"Obamacare"

[Panjandrum]

another thing is that super big retailers like wal-mart, which is the absolute worst, will no longer be able to shove employees onto medicaid, etc. they'll have to come up with something. so i guess a con could be that you'll be paying 1% more for your walmart bills or whatever if you shop there to make up for the added cost that they are about to incur.

Great point, Daris.

[puniraptor]

Con: I have to listen to my redneck coworkers rant about how awful it is on the daily.

Oh man. I have been neglecting just how big of con this is. It's nearly insufferable.

Recently I've been telling them to return to Kenya. So credit to joe for that at least :wink:

[wetwillie]

Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate?  An article I read in Forbes seems to think so.  Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.

[TheHamburglar]

Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate?  An article I read in Forbes seems to think so.  Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.

Are lawyers still going to be able to sue the crap out of doctors?  If so, they are still going to carry expensive malpractice insurance and have the fear of getting sued that leads to the myriad of unnecessary procedures to begin with.  The only way doctors will stop doing these tests is if they are ran so thin that they become so stressed to the point they don't care about getting sued anymore.  Doctors don't run those test now because they've got free time on their hands. 

[Panjandrum]

Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate?  An article I read in Forbes seems to think so.  Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.

There may be a tightening of supply where the cost of going to med school and what you'll make as a practicing physician will go down.

Like anything, the higher level of specification you do, the more you'll make.  Specialists probably won't get hit as hard as general practitioners. 

[Dr Rick Daris]

Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate?  An article I read in Forbes seems to think so.  Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.

There may be a tightening of supply where the cost of going to med school and what you'll make as a practicing physician will go down.

Like anything, the higher level of specification you do, the more you'll make.  Specialists probably won't get hit as hard as general practitioners.

yeah. everybody will get hit a little bit. but they already have been.

if i had a twenty two year old that was thinking about becoming a gp, i'd tell him/her to be something else. it's a problem when a decent amount of drug reps make about as much as the md's they are calling on. also, i'd tell that 22 year old to be an orthodontist. very little actual work and straight cash. not a lot of insurance.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate?  An article I read in Forbes seems to think so.  Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.

Are lawyers still going to be able to sue the crap out of doctors?  If so, they are still going to carry expensive malpractice insurance and have the fear of getting sued that leads to the myriad of unnecessary procedures to begin with.  The only way doctors will stop doing these tests is if they are ran so thin that they become so stressed to the point they don't care about getting sued anymore.  Doctors don't run those test now because they've got free time on their hands.

That's part of it, but the doctors also have a pretty nice financial incentive to run tons of tests on their patients.

[Panjandrum]

Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate?  An article I read in Forbes seems to think so.  Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.

Are lawyers still going to be able to sue the crap out of doctors?  If so, they are still going to carry expensive malpractice insurance and have the fear of getting sued that leads to the myriad of unnecessary procedures to begin with.  The only way doctors will stop doing these tests is if they are ran so thin that they become so stressed to the point they don't care about getting sued anymore.  Doctors don't run those test now because they've got free time on their hands.

That's part of it, but the doctors also have a pretty nice financial incentive to run tons of tests on their patients.

That's getting taken care of, though.  A lot of those things are being taken care of in the billing process.  There is a check to make sure something is medically necessary.  If it's not, the hospital won't get paid for it.

The government, specifically CMS, is getting much, much, much tighter and demanding a higher level of specificity in the process (i.e. moving to ICD-10) to better measure whether or not providers are performing the tests that make people better.

The days of Medicare handing over a blank check are over.  There are audits now where if you can't back up what you bill, they'll come in and make you pay them back.  Believe me, those audits scare the crap out of everyone.

[Panjandrum]

Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate?  An article I read in Forbes seems to think so.  Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.

There may be a tightening of supply where the cost of going to med school and what you'll make as a practicing physician will go down.

Like anything, the higher level of specification you do, the more you'll make.  Specialists probably won't get hit as hard as general practitioners.

yeah. everybody will get hit a little bit. but they already have been.

if i had a twenty two year old that was thinking about becoming a gp, i'd tell him/her to be something else. it's a problem when a decent amount of drug reps make about as the md's they are calling on. also, i'd tell that 22 year old to be an orthodontist. very little actual work and straight cash. not a lot of insurance.

Yep.  A lot of providers are very cognizant of how long it takes them to see a patient, and they're doing whatever they can to find ways to increase throughput.

In most other nations where healthcare is a much lower percentage of GDP, that's how physicians make their money.

[TheHamburglar]

 

Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate?  An article I read in Forbes seems to think so.  Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.

There may be a tightening of supply where the cost of going to med school and what you'll make as a practicing physician will go down.

Like anything, the higher level of specification you do, the more you'll make.  Specialists probably won't get hit as hard as general practitioners.

yeah. everybody will get hit a little bit. but they already have been.

if i had a twenty two year old that was thinking about becoming a gp, i'd tell him/her to be something else. it's a problem when a decent amount of drug reps make about as much as the md's they are calling on. also, i'd tell that 22 year old to be an orthodontist. very little actual work and straight cash. not a lot of insurance.

I know a few docs that wish they would have gone to PA school for this reason. Less stress, less liability, not much less pay than gp or ped. My little sister is 21 and trying to go to PA school and this is a big reason why. Not much difference in pay, huge difference in school.

[chum1]

I've worked in health insurance for a while.  All of this stuff has confirmed to me what I feel I knew was the case all along:  Politicians are completely full of crap and most of what the government does is useless.  I'm not anti Obamacare.  In fact, I'm pro government funded, government run healthcare.  All I'm saying here is that everything said by a public figure on the subject is bullshit.  Nothing will change.  Not really.

[8manpick]

pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.

cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.

Thanks Dr. Richard Daris /thread

[chum1]

pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.

cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.

Thanks Dr. Richard Daris /thread

Sorry, none of that is true.  Very little, if anything, in this thread is true.  I'd find it depressing if I gave a crap.

[Panjandrum]

pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.

cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.

Thanks Dr. Richard Daris /thread

Sorry, none of that is true.  Very little, if anything, in this thread is true.  I'd find it depressing if I gave a crap.

There won't be wholesale change, no.  To the consumer that's already purchased insurance, it won't be that much different at all, and for those that have to purchase it, that's what will be different for them.

Are we moving to a Singapore model?  No.  Should we?  Yes.  Will it ever happen in this country?  Probably not, or at least not in my lifetime.  The infrastructure isn't there.

The ACA is going to try and cover the uninsured, stop the bleeding, and hopefully chip away at the problem.  It's not a magic bullet or wholesale solution, and I don't think anyone in this thread claimed otherwise.

[sys]

positives - previously uncovered people covered, some cost controlling measures instituted.

negatives - no serious reform of the systemic problems in the american health care model, insurance middleman profits institutionalized, possible market control of runaway cost growth (e.g. significant % of population could not, or soon would not, be able to afford health care) sidestepped, permitting future growth to continue unchecked.

[Stupid Fitz]

have 2 doctor pals and they both hate it and say most other dr people do to.  This seems bad.  I am one of those people that want doctors people to be rich as shazbot!. 

I don't think it does anything to bring down costs, which was part of the deal when it passed.

It is 14 million pages, which is just stupid

If they wanted to make it illegal to disallow people with pre existing conditions (great idea), they should have.  That wouldn't have been so many pages. 

Assholes had to be given tons of crap for their states just to vote for it, otherwise they wouldn't have

Assholes like the people that came up and their pals are exempt from it.  If it was so great, why isn't everyone doing it?  Isn't more healthy people being in the system part of it?

Assholes voted for it, without having any idea how it worked or what was in it.  (I know this happens all the time, but I really hate it)

[Institutional Control]

Taxes. They should just get rid of the FDA and all regulations to allow for more competition. Legalize weed too. Then everyone could afford it!

/RadicalLibertarianRant

Exactly. Legalize weed but socialize it. Only the government can sell it. Then use that income to pay for healthcare. There would probably be lots of cash left over for nukes and crap.

[steve dave]

have 2 doctor pals and they both hate it and say most other dr people do to.  This seems bad.  I am one of those people that want doctors people to be rich as shazbot!. 

I don't think it does anything to bring down costs, which was part of the deal when it passed.

It is 14 million pages, which is just stupid

If they wanted to make it illegal to disallow people with pre existing conditions (great idea), they should have.  That wouldn't have been so many pages. 

Assholes had to be given tons of crap for their states just to vote for it, otherwise they wouldn't have

Assholes like the people that came up and their pals are exempt from it.  If it was so great, why isn't everyone doing it?  Isn't more healthy people being in the system part of it?

Assholes voted for it, without having any idea how it worked or what was in it.  (I know this happens all the time, but I really hate it)

not really providing any info as to what parts you don't like

[michigancat]

have 2 doctor pals and they both hate it and say most other dr people do to.  This seems bad.  I am one of those people that want doctors people to be rich as shazbot!. 

I don't think it does anything to bring down costs, which was part of the deal when it passed.

It is 14 million pages, which is just stupid

If they wanted to make it illegal to disallow people with pre existing conditions (great idea), they should have.  That wouldn't have been so many pages. 

Assholes had to be given tons of crap for their states just to vote for it, otherwise they wouldn't have

Assholes like the people that came up and their pals are exempt from it.  If it was so great, why isn't everyone doing it?  Isn't more healthy people being in the system part of it?

Assholes voted for it, without having any idea how it worked or what was in it.  (I know this happens all the time, but I really hate it)

not really providing any info as to what parts you don't like

Is lack of brevity a part? I think the fact that it's so difficult for people to understand is something to not like.

Anecdote: my mother-in-law benefited quite a bit from ACA, acknowledges that fact, and still hates Obama.

[steve dave]

I don't think so. You can't say, "you can't have lifetime maximums" and that's that. You are going to have to spell out in hundreds of pages the specifics of what that means and how it will be applied. I mean, most people can look at their home owners insurance policy and think they understand their coverage and they don't. they are just reading their declarations page. if most people ever got into their T&Cs they would have no idea what was actually covered and what wasn't. but, you can't just ditch them. just like that policy, you can summarize what the main points are ie. no lifetime maximums, can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, required to have coverage, etc.

[steve dave]

Con: impacts food service industry with fines for not offering health insurance plan at $2000 per employee

only those that have more than 50 employees.

anyone who employs more than 50 people and doesn't offer health insurance can just rough ridin' deal with it imo

[Dr Rick Daris]

pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.

cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.

Thanks Dr. Richard Daris /thread

Sorry, none of that is true.  Very little, if anything, in this thread is true.  I'd find it depressing if I gave a crap.

yeah, i'm pretty sure all of that is true. if your big complaint is that it doesn't go far enough then ok, i guess that's a con. 

[chum1]

pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.

cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.

Thanks Dr. Richard Daris /thread

Sorry, none of that is true.  Very little, if anything, in this thread is true.  I'd find it depressing if I gave a crap.

yeah, i'm pretty sure all of that is true. if your big complaint is that it doesn't go far enough then ok, i guess that's a con. 

No, like this entire thread, if I evaluated each statement's veracity, my answer in each case would be, "No, not really.". For exaple, the idea that there is now more access to healthcare is false because deductibles are rising so fast that more and more people cannot afford them - especially those who couldn't afford heath insurance before Obamacare.  As a result, people don't go to the doctor even when they have insurance.

['taterblast]

thread just heated up 

[steve dave]

pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.

cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.

Thanks Dr. Richard Daris /thread

Sorry, none of that is true.  Very little, if anything, in this thread is true.  I'd find it depressing if I gave a crap.

yeah, i'm pretty sure all of that is true. if your big complaint is that it doesn't go far enough then ok, i guess that's a con. 

No, like this entire thread, if I evaluated each statement's veracity, my answer in each case would be, "No, not really.". For exaple, the idea that there is now more access to healthcare is false because deductibles are rising so fast that more and more people cannot afford them - especially those who couldn't afford heath insurance before Obamacare.  As a result, people don't go to the doctor even when they have insurance.

well that is a much better answer than, "no, not really"