Nearly 50 percent of doctors ready to quit medicine if Healthcare bill passes

Boo Radley · May 7, 2010

Conservative said:
The problem is you have bought into the basic concept that access equals improved quality and that the govt. can do it better. Then you keep saying we can improve the bill. Please give me an example of where that has ever happened with legislation.

This bill is a multi TRILLION dollar POS that as stated many times does nothing to improve quality or quantity yet passed. You are betting with money that you don't have and that is what politicians do so they just print money.

Think for a second. If there is no access, there is no possibility of quality. To even begin to improve quality, you must improve access. The government is providing quality, they're providing better access. They don't run hospitals, or manage doctors, or dictate treatment. This Bill only moves to greater coverage, which increases access, which is a vital step toward improved care.

Second, there are incentives in the bill to reward lower costs and better care, not to mention more primary care physicians.

As for bills that continue after the reform starts, follow work place safety:

In 1877, Massachusetts passed the Nation's first factory inspection law. It required guarding of belts, shafts, and gears, protection on elevators, and adequate fire exits.2 Its passage prompted a flurry of State factory acts. By 1890, nine States provided for factory inspectors, 13 required machine guarding, and 21 made limited provision for health hazards.

The labyrinth of State job safety and health legislation covered a wide range of workplace hazards but was badly flawed. There were too many holes in the piecemeal system and numerous hazards were left uncontrolled. The laws had to be amended often to cover new hazards. Many legislatures failed to provide adequate funds for enforcement. Inspectors, who were often political appointees, were not always given the legal right to enter workplaces. State with strong safety and health laws tended to lose industry to those with less stringent ones, which made States competitive and limited their legislative efforts.

(snip)

The Federal Government was relatively inactive, though not dormant, on safety and health until the era of workers' compensation. In 1790, the First Congress passed an ineffective merchant seaman's act which gave the crew of a ship at sea the right to order the vessel into the nearest port if a majority of the seamen plus the first mate believed it was unseaworthy.9

(Snip)

By 1969, the idea of a general job safety and health law had taken hold. Beginning in 1965, Congress passed several laws protecting various groups of workers. The Service Contracts Act of 1965 and the Federal Construction Safety and Health Act of 1969 provided missing links in the protection of Government contractor employees. The 1966 Metal and Non-metallic Mine Safety Act protected non coal miners. A mine explosion in 1968 causing 68 deaths in Farmington, W.Va., spurred Congress to pass the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

U.S. Department of Labor -- History -- The Job Safety Law of 1970: Its Passage Was Perilous

Work conditions are clearly better today in large part due to safety regulations. And they improved over time.

Conservative · May 7, 2010

Boo Radley;1058735424]Think for a second. If there is no access, there is no possibility of quality. To even begin to improve quality, you must improve access. The government is providing quality, they're providing better access. They don't run hospitals, or manage doctors, or dictate treatment. This Bill only moves to greater coverage, which increases access, which is a vital step toward improved care.

Wrong, to improve quality you have to have the dollars to do the research and the dollars to increase the infrastructure. You downplay the doctor shortage now because it doesn't support your point of view.

Second, there are incentives in the bill to reward lower costs and better care, not to mention more primary care physicians.

There are incentives there that do not offset the costs that have to be paid and then there is that pesky little opt out option. There is no incentive to improve the R&D to improve quality.

As for bills that continue after the reform starts, follow work place safety:

In 1877, Massachusetts passed the Nation's first factory inspection law. It required guarding of belts, shafts, and gears, protection on elevators, and adequate fire exits.2 Its passage prompted a flurry of State factory acts. By 1890, nine States provided for factory inspectors, 13 required machine guarding, and 21 made limited provision for health hazards.

The labyrinth of State job safety and health legislation covered a wide range of workplace hazards but was badly flawed. There were too many holes in the piecemeal system and numerous hazards were left uncontrolled. The laws had to be amended often to cover new hazards. Many legislatures failed to provide adequate funds for enforcement. Inspectors, who were often political appointees, were not always given the legal right to enter workplaces. State with strong safety and health laws tended to lose industry to those with less stringent ones, which made States competitive and limited their legislative efforts.

(snip)

The Federal Government was relatively inactive, though not dormant, on safety and health until the era of workers' compensation. In 1790, the First Congress passed an ineffective merchant seaman's act which gave the crew of a ship at sea the right to order the vessel into the nearest port if a majority of the seamen plus the first mate believed it was unseaworthy.9

(Snip)

By 1969, the idea of a general job safety and health law had taken hold. Beginning in 1965, Congress passed several laws protecting various groups of workers. The Service Contracts Act of 1965 and the Federal Construction Safety and Health Act of 1969 provided missing links in the protection of Government contractor employees. The 1966 Metal and Non-metallic Mine Safety Act protected non coal miners. A mine explosion in 1968 causing 68 deaths in Farmington, W.Va., spurred Congress to pass the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

U.S. Department of Labor -- History -- The Job Safety Law of 1970: Its Passage Was Perilous

Wow, like a typical liberal you carry things too far, yes improvements were made and those improvements on their own worked but like with every liberal social program they grew, and grew, and grew creating bigger govt. bureaucracies and higher costs. Just like unions, they served their purpose before growing out of control. You need balance, this bill does not provide balance, nor does the EPA, Labor Laws, or any other liberal social program that goes too far.

Work conditions are clearly better today in large part due to safety regulations. And they improved over time.

There comes a point when enough is enough and that is something liberals never understand. SS was a good idea now out of control federal bureaucracy with high administrative costs that do nothing to insure the purpose of SS. Same with Medicare, Same with labor laws, same with environmental laws, same with any other liberal feel good program that costs more than intended. Your problem and the problem with all liberals is you cannot accept the reality that it is personal responsibility not govt. responsibility that keeps things safe, makes things better.

Boo Radley · May 7, 2010

Conservative said:
Wrong, to improve quality you have to have the dollars to do the research and the dollars to increase the infrastructure. You downplay the doctor shortage now because it doesn't support your point of view.

You might find a good bit of those dollars come from the government right now. And yes, the doctor shortage has been artificially held short. Greater need will lead to more doctors. That's the way it works.

There are incentives there that do not offset the costs that have to be paid and then there is that pesky little opt out option. There is no incentive to improve the R&D to improve quality.

Again, R&D still get federal dollars. Nothing in this bill hiders R&D at all. Many medical advances are made at teaching hospitals and universities, most often supported by government money. Not all mind you, but many. DO you need a link for that?

Wow, like a typical liberal you carry things too far, yes improvements were made and those improvements on their own worked but like with every liberal social program they grew, and grew, and grew creating bigger govt. bureaucracies and higher costs. Just like unions, they served their purpose before growing out of control. You need balance, this bill does not provide balance, nor does the EPA, Labor Laws, or any other liberal social program that goes too far.

You will find that business also creates bureaucracies when they grow. What you asked for was an example of changing after passing, for the better. That was ONE example. Few efforts stay the same with no changes, nor should they. The point is this is not the last word.

There comes a point when enough is enough and that is something liberals never understand. SS was a good idea now out of control federal bureaucracy with high administrative costs that do nothing to insure the purpose of SS. Same with Medicare, Same with labor laws, same with environmental laws, same with any other liberal feel good program that costs more than intended. Your problem and the problem with all liberals is you cannot accept the reality that it is personal responsibility not govt. responsibility that keeps things safe, makes things better.

Well, I don't see a large number clamoring to end those things. Despite problems, we do seem to be better off with those things than without them. Can you remember when Lake Erie caught on fire? (Actually a tributary feeding the lake) Or how about when meat was unsafe? Of that recent thing with peanut butter? Trusting enterprise to police themselves has often been problematic, more problematic than government interventions.

Conservative · May 7, 2010

Boo Radley;1058735545]You might find a good bit of those dollars come from the government right now. And yes, the doctor shortage has been artificially held short. Greater need will lead to more doctors. That's the way it works.

You might find the key to eternal life on earth too but probably not. Where does the govt. get its money? Most of that so called R&D comes from tax credits, not direct payouts and when you reduce incentive by increasing taxes you reduce the dollars for R&D. Simple concept except to a liberal.

In addition people in this country choose their profession and are not going into the medical profession. The incentive to enter the profession does not offset the cost of being in the profession.

Again, R&D still get federal dollars. Nothing in this bill hiders R&D at all. Many medical advances are made at teaching hospitals and universities, most often supported by government money. Not all mind you, but many. DO you need a link for that?

See above, R&D is a huge expense to improve quality. Many medical advances come in the form of incentive tax cuts, not direct dollars.

You will find that business also creates bureaucracies when they grow. What you asked for was an example of changing after passing, for the better. That was ONE example. Few efforts stay the same with no changes, nor should they. The point is this is not the last word.

The difference is the taxpayer doesn't pay for the increase in bureaucracies you claim are created in private industry. You don't like the price you pay from private business, select another one or don't buy.

Well, I don't see a large number clamoring to end those things. Despite problems, we do seem to be better off with those things than without them. Can you remember when Lake Erie caught on fire? (Actually a tributary feeding the lake) Or how about when meat was unsafe? Of that recent thing with peanut butter? Trusting enterprise to police themselves has often been problematic, more problematic than government interventions.

Of course you don't, if you put your money into SS and Medicare, don't you EXPECT to get it back?

Again, you miss the point and ignore the massive increase in bureaucracies to manage those regulations. In your world the means justifies the end which is foolish.

Boo Radley · May 7, 2010

Conservative said:
You might find the key to eternal life on earth too but probably not. Where does the govt. get its money? Most of that so called R&D comes from tax credits, not direct payouts and when you reduce incentive by increasing taxes you reduce the dollars for R&D. Simple concept except to a liberal.

In addition people in this country choose their profession and are not going into the medical profession. The incentive to enter the profession does not offset the cost of being in the profession.

More than that. Teaching hospitals, largely government funded, play ahuge role:

Discovering Tomorrow’s Cures

The integration of patient care with the best in medical education and research is the basis for much of what we take for granted in medicine today. As key centers of research, teaching hospitals are responsible for critical medical breakthroughs. From new approaches in prevention and diagnosis to successful treatments and cures, the advances pioneered at these institutions dramatically improve the health of our community. The list of medical firsts that were pioneered at America’s medical schools and teaching hospitals are long and distinguished. To name a few:

* The development of coronary angioplasty,
* The first pediatric trauma center
* The development of artificial skin made from living human cells
* The first human images with an MRI
* The first live polio vaccine
* The first successful bone marrow transplant
* The first intensive care unit for newborns
* The first human gene therapy for cystic fibrosis
* The first successful pediatric heart transplant
* The first to discover that adult heart diseases begin in childhood

Your Academic Teaching Hospital — University Medical Center Foundation of El Paso

The region's teaching hospitals collectively receive about $1.4 billion annually in federal grants, more than any other group of healthcare institutions in the country.

Funding slowdown worries hospitals - The Boston Globe

See above, R&D is a huge expense to improve quality. Many medical advances come in the form of incentive tax cuts, not direct dollars.

No direct dollars in grants at teaching hospitals and not private business.

The difference is the taxpayer doesn't pay for the increase in bureaucracies you claim are created in private industry. You don't like the price you pay from private business, select another one or don't buy.

Paying for it is paying for it. And too often real choice is limited. How much competition is there between oil companies? They are large and yet all prices are nearly the same despite large profits for each company. How about insurance companies? Any real difference in cost between companies? When Walmart puts everyone out of business, will costs go up or down?

Of course you don't, if you put your money into SS and Medicare, don't you EXPECT to get it back?

Again, you miss the point and ignore the massive increase in bureaucracies to manage those regulations. In your world the means justifies the end which is foolish.

Don't ignore anything. Those regulations served a real purpose and made things better than they were. bureaucracies are the costs of doing business. The alternative was to have lakes catch fire, eat tainted meat, suffer from poisoned Peanut butter. History shows us buyer beware means someone or something will be hurt without regulations, government involvement. Are you going to ignore that clear history?

Conservative · May 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
More than that. Teaching hospitals, largely government funded, play ahuge role:

Discovering Tomorrow’s Cures

The integration of patient care with the best in medical education and research is the basis for much of what we take for granted in medicine today. As key centers of research, teaching hospitals are responsible for critical medical breakthroughs. From new approaches in prevention and diagnosis to successful treatments and cures, the advances pioneered at these institutions dramatically improve the health of our community. The list of medical firsts that were pioneered at America’s medical schools and teaching hospitals are long and distinguished. To name a few:

* The development of coronary angioplasty,
* The first pediatric trauma center
* The development of artificial skin made from living human cells
* The first human images with an MRI
* The first live polio vaccine
* The first successful bone marrow transplant
* The first intensive care unit for newborns
* The first human gene therapy for cystic fibrosis
* The first successful pediatric heart transplant
* The first to discover that adult heart diseases begin in childhood

Your Academic Teaching Hospital — University Medical Center Foundation of El Paso

The region's teaching hospitals collectively receive about $1.4 billion annually in federal grants, more than any other group of healthcare institutions in the country.

Funding slowdown worries hospitals - The Boston Globe

No direct dollars in grants at teaching hospitals and not private business.

Paying for it is paying for it. And too often real choice is limited. How much competition is there between oil companies? They are large and yet all prices are nearly the same despite large profits for each company. How about insurance companies? Any real difference in cost between companies? When Walmart puts everyone out of business, will costs go up or down?

Don't ignore anything. Those regulations served a real purpose and made things better than they were. bureaucracies are the costs of doing business. The alternative was to have lakes catch fire, eat tainted meat, suffer from poisoned Peanut butter. History shows us buyer beware means someone or something will be hurt without regulations, government involvement. Are you going to ignore that clear history?

Teaching hospitals doesn't guarantee an increase in the number of doctors. Why would anyone become a doctor in this environment? Seems to me that doctors leaving the business is quite telling.

Boo Radley · May 7, 2010

Conservative said:
Teaching hospitals doesn't guarantee an increase in the number of doctors. Why would anyone become a doctor in this environment? Seems to me that doctors leaving the business is quite telling.

This was about R&D. Stay focused. And there is no evidence any doctors are actually leaving the profession. I would love you to present some actual evidence they are. I doubt you can.

But how much government helps individuals afford medical school, and how much the AMA stops resisting new doctors will make a difference. There is good reason to expect more doctors coming into the profession.

Conservative · May 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
This was about R&D. Stay focused. And there is no evidence any doctors are actually leaving the profession. I would love you to present some actual evidence they are. I doubt you can.

But how much government helps individuals afford medical school, and how much the AMA stops resisting new doctors will make a difference. There is good reason to expect more doctors coming into the profession.

Speculation, rosey scenario, and hope is all you have. Your faith in the govt. is incredible in spite of their incredibly poor record of producing results. As is typical, just throw money at the problem yet never solve it. Great philosophy. Hope you never go into business for yourself. Being a wage slave is what you seem to do best, no investment, no risk taking, and thus no understanding of how business works.

Boo Radley · May 7, 2010

Conservative said:
Speculation, rosey scenario, and hope is all you have. Your faith in the govt. is incredible in spite of their incredibly poor record of producing results. As is typical, just throw money at the problem yet never solve it. Great philosophy. Hope you never go into business for yourself. Being a wage slave is what you seem to do best, no investment, no risk taking, and thus no understanding of how business works.

You realize that you're not addressing any point don't you? :roll:

Conservative · May 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
You realize that you're not addressing any point don't you? :roll:

Yep, addressing the points, giving you actual numbers, pointing out history doesn't matter to you as you simply are brainwashed into believing what you are told. Waste of time.

cholla · May 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
You realize that you're not addressing any point don't you? :roll:

Except for the main point.

The fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative.
One believes that the govt can do better, one that people can do better.
One is wrong and one is right.

Boo Radley · May 10, 2010

cholla said:
Except for the main point.

The fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative.
One believes that the govt can do better, one that people can do better.
One is wrong and one is right.

That's not even the main point. You're presenting a partisan stereotype that ignores a lot. People are the government. The government is often us working together to solve problems. There's no magical entity here. It's people working together through our legislative body. The for profit private sector has a different mission. Nothing wrong with their mission, but it is not the same one.

In other words, you're not really addressing anything.

Boo Radley · May 10, 2010

Conservative said:
Yep, addressing the points, giving you actual numbers, pointing out history doesn't matter to you as you simply are brainwashed into believing what you are told. Waste of time.

No, you're side stepping. Government dollars actually contribute heavily to R&D.

Conservative · May 10, 2010

Boo Radley said:
No, you're side stepping. Government dollars actually contribute heavily to R&D.

So who contributes more, Govt. or the private sector? You really don't understand how our economy works, do you? Ever run a business or are you simply a "wage" slave expert who tells everyone else that they are wrong?

I ran that 200 million a year business that actually employed people. I understand people, behavior, and the shortcomings of govt. The basic role of govt. is to protect us, not provide for us. At no time in history did govt. social spending ever solve a problem. They always cost more and do less yet your answer is buy this group of liberal's rhetoric while ignoring history.

Boo Radley · May 10, 2010

Conservative said:
So who contributes more, Govt. or the private sector? You really don't understand how our economy works, do you? Ever run a business or are you simply a "wage" slave expert who tells everyone else that they are wrong?

I ran that 200 million a year business that actually employed people. I understand people, behavior, and the shortcomings of govt. The basic role of govt. is to protect us, not provide for us. At no time in history did govt. social spending ever solve a problem. They always cost more and do less yet your answer is buy this group of liberal's rhetoric while ignoring history.

Contribute more to what? They have different missions. Apples and oranges. You make a mistake in thinking it is either one or the other.

Conservative · May 10, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Contribute more to what? They have different missions. Apples and oranges. You make a mistake in thinking it is either one or the other.

No, you are the one that seems to be trying to convince us all as to the value of govt. Both contribute to R&D but only one does it effeciently and for the benefit of shareholders.

Boo Radley · May 10, 2010

Conservative said:
No, you are the one that seems to be trying to convince us all as to the value of govt. Both contribute to R&D but only one does it effeciently and for the benefit of shareholders.

So, only things that benefit shareholders are of value. Advances in medicine, heart surgery, anything that helps people is of no benefit unless a shareholder makes money?

Again, much has been developed by government dollars, on the government dime, that later led to profits for others. You're skipping a lot here just to stay true to a mindless stereotype that asks no questions.

Conservative · May 10, 2010

Boo Radley said:
So, only things that benefit shareholders are of value. Advances in medicine, heart surgery, anything that helps people is of no benefit unless a shareholder makes money?

Again, much has been developed by government dollars, on the government dime, that later led to profits for others. You're skipping a lot here just to stay true to a mindless stereotype that asks no questions.

Shareholders are people, corporations are people so tell me where is that belief in people? You claim the govt. is we the people yet for some reason people investing in corporations aren't?

Why don't we all just work for the govt. and all become wage slaves just like you?

Boo Radley · May 10, 2010

Conservative said:
Shareholders are people, corporations are people so tell me where is that belief in people? You claim the govt. is we the people yet for some reason people investing in corporations aren't?

Why don't we all just work for the govt. and all become wage slaves just like you?

You see, when you hold too strong to stereotypes, you sometimes don't really hear what's being said. I have no problem with shareholders and companies or corporations benefiting. None.

However, people can also benefit from advances made at a teaching / research hospital largely financed with government money. Not only can they, but they have and do.

Conservative · May 10, 2010

Boo Radley said:
You see, when you hold too strong to stereotypes, you sometimes don't really hear what's being said. I have no problem with shareholders and companies or corporations benefiting. None.

However, people can also benefit from advances made at a teaching / research hospital largely financed with government money. Not only can they, but they have and do.

There is a role for the govt. Read the Constitution to find out what that role really is. Hint, it has nothing to do with providing healthcare insurance or access to the American people.

Boo Radley · May 10, 2010

Conservative said:
There is a role for the govt. Read the Constitution to find out what that role really is. Hint, it has nothing to do with providing healthcare insurance or access to the American people.

How limited it is will be settled in court. But don't hold your breath as we've done far more for decades than what you suggest.

Conservative · May 10, 2010

Boo Radley said:
How limited it is will be settled in court. But don't hold your breath as we've done far more for decades than what you suggest.

Exactly yet every day you bring up the same argument hoping that today is the day others buy your point of view. Your visiion of the govt and its role is unsustainable but that just goes to show how economically challenged you really are.

Morality Games · May 11, 2010

Conservative said:
Exactly yet every day you bring up the same argument hoping that today is the day others buy your point of view. Your visiion of the govt and its role is unsustainable but that just goes to show how economically challenged you really are.

'Unsustainable' is having a massive class of uninsured persons stretched out over American society.

Conservative · May 11, 2010

Morality Games said:
'Unsustainable' is having a massive class of uninsured persons stretched out over American society.

Insurance is a personal responsibility not a taxpayer responsibility. you want to insure someone else, pay for it.

By the way, 3-5% of the people uninsured due to the inability to pay is a very small percentage of the overall problem. That is certainly sustainable but also fixable.

Boo Radley · May 11, 2010

Conservative said:
Exactly yet every day you bring up the same argument hoping that today is the day others buy your point of view. Your visiion of the govt and its role is unsustainable but that just goes to show how economically challenged you really are.

Again, the present system is unsustainable.

Also, Morality Games is exactly correct. We can't continue to pay for the uninsured and under insured. You are only being responsible when you have enough cash to handle any emergency or enough insurance to handle. If you do not, you're not being responsible.

Nearly 50 percent of doctors ready to quit medicine if Healthcare bill passes

Active member