Conscripting Doctors - Next logical step

[WhipperSnapper]

How does single payer fix the problem? Seriously. I'd like to know.

It's not merely single payer, but outright socialized medicine. It fixes the problem by dramatically eliminating most of the inefficiency in our current pseudo-market system: Insurance company employees, boatloads of hospital accountants and medical billings people, insurance brokers, HR benefits people at businesses, advertising costs, etc.

We have numerous concrete examples of this working in other nations that have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, businesses unburdened by health insurance concerns, all while spending a much smaller percentage of GDP (and far fewer dollars/capita) than our nation.

 

[hal2kilo]

Again, they're already on the receiving end of that.

Do you think they didn't know they were going to be lambasted? I know Obama was naive but the entire Democratic party?

Face it, we dont have socialized medicine because the Dems weren't on board with it, probably due to insurance lobbyists since PPACA is the biggest gift to the industry in a while.

Most definately Baccus is bought and paid for by the insurance industry, hell it,s probably the second biggest money maker for the state after agriculture. As soon as Obama made him a point man for the ACA i new the fix was in for not having single payer and we get some sort of Romneycare.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by BoberFett
How does single payer fix the problem? Seriously. I'd like to know.

Depends on how you define "the problem," I guess.

If you see the problem as overall medical costs, it cuts the deadweight that is the entire insurance industry and all the bureaucracy hospitals and doctors have to deal with them..
-snip-

You are obviously completely unfamiliar with billing procedures for Medicaid/Medicare. It's a horrendously difficult and expensive nightmare.

Fern

 

[Fern]

It's not merely single payer, but outright socialized medicine. It fixes the problem by dramatically eliminating most of the inefficiency in our current pseudo-market system: Insurance company employees, boatloads of hospital accountants and medical billings people, insurance brokers, HR benefits people at businesses, advertising costs, etc.

We have numerous concrete examples of this working in other nations that have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, businesses unburdened by health insurance concerns, all while spending a much smaller percentage of GDP (and far fewer dollars/capita) than our nation.

I've lived and worked in foreign countries that have socialize medicine. You have no real idea of what you're talking about.

This, and other of your posts here, is nothing more than liberal talking points.

Fern

 

[shortylickens]

If the government would just stop enforcing the monopoly the AMA has in this country these problems would get a lot better.


It seems they are doing everything EXCEPT the one action which would actually work.

 

[BoberFett]

That government bureaucracy is there anyway for Medicare, this would just expand that. I'm sure there would be some inefficiency, and you'd always have to continue to be on the lookout for corruption, but real world examples across the first world show substantially more efficient and effective health care than we have.

I agree that you can make any ideology work in theory, which is why we need to check against reality whenever possible.

No actually, Medicare does not have the infrastructure in place to handle anything. They foist the work off on providers. My ex-wife worked in medical billing and Medicare paperwork was a vastly disproportionate amount of the work done for the actual percentage of patients it dealt with. If anything, based on their track record, single payer has the possibility of increasing our medical billing costs significantly.

 

[BoberFett]

It's not merely single payer, but outright socialized medicine. It fixes the problem by dramatically eliminating most of the inefficiency in our current pseudo-market system: Insurance company employees, boatloads of hospital accountants and medical billings people, insurance brokers, HR benefits people at businesses, advertising costs, etc.

We have numerous concrete examples of this working in other nations that have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, businesses unburdened by health insurance concerns, all while spending a much smaller percentage of GDP (and far fewer dollars/capita) than our nation.

Then move to one of those countries that you like better. I for one do not want to go to a government run medical facility.

If your intent is to force me into your system, then you're my enemy.

 

[Fern]

No actually, Medicare does not have the infrastructure in place to handle anything. They foist the work off on providers. My ex-wife worked in medical billing and Medicare paperwork was a vastly disproportionate amount of the work done for the actual percentage of patients it dealt with. If anything, based on their track record, single payer has the possibility of increasing our medical billing costs significantly.

Exactly, and people familiar with Medicare/Medicaid know this. Of course most liberals don't know this, but then they're experts on subjects they know nothing about. (This is amply demonstrated by Obamacare.)

The concept is unsound for other reasons as well. E.g., I live in one of the larger (by population) states and we have a grand total of one HI company serving the entire state. Really? Having two sets of insurance claim forms is the big problem with our HC industry?

Fern

 

[TheVrolok]

It's not only that, the AMA has only half heartedly pushed for more residency training spots. They have also actively lobbied against US citizens that studied in the Caribbean because they feel threatened by a larger influx of qualified physicians that aren't under their thumb.

It's not a fear of qualified Caribbean trained physicians. The Caribbean schools are essentially money making operations. Charging kids who couldn't get into domestic schools significantly more money than their domestic counterparts and providing, often times, very limited (read: poor) education. Certainly there are some good grads, but they did most of the studying/learning on their own. Basically it's pay 70k a year and spend all of your time studying for board exams.

 

[TerryMathews]

The Republicans had plenty to do with it by standing in the way and opposing a much better plan.

Tell me more about this "standing in the way" they accomplished. The Democrats passed PPACA with not a Republican vote. What secret weapon did they have that they were going to use against Single Payer that they didn't use against PPACA? Double Secret Probation?

The entire backbone of the ACA was a Republican proposal to stave off socialized medicine, (aka "Hillary Care"), back in the early 'Nineties.

You all are so quick to point this out. It's not true, there are significant differences and more importantly it never went anywhere for a reason. My whole point is you all wanted this boondoggle, embrace it. It's like you took a shit in the corner and keep trying to pass it off as ours.

The Republicans also failed to propose any real solutions to our nation's health care problem and opposed socialized medicine.

So, we forced you to pass a shitty law because we didn't propose a better one? Fail.

There will be plenty of blame to go around for both sides, but the Republicans deserve most of it.

How? This is literally the stupidest thing I've read. How can the Republicans be responsible for a law they didn't vote for.

The Republican plan for health care is...maintain the status quo? Don't get sick and if you do get sick, die quickly? Why should they be given a free pass on that?

Letting the free market rule isn't quite the same as "if you do get sick, die quickly" but thanks for playing.

 

[First]

Wait wait, are there still people that use the argument that because ~6% of Senate Dems in 2010 didn't want single payer, that therefore single payer went down primarily because of Dems and not let's say, oh, because nary a single Republican would vote for it? Is this a serious argument or the result of brain injuries?

 

[TerryMathews]

Wait wait, are there still people that use the argument that because ~6% of Senate Dems in 2010 didn't want single payer, that therefore single payer went down primarily because of Dems and not let's say, oh, because nary a single Republican would vote for it? Is this a serious argument or the result of brain injuries?

Not a single Republican voted for PPACA, so there is no difference there.

I think you're the one that is brain damaged.

 

[First]

^ Derrrrrrp. You're confused about what I just stated. Reread for clarification.

 

[TerryMathews]

^ Derrrrrrp. You're confused about what I just stated. Reread for clarification.

I read and understood it just fine. You're simply trying to pass the buck. If PPACA was a compromise, it was a compromise for those "6% of senate Democrats."

If you all are so proud of President Obama's crowning achievement D) why do you always try to pass it off?

Embrace it. Rejoice in His glory. It's this wonderful bill, why are you working so hard to make it the dirty Republicans fault?

I think we both know the answer. Your president passed a shit sandwich in order to appease his masters. And now we all have to eat it.

 

[First]

^ ACA is fine, just not as ideal as single payer i.e. Medicare for all. We'll give the free market a chance to compete and see if they do well. If not, we'll see technical fixes or outright overhaul, likely with no Repub support again as they're mostly nutty libertarians these days on public policy, uninterested in finding solutions through legislation.

But you're still confused; we'd have single payer with Republican support, as even in 2010 there were Repubs who were more moderate than a few blue dog Dems in the Senate, but who failed to nut up when push came to shove. ~94% of Dems backed single payer and/or the public option, that's just fact. It is squarely on the Repubs for being uniformly against both gov't-run single payer and free market exchanges in 2010 (and today), the later certainly they should have been for. Like I said, they don't want functioning public policy because they aren't interested in governing. In fact, I'll bet dollars to donuts by Nov. 2016 Repubs will be completely splinted for the first time since the mid-19th century between Northeastern moderates like Christie and Tea Parties in the heartland.

 

[TerryMathews]

^ ACA is fine, just not as ideal as single payer i.e. Medicare for all. We'll give the free market a chance to compete and see if they do well. If not, we'll see technical fixes or outright overhaul, likely with no Repub support again as they're mostly nutty libertarians these days on public policy, uninterested in finding solutions through legislation.

But you're still confused; we'd have single payer with Republican support, as even in 2010 there were Repubs who were more moderate than a few blue dog Dems in the Senate, but who failed to nut up when push came to shove. ~94% of Dems backed single payer and/or the public option, that's just fact. It is squarely on the Repubs for being uniformly against both gov't-run single payer and free market exchanges in 2010 (and today), the later certainly they should have been for. Like I said, they don't want functioning public policy because they aren't interested in governing. In fact, I'll bet dollars to donuts by Nov. 2016 Repubs will be completely splinted for the first time since the mid-19th century between Northeastern moderates like Christie and Tea Parties in the heartland.

There is so much logic fail in this post. Using this logic, you can literally make everything the Republicans fault.

 

[michal1980]

^ ACA is fine, just not as ideal as single payer i.e. Medicare for all. We'll give the free market a chance to compete and see if they do well. If not, we'll see technical fixes or outright overhaul, likely with no Repub support again as they're mostly nutty libertarians these days on public policy, uninterested in finding solutions through legislation.

But you're still confused; we'd have single payer with Republican support, as even in 2010 there were Repubs who were more moderate than a few blue dog Dems in the Senate, but who failed to nut up when push came to shove. ~94% of Dems backed single payer and/or the public option, that's just fact. It is squarely on the Repubs for being uniformly against both gov't-run single payer and free market exchanges in 2010 (and today), the later certainly they should have been for. Like I said, they don't want functioning public policy because they aren't interested in governing. In fact, I'll bet dollars to donuts by Nov. 2016 Repubs will be completely splinted for the first time since the mid-19th century between Northeastern moderates like Christie and Tea Parties in the heartland.

100% of dems voted for ACA
0% of republicans voted for ACA.

How is it again that republicans stopped single payer?

 

[First]

I fail at retorts.

FTFY.

 

[techofalltrades]

100% of dems voted for ACA
0% of republicans voted for ACA.

when you begin with incorrect fact... you're destined for failure


http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml

AYES NOES PRES NV
DEMOCRATIC 219 34
REPUBLICAN 178
INDEPENDENT
TOTALS 219 212


100% of democrats did not vote yes.. but don't let the facts befuddle you

 

[5150Joker]

It's not a fear of qualified Caribbean trained physicians. The Caribbean schools are essentially money making operations. Charging kids who couldn't get into domestic schools significantly more money than their domestic counterparts and providing, often times, very limited (read: poor) education. Certainly there are some good grads, but they did most of the studying/learning on their own. Basically it's pay 70k a year and spend all of your time studying for board exams.

No, it is purely driven out of fear. Even if say for example a Caribbean school has an attrition rate of 20-30%, that has zero impact on it's graduating classes. The students that get through USMLE are every bit as qualified as a US educated medical student. In fact, the top tier Caribbean schools send all their students to train at the same hospitals as the US medical schools. The US medical schools have become so threatened by them (because the Caribbean schools outspend them) that they have been lobbying against them for years.

You are right that there are some schools in the Caribbean with questionable education but that doesn't affect the US because those same students never pass the USMLE and ultimately wash out. The leading schools there have had visits from California and New York medical boards and have gained accreditation. That means they are recognized as providing the same level of education as a US medical school and are allowed to do clerkship, residency and ultimately gain a medical license in two of the US's most important states (especially with respect to the # of residency training spots).

It's true that they are for profit private institutions but that doesn't really matter, the point is they graduate qualified American doctors that can supplement the shortage the US is experiencing. Especially in primary care because US graduates tend to specialize while Caribbean graduates enter primary care more often than not.

 

[Slew Foot]

Especially in primary care because US graduates tend to specialize while Caribbean graduates enter primary care more often than not.

Because you actually have to have good board scores to go into specialities.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I've lived and worked in foreign countries that have socialize medicine. You have no real idea of what you're talking about.

This, and other of your posts here, is nothing more than liberal talking points.

Care to elaborate? How are the businesses burdened by insurance concerns? Is it every nation or just one or two nations and their particular idiosyncratic systems?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Then move to one of those countries that you like better. I for one do not want to go to a government run medical facility.

If your intent is to force me into your system, then you're my enemy.

So you're in favor of having tens if not hundreds of Americans suffer under an expensive and inefficient quasi-market system when more efficient and better systems are available?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Tell me more about this "standing in the way" they accomplished. The Democrats passed PPACA with not a Republican vote. What secret weapon did they have that they were going to use against Single Payer that they didn't use against PPACA? Double Secret Probation?

I've elaborated upon my reasoning and answered all of your questions in other posts, but you seem to be conveniently ignoring them.

 

[5150Joker]

Because you actually have to have good board scores to go into specialities.

You can have an FMG with a board score of 240 and a US grad with 230 and the US grad gets first dibs--it's an active policy of discrimination against US citizens with an FMG label. US grads ultimate fear is that FMG's (even if they are Americans) will accept lower pay and larger loads compared to them. Too many doctors I've worked with expressed those unfounded fears. Originally the Caribbean lagged far behind their US counterparts in board scores but the gap has significantly closed in recent years, especially in top tier schools where the difference is negligible. In fact, St. George's USMLE Step 1 averages are higher than US DO schools.