax wrote:

Spoiler:

Hmm, lets see, most of these "doctors hate Obamacare" links are talking about surveys of doctors, which have a majority of those surveyed wanting to "repeal and replace" obamacare. Lets look at the actual survey from Jackson and Coker then...



Ahh, a self selected survey with a 3% response rate. That sounds representative! I'm sure that could in NO WAY cause biased results. Lets take a look at the demographics:



Males from the south don't like Obama you say? Oh my goodness, that's startling news - bring my fainting couch immediately!

Yeah, the AMA might not represent every doctor, but I'll take the AMA's opinions of Obamacare as far more representitive than this bullshiat survey.

Given what Maddermax said about the conditions of the study, I'm inclined to believe only the most adamant of doctors (for or against Obamacare) replied. Even then, very few did. Also keep in mind, these people are doctors of health. They are not doctors of economics nor management. As such, their opinions are simply that, opinions. While they do know what is happening behind the scenes when dealing with insurance companies or the government; "Carl from Accounting" or "Janet from Claims" probably have better understandings of its intricacies than the doctors who were asked.

This "study" effectively asked 3600 fry-chefs at McDonald's how the cheeseburger bill would effect the global franchise.

EDIT: Just did a quick lookup of the literal text for ombamacare. Long story short, 974 pages long.

here it is if interested: http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacarebill.pdf

In this episode:

We examine how Doctors are like Angels and cannot be politically swayed or tell fibs or just have opinions like normal people.

Also:

The 5 Stages of Grief
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

Relapse, feel free to start moving on to stage 2...

 Frazzled wrote:
Cool. I like that. I'm actually ok with a good single payer system if thats the case.

Here's another question, why do they still have private systems? Doesn't that set up: 1) crappy system for the worker drones; 2) a good system for the wealthy?

In my experience it sets up an alternate system for husbands whose wives think they are wealthy.

Can someone explain to me exactly what Obamacare is? Is it essentially the same as the NHS that we have over here?

Because if it, I think it'll be a huge step forwards for the healthcare system in the US. By catering for everyone and giving an equal opportunity to be treated rather than having to choose between medical care and eating...

Doctors retire because of greed.
New doctors don't get the same pay but do it to heal the sick.

I don't see a drawback.

Evilledz wrote:
Can someone explain to me exactly what Obamacare is? Is it essentially the same as the NHS that we have over here?

Because if it, I think it'll be a huge step forwards for the healthcare system in the US. By catering for everyone and giving an equal opportunity to be treated rather than having to choose between medical care and eating...

Obamacare/the ACA is a massive clusterfeth described as socialized medicine because adding socialist tones to everything results in knee jerk reactions from US conservatives.

If the free market doesn't have total and absolute control to do what it wants and there is even a shred of regulation = socialism.

 d-usa wrote:
If the free market doesn't have total and absolute control to do what it wants and there is even a shred of regulation = socialism.

Which is the same as communism am I doing it right?