• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

60 doctor-owned hospitals canceled due to new health law

Ockham said:
How is jealousy of getting high income patients the most important reason?
Click to expand...

Come back when you have a rational question.
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

tell it to canada's WAIT TIME ALLIANCE

http://www.waittimealliance.ca/June2009/Report-card-June2009_e.pdf
 
Re: Canada/US have doctor shortages

The Prof said:
gee, whaddya think?

LOL!
Click to expand...

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.

The Prof said:
tell it to canada's WAIT TIME ALLIANCE

http://www.waittimealliance.ca/June2009/Report-card-June2009_e.pdf
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is we'll start experiencing longer wait-times also? Maybe, but I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

why do you think anyone cares about your opinions?

post facts
 
You obviously do. You responded didn't you? But let's not get too bent out of shape here, shall we? If your point in posting the article on Canada's doctor shortage was to illustrate that the US can expect to face the same "rationed time for quality care", then you should have just said so when you posted the article. A valid argument, but I just don't see the same thing happening here in the US.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
I just don't see the same thing happening here in the US.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Prof,

Again, you obviously care about what I think. You've responded twice now.

"Who's more foolish? The fool or the one who follows him?"

Last I checked this was a public forum. People share their ideas which in most cases are "opinions". If you can't handle that and you don't like what I have to say, by all means put me on your ignore list. It's just that simple. (And believe me, it won't hurt my feelings one bit.)

Next!

(Pssst...Can I still blame Canada for this? :mrgreen:)
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
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!
Click to expand...

Does it? Why don't you post a link to it and show us.
 
lizzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

I work in public health and I can tell you there's been a push to get more stardard health care services into communities over the last few years than just WIC, family planning and immunizations - things of that sort. The emphasis has been on wellness and prevention, as well as, how to provide things such as a standard physical or blood pressure reading to low-income families/individuals who truly need them.

Part of the employment criteria for many public health employees is that they have atleast a 2-yr degree. However, there are lots of PH employees who have 4 yr degrees from well known accredited colleges and universities.

So, I don't think the quality of care will go down nor will the quality of the educated professional. What is likely to happen, however, is public health departments just like medical centers/clinics will likely get swamped at first, but things will level out once many of the administrative functions and services become more standardized. It happened when school immunizations was effectively "shared" between private practises and the public health system. I expect the same will take place within all facets of the health care industry where routine services are provided all over again.

Patiencs....
 
Objective Voice said:
Last I checked this was a public forum. People share their ideas which in most cases are "opinions".
Click to expand...

very true

but the posts comprised merely of opinions are far less powerful than those dominated by links

hello
 
Objective Voice said:
I
So, I don't think the quality of care will go down nor will the quality of the educated professional. ....
Click to expand...

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.
 
Prof,

I'm not worried about power or prestige, right or wrong. If in sharing my views helps to enlighten or expand one's ideas or knowledge, great! If everyone swept past my posts and never read them, well atleast I tried to inform. That's all any of us can do, i.e., your obsession with facts and linked articles to support them.

To each his own. Regardless, you can bet if I truly felt compelled to go the route you have, I'd do my research and put up countless links to support my claims. At this point, I'm content with reading what others have to say, hopefully gain some insight, and yes, share my "opinion" on the matter at hand.
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. We'll just have to hope that qualification levels are set high to ensure only the cream of the crop serves the public rather than the cream of the crap.
 
For those who are looking for the actual analysis on the physician shortage issue, the report is available at: http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/presskits/physicianshortagefs.pdf

Per the AAMC's document, the recent health legislation's impact would amount to a demand-side shock, not a supply shock.

Some hypothetical numbers to illustrate the point of how a demand shock increases a shortage when there is no impact on supply:

Scenario 1: No health law changes:

2010
Patients: 1,000
Doctors: 200
Patient/Doctor Ratio: 5.0

2020
Patients: 1,800
Doctors: 300
Patient/Doctor Ratio: 6.0

Based on maintaining the earlier ratio, there would be a "shortage" of 60 physicians by 2020 (P2020/PDRatio2010)-D2020 = (1800/5)-300 = 60

Scenario 2: Health law changes lead to 150 Additional Patients:

2010
Patients: 1,000
Doctors: 200
Patient/Doctor Ratio: 5.0

2020
Patients: 1,950
Doctors: 300
Patient/Doctor Ratio: 6.5

Based on maintaining the earlier ratio, there would be a "shortage" of 90 physicians by 2020 (P2020/PDRatio2010)-D2020 = (1950/5)-300 = 90

Under the hypothetical illustration, the shortage increases purely from a demand-side shock. No changes in the expected supply of physicians has occurred.

That's the scenario being painted by the AAMC document on the physician shortage. The document declares, "The United States is expected to face a shortage of 124,000-159,000 physicians by 2025. Potential reforms, such as universal health care coverage, will add to overall demand for doctors and increase the projected shortfall by 25 percent." The document does not mention that such reforms would decrease the supply of physicians relative to what would exist in the absence of such reform.
 
misterman said:
Most people will not have "free access" to medical care.
Click to expand...

you can say that again

they gotta go out and buy it themselves

and health insurance aint cheap

furthermore, if they don't go out and buy it, they're facing fines and even jail time down the road

handwritten letter from thomas barthold, chief of staff for jct (joint cmte taxation) to senator ensign

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_090925_document2.html

Democrats: Buy health insurance or go to jail
 
misterman said:
This is the most important one.
Click to expand...
OK, why? (ala debate politics)

12. No increased quality of care.
Click to expand...
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?

Doctor owned hospitals get larger share of highdollar patients,
Click to expand...
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?

leaving full hospitals with lower income patients and having to cut services because of the loss of higher paying patients.
Click to expand...
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?
 
(CNSNews.com) ? The new health care overhaul law ? that promised increased access and efficiency in health care ? will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds. >>

They forgot to mention that they won't be needed because new non-profit clinics will take their place.

ricksfolly
 
Gander said:
There are more options than "doing nothing" and "possible disaster".
Click to expand...

Few to none actually presented. And remember, republicans had a good amount of time to do something if they were inclined to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom