This is an interesting point you have brought up about Medicare. Can you blame the Doctors for not wanting to take Medicare? I sure wouldn't take Medicare? Alot of these Doctors have a enormous amount of student loans to be paid for.

Antitrust, there are some inaccuracies in the above post-

First of all, Medicare and Medicaid are not the same program and should not be lumped together, in the same way that Social Security is not funded the same way Medicare is, and should not be lumped in when discussing gov't debt (are you hearing me, mainstream media?). Medicare is a federal funded program for the elderly and certain long-term disabled people and Medicaid is shared between the federal and state gov'ts to provide care for the poor.

Reimbursement for doctors is generally not great with Medicare, however, reimbursement rates for hospitals are generally pretty good. Most hospitals would have to close without Medicare patients. The breakdown of where Medicare money goes is:

Acute care hospitals: 48%
Physicians: 20%
Home health: 9%
Outpatient services: 8%
Skilled nursing home care: 6%
Hospice care: 1%
Admin overhead: 0.7%
Profit: 0%

So, taking a dentist's opinion on Medicare as the complete truth is a rather limited sample size and I suspect would not get you a passing grade in a statistics class. And again, it's not the same thing as Medicaid and many doctors take Medicare and won't take Medicaid, of which only 6% of the money goes to doctors (25% goes to nursing homes and 19% to inpatient hospitals, 10% to home health care, to give you some frame of reference). Medicare also reimburses teaching hospitals at a higher rate, so in fact, many doctors have their education partly subsidized by Medicare.

The big issue with Medicare reimbursement rates, if we're talking long-term reduction of costs, is that more specialized procedures get reimbursed at a better rate than basic services. So, if it's harder to find a GP who accepts Medicare, you're more likely to put off getting care until something that might have been minor, becomes major.

And this is a very, very important point. Our current system essentially penalizes people for tending to water dripping through the ceiling, but pays up when the roof finally collapses from years of accumulated water damage. Requiring insurance companies to cover wellness visits will save them and us money in the long run.

The shortage issue is not doctors entirely, it's GPs specifically. Lord knows it's not dentists. GPs are the ones who need to be recruited. In my perfect world, the gov't would subsidize tuition, in return for a certain number of years of work in underserved areas. I have a relative who got her midwife certification under a program like that- tuition paid for; in return she works in inner city facilities for 5 years. Make tuition affordable and you'll see people eager to become doctors.

The recent Florida decision pointing out the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare, along with the 78 pages detailing it, provide ample evidence of the exact opposite of the premise of this thread:

The Founding Fathers would have despised this socialist ilk.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html

I think we can learn a lot from why physicians are refusing Medicare in fact it gives us a look at what a catastrophe Government involvement in the private sector would be. For starters:

Medicare regularly cuts the rates of reimbursement, which means doctors earn less for office visits and various procedures

There is a longer delay than ever before for doctors to get reimbursements from Medicare

Medicare has a very convoluted, bureacratic process that allows some tests and treatments, refuses to pay for others, and limits how a doctor can practice medicine

Doctors may need additional staff to handle the extra paperwork, phone calls, resubmissions, and negotiation with insurance companies.

Again, what are you talking about - what monies are missing. Are you saying the bill promises reimbursements (I assume Medicare? but I don't know) that there will not be money to pay for? When? If so, that's too general a statement, please quote where you got it from.

No, Riot doesn't know everything. I just try to discuss stuff here on a more detailed or nuanced level than, "Obama sucks! Illegals suck! Carter sucks! You suck!"

:zz: What are you talking about? We're not talking about Medicare, we're talking about increasing the number of doctors in the health care system The PPACA will increase the insured by 32 million, but no, they will not be on Medicare, they will be insured by private insurance companies.

Either do I, and I've said so plenty of times here, if you were to be intellectually honest about it. Which you are not.

Does the truth hurt your feelings?

the point of my post was that government makes everything worse. and Obamacare will make health care worse. It WILL decrease the amount of young bright minds who want to go into medicine. I've already felt it (hard) and so have many working americans.

A simple way for the Government to increase young bright minds into wanting to become doctors through health care reform: tort reform!! But that was wayy to much to ask for from the liberals. they botched that bill so bad.

Clearly you are the one that needs to read the healthcare bill. Did you bother to read the link I provided that showed what you feared isn't true?

No.

Let's review: you are against healthcare because you think there's a public option in there, or single payer. A government takeover of healthcare that will force us all onto Obamacare, were your words, and you're glad you won't be forced onto Obamacare.

I pointed out there was not a public option. Or single payer. There is no "forcing you onto Obamacare".

Your argument in response is that yes there could be a public option, or single payer, buried deep inside, that nobody has noticed. And I haven't either, because I've not read the whole bill.

A giant conspiracy theory to keep something progressives really wanted, but didn't get, put into the bill but kept top secret from everyone.

Even though the bill has been in the public record in it's entirety for months now, and there is no public option/single payer for you to hate about Obamacare.

Guess what? There are no "death panels", either.

How many doctors does it take to care for the 32 million newly insured?

And those in the high-risk category who don't have the money to get insured. Who pays for them?

Well, you're saying to me, "are you f-cking kidding me! " about something I'm not even talking about.

So probably not good for you to lecture on "smart".

Smart people who want to get into the medical field already realize that the government makes their job MUCH tougher and less financially sound.

So why would they want to get involved now that Uncle Sam has more of a say?

This bill will only decrease the amount of people who want to become doctors.

"As doctors get paid more fairly, as insurance companies lose their current control over dictating the practice of medicine, there will be more doctors."


Who are insurance companies going to lose their control over dictating the practice of medicine to?

So you support and are happy about what Obama specifically asked for in his State of the Union speech this month, tort reform? Good for those liberals, huh?

GP's don't pay alot in malpractice insurance, btw (compared to OB-GYN, for example) so I don't think threat of litigation is a huge obstruction to doctors choosing to go into general practice versus ortho, ER, internal medicine, etc.

thank you for your respectful & informative reply.

I can agree with something along the lines of what you posted above. Though I'd much rather it be subsidized by charity or something other than government. Are taxes are too high as it is!!

And if one wants to see a real "government death panel", as a result of cutting state medicad-type funds, that has already resulted in the deaths of two people this year: look at Gov. Jan Brewer's cutting of state funds to patients on the transplant waiting list in her state.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-10391704.html

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/20...nother-victim/

I was being very honest when I wrote that post.

What about the two judges that upheld it and say it is constitutional? Do we just ignore them? And the 14 that said there is no case to hear?

The Supremes will probably get it April, and life will go on. With healthcare for many.