Now what, USA?

Good informative post.

The post of mine, that you responded to, was one calling Bullshit on Miller's assertion that:



Perhaps if you weren't in such a rush to write a rebuttal to my post, you would have realized that I was only responding to an argument raised by someone else - an argument that you then chose to defend.

In the absence of meaningful evidence of a 'growing trend,' it's safe to assume that there is no such trend. The baseline state is for trends not to exist... if you want to assert that there is such a trend, or Miller does, YOU provide the evidence of it.

Cycloptichorn

Obviously, the situation in the USA is (and will be?) different to that in countries, which already have a mandatory/universal healthcare system.
Here in Germany, doctors prefer private insurers to the mandatory companies ... because they pay more. (Actually, the patient pays the bill and then tries to get back as much as possible from the insurer.)

If someone doesn't accept patient from the mandatory system, she(he is either retired, "posh" or ... ehem ... has a "background" why she/he isn't allowed to take those patients.
Physicians can't usually live without taking patients from the mandatory system.

The Shepard spoke.....and the sheep followed.

So what will the Shepard tell the sheep to give up ? Or will the Shepard demand more wool from the flock???

Stay well and protect your investments. The cliff is coming and you have not seen the bottom of the market.

What Shepard are you talking about, bright boy? Alan Shepard, the astronaut? It's really disgusting the way dim-witted conservatives predict doom and gloom and then pray it will come true so they can say "I told you so." How about wishing some good for the country for once, Cassandra?

another fascinating American phenomenon

perhaps you could consider the experience of countries where there is already mandatory health insurance (in some cases government-managed).

There has been no decline in people applying to enter medical school/entering medical practice in Canada. Overall, there are enough physicians here though, as is common in many countries, they are not evenly dispersed. Everyone seems to want to practice in the larger cities and rural areas have difficulty attracting physicians. Not due to low income - doctors make a tremendous living here, whether urban or rural.

On the other hand, we always have too many people applying for law school/attempting to get articling positions. Canada has had a consistent pool of law school grads driving cab for at least the last 35 years.

Cyclo, I believe that medical schools will increase supply to meet demand; that's how they "stay in business."

Most pre-med students do not go into medicine "for the money," if this survey is accurate.
http://studentdoctor.net/2008/04/why-study-medicine-pre-meds-not-in-it-for-the-money-survey-says/

I don't know why I remain engaged in these back and forths. It's a failing I need to work on.

I didn't try to rebutt your reply to Miller. I attempted to answer the question you demanded of her, not because I was inexorably pulled into the vortex of your righteous argument, but because I was curious.

I posted what I found to provide knowledge to the forum.

I also didn't assert that there was a trend for doctor's to not accept insurance but wondered alound if there might be.

In point of fact though, the San Antonio article indicates a trend, albeit, a very minor one in a select location.

You mistakenly assumed I was defending Miller's contention. I don't know why you can't just admit it.

Candy,,,,,nasty stuff....that's not your understanding, that's your take from reading articles opposed to the legislation.

You just might try reaching outside your bubble, bubbie.

Joe(There's breathable air out here.)Nation

And the Canadian experience may play out in America, but to deny the possibly outright seems foolish to me.

I've drawn no conclusion one way or the other, and as I've pointed out we will find out soon enough.

No, no . . . he was selflessly and considerately providing knowledge for the site . . . knowledge of the teabagger world view. I find that sort of thing fascinating . . .







. . . in a "watching a train wreck" sort of way.

Obviously, stylistic writing is lost on some of you guys.

You wrote, . ROFLMAO If you don't have facts on your side, "stylistic writing" is meaningless.

I think you should consider the tsar's point - that a good number of people enter medical school because they want to be of service, not because they want to become rich.

I'd suggest that the fewer parties involved in health insurance the better - no point in physicians/facilities having to set up a myriad of billing systems. It certainly doesn't benefit the patient or healthcare provider. I hope it shakes down to a small number of competitors who fight it out on price, which should be of long-term benefit to the consumer.

One of the things I see regularly is that the full-on price for medical care for uninsured people in Canada is between 1/3 and 1/20th of what it is on the U.S. invoices I audit. Given the volume difference, the U.S. costs should actually be lower.

The proportional difference in the number of lawsuits in the U.S. vs Canada also suggests to me that the price of healthcare in the U.S. should be much lower, not higher, as the quality of medical care must be dreadful.

Hopefully consumers will eventually reap the benefit of the changes in the American health insurance industry.

Exactly the same arguments were used when the NHS was first proposed. They came to naught. Personally I would rather be treated by someone who is motivated to help others, as opposed to being motivated primarily by greed.

You know how we humans react to catastrophic news: denial, anger, bargaining, despair, acceptance. What you saw from Hannity and Boehner was bargaining. The last two days on Faux News, I've also seen a lot of denial and anger from Karl Rove and some of the anchors. I have even seen an Anne Coulter in despair. ("It's official. There are more takers than makers in this country. It's all over!") Lets hope that Republicans advance to the stage of acceptance in due time. Their party will be better off for it, and the country will, too.

I have considered all of the points raised and they don't provide me with an answer.

Obamacare is here to stay. The point at which something could have been done to reverse or seriously modify it has been passed, and so the utility of reaching conclusions, based on speculation and projection, about the existing question is greatly diminshed.

I've no doubt that there are many young people who are motivated to become doctors for reasons other than wealth and that all medical students have not enrolled to become "rich."

The question (at least for me) is whether or not the time and money needed to obtain a medical education will disuade a significant number of young people from acting on their high minded intent if it appears to them that they can't make an income that will attend to their large debt in a relatively short period of time and leave them satisfactorily compensated.

Presently no one can answer that question, and if there is something that can be done about it (e.g. federally subsidized medical tuition) it's not likely to seriously be considered until we have an answer.

If you would like, I will acknowledge that the points raised could prove out and a shortage of doctors will not be a problem, but that is only one of the potential problems Obamacare may deliver.

If Obamacare turns out to be the Godsend so many people expect it to be, I would be foolish to insist it's not, and happy it turned out to be a big government program that works.

I just don't think we will all be judging it's ultimate performance based on the same set of criteria.

Whether or not it (or any other entitlement program for that matter) eventually results in an economic crisis the likes of which we now see in Western Europe will, for me at least, be an indication of failure.

I'm not hoping for this as I don't place an ability to say "I told you so." over the well being of my family friends and fellow Americans, but I believe I have legitimate reasons to be less sanguine than some in this thread.

That a majority of Americans chose Barrack Obama to be our president for the next four years means his second term is legitimate and just. It doesn't mean that all of my fears were groundless, that it was the right decision, and that his second term will be a success.

We will just have to wait and see.

You wrote,

You really "don't get it" do you? The cost of college education becomes more unaffordable for all who wishes to attend college. When my brother attended medical school, he had $8k in loans. When my nephew and niece went to medical school, they had $117k in loans. That's called "inflation." It always gets harder to finance all college education, because republicans don't want to pay taxes for our educational system - at all levels.

They don't even want to provide cheaper college loans.

Good post, Thomas, but they probably won't get beyond despair so long as they get to cry all the way to the bank.