- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
This is the most important one.
How is jealousy of getting high income patients the most important reason?
This is the most important one.
How is jealousy of getting high income patients the most important reason?
I really don't understand why this doctor shortage issue has suddenly become a problem for the average Joe. If you have a family doctor whom you see regularly (atleast once every 4-6 months), as long as that doctor doesn't retire or change/relocate his/her practise outside your reach, there really shouldn't be a problem.
While I do understand the concern being raised, this nation's doctor/nurse shortage really is old news, folks. It's just getting alot more attention since health care reform legistlation has been passed. And while I understand the rationale behind those who honestly see this as a problem directly related to passage of the health care reform bill, I think the matter will correct itself. You'll start seeing more advertising for people to go into the medical field. The medical profession as a whole will regroup and start figuring out how to do more with less; technology will lead the way and close some of the gaps for a time, but eventually the system will correct itself. It always does when people put real thought behind a problem.
gee, whaddya think?
LOL!
tell it to canada's WAIT TIME ALLIANCE
http://www.waittimealliance.ca/June2009/Report-card-June2009_e.pdf
it should decrease emergency room treatment, which is very expensive, with dr office visits, much less expensive. no substantial increase overall, i don't think.
My point was Canada's problem is Canada's problem. We may share the same problem, but how we handle it might be different. Frankly, I don't care about Canada's doctor shortage problem. I care about ours, but unlike some I'm not in panic mode over it.
I just don't see the same thing happening here in the US.
True, but that's the reasons more funding for higher education was added to health care reform legistlation - to try and stave off the anticipated drop off in doctor shortages. Still, as misterman so accurately pointed out, this country has had a shortage on doctors (and nurses) for years.
why do you think anyone care's about your opinions
post facts
use links
like wsj's piece about the 150,000
the point---wsj disagrees with your views
LOL!
If it's the same type of funding for higher education that was in the other health care bill that came out a few months ago, and I haven't read this bill, so I don't know for certain, the funding for higher education will be funneled toward affirmative action-oriented education, enrolling individuals based on social factors as much as on achievement history. This will serve to decrease the quality of the professionals (doctors, nurses, etc) coming into the health care industry. They will, in effect, be public health employees in a public health system. I'm not saying this is the case, but based on the last bill posted on the internet for public viewing, it seemed to be the desired focus for getting more health care professionals into the work force. If public health employees perform in a similar manner to other government office employees, efficiency will go down.
I'll have to go read the article and see what it says.
Last I checked this was a public forum. People share their ideas which in most cases are "opinions".
I
So, I don't think the quality of care will go down nor will the quality of the educated professional. ....
If the government takes on the role of determining who enters the professions based on social factors rather than scholastic ones, the quality will go down. I know that currently, nursing schools are highly competitive and entrance is primarily based on scholastic qualifications. When you lower the standards for entrance, based on factors other than qualifications, decreased quality will be one of the results.
Most people will not have "free access" to medical care.
OK, why? (ala debate politics)This is the most important one.
According to who? In that same list it notes that patients were getting gourmet meals, private rooms, family accommodations, upscale service. Clearly quality was different. Are you saying the BMW driving experience isn't a higher quality driving experience?12. No increased quality of care.
How do they do this exactly? They attract patients because of their higher quality care, marketing, etc. They likely even attract them simply beacuse they cost more. Desginer clothes don't really look or function differently than Target's version, so we ban designer clothing? This is a matter of public policy?Doctor owned hospitals get larger share of highdollar patients,
Yes. Corollas have reduced "services" because a lot of the auto-spend is on lexus, SUVs, BMW, and Mercedes. And this is a matter of government intervention why?leaving full hospitals with lower income patients and having to cut services because of the loss of higher paying patients.
There are more options than "doing nothing" and "possible disaster".
Few to none actually presented. And remember, republicans had a good amount of time to do something if they were inclined to do so.