Q: How Obama treat 50 million new patients with no extra doctors?

[Danno 1,228]

Doctor Shortage Will Worsen Health Bill Impact

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 1:36 PM

By: ####### Morris & Eileen McGann

The fundamental question that the Obama administration has never answered is a simple one: How can it treat 50 million new patients with no extra doctors?

A new report from the American Association of Medical Colleges underscores the urgency of this concern. The Association notes that the United States now suffers from a shortage of 15,000 doctors — a shortfall that is expected to grow to 125,000 in 15 years. And, the Association reports, if universal health insurance is passed, the shortage will grow to over 150,000 by 2025.

While the number of elderly people in the U.S. is expected to grow by 60 percent over the next decade and a half, the number of doctors will increase by only about 6 percent (Total U.S. population will rise by about 17 percent over the same period).

This shortage of doctors will, inevitably, lead to the rationing of medical care, more quickly and drastically if the Obama plan is passed. In Massachusetts, where universal health coverage was enacted under Gov. Mitt Romney in 2006, the Medical Society found that the number of patients who reported difficulty in getting care has already risen by 50 percent, up to a quarter of the patient population. The New York Times reports that "a main reason for the logjam was long waiting times for appointments."

In 1949, when President Harry Truman first proposed mandatory health insurance, he coupled his initiative with an expansion of federal aid to medical schools. But Obama makes no provision for an expansion of the pool of doctors, even as he grows the population of patients by up to 50 million.

Indeed, by cutting medical fees by dropping the reimbursement rates under Medicare, he likely will hasten the retirement of many medical professionals, worsening the underlying shortage. The Times quotes medical experts as predicting that the three years specified in the House bill as the time by which universal health insurance coverage will take effect "is not nearly enough time to build the supply of doctors needed to care for the additional tens of millions of people who would become newly insured."

Because there will not be enough doctors, nurses, and medical equipment for the massive influx of patients under the Obama plan, there will be rationing, more draconian year after year. As in Canada, it is this fundamental discrepancy between the number of patients and the population of doctors that will lead to rationing. From there, the inevitable consequence will be cutbacks in care for the elderly. Optional procedures, vital to quality life but not to survival, are likely to be limited. Hip replacements, new knees, hearing aids, and such are less and less likely to be approved. And, medical administrators will be less likely to OK surgery or expensive medical treatments for the elderly, whom they perceive to be at the end of their "quality" years.

It is the shortage of doctors, not any specific language in the text of the legislation, that makes rationing and the so-called "death panels" cited by Sarah Palin inevitable.

We all agree that everybody should have health insurance, but let us precede this step by expanding the number of doctors and nurses so that we can cover everyone without sacrificing the care for anyone. Otherwise, we are not giving 50 million new people medical care. We are consigning 300 million, and particularly the elderly among them, to long waiting lists.

[sly_wolf 199]

Doctor Shortage Will Worsen Health Bill Impact

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 1:36 PM

By: ####### Morris & Eileen McGann

The fundamental question that the Obama administration has never answered is a simple one: How can it treat 50 million new patients with no extra doctors?

A new report from the American Association of Medical Colleges underscores the urgency of this concern. The Association notes that the United States now suffers from a shortage of 15,000 doctors — a shortfall that is expected to grow to 125,000 in 15 years. And, the Association reports, if universal health insurance is passed, the shortage will grow to over 150,000 by 2025.

While the number of elderly people in the U.S. is expected to grow by 60 percent over the next decade and a half, the number of doctors will increase by only about 6 percent (Total U.S. population will rise by about 17 percent over the same period).

This shortage of doctors will, inevitably, lead to the rationing of medical care, more quickly and drastically if the Obama plan is passed. In Massachusetts, where universal health coverage was enacted under Gov. Mitt Romney in 2006, the Medical Society found that the number of patients who reported difficulty in getting care has already risen by 50 percent, up to a quarter of the patient population. The New York Times reports that "a main reason for the logjam was long waiting times for appointments."

In 1949, when President Harry Truman first proposed mandatory health insurance, he coupled his initiative with an expansion of federal aid to medical schools. But Obama makes no provision for an expansion of the pool of doctors, even as he grows the population of patients by up to 50 million.

Indeed, by cutting medical fees by dropping the reimbursement rates under Medicare, he likely will hasten the retirement of many medical professionals, worsening the underlying shortage. The Times quotes medical experts as predicting that the three years specified in the House bill as the time by which universal health insurance coverage will take effect "is not nearly enough time to build the supply of doctors needed to care for the additional tens of millions of people who would become newly insured."

Because there will not be enough doctors, nurses, and medical equipment for the massive influx of patients under the Obama plan, there will be rationing, more draconian year after year. As in Canada, it is this fundamental discrepancy between the number of patients and the population of doctors that will lead to rationing. From there, the inevitable consequence will be cutbacks in care for the elderly. Optional procedures, vital to quality life but not to survival, are likely to be limited. Hip replacements, new knees, hearing aids, and such are less and less likely to be approved. And, medical administrators will be less likely to OK surgery or expensive medical treatments for the elderly, whom they perceive to be at the end of their "quality" years.

It is the shortage of doctors, not any specific language in the text of the legislation, that makes rationing and the so-called "death panels" cited by Sarah Palin inevitable.

We all agree that everybody should have health insurance, but let us precede this step by expanding the number of doctors and nurses so that we can cover everyone without sacrificing the care for anyone. Otherwise, we are not giving 50 million new people medical care. We are consigning 300 million, and particularly the elderly among them, to long waiting lists.

Simple ... the same way is they would have if they had private insurance.

[Otto 83]

[HAL 9000 96]

@ Sly.

[sly_wolf 199]

@ Sly.

Lol, glad u like

I guess we only have enough doctors for 250 million

Edited September 15, 2009 by sly_wolf

[HAL 9000 96]

Maybe Dannologic can be employed once the Socialists take over the healthcare system to go fetch MDs off of the golf course.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's a silly argument. Our doctor to population ratio is not significantly lower than that of many other OECD nations that offer universal coverage. Are our doctors (2.4/1000) really less efficient than those in Finland (2.4/1000), the UK (2.4/1000), Canada (2.2/1000), Japan (2/1000) or Luxembourg (2.5/1000)?

[Danno 1,228]

Doctor Shortage Will Worsen Health Bill Impact

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 1:36 PM

By: ####### Morris & Eileen McGann

The fundamental question that the Obama administration has never answered is a simple one: How can it treat 50 million new patients with no extra doctors?

A new report from the American Association of Medical Colleges underscores the urgency of this concern. The Association notes that the United States now suffers from a shortage of 15,000 doctors — a shortfall that is expected to grow to 125,000 in 15 years. And, the Association reports, if universal health insurance is passed, the shortage will grow to over 150,000 by 2025.

While the number of elderly people in the U.S. is expected to grow by 60 percent over the next decade and a half, the number of doctors will increase by only about 6 percent (Total U.S. population will rise by about 17 percent over the same period).

This shortage of doctors will, inevitably, lead to the rationing of medical care, more quickly and drastically if the Obama plan is passed. In Massachusetts, where universal health coverage was enacted under Gov. Mitt Romney in 2006, the Medical Society found that the number of patients who reported difficulty in getting care has already risen by 50 percent, up to a quarter of the patient population. The New York Times reports that "a main reason for the logjam was long waiting times for appointments."

In 1949, when President Harry Truman first proposed mandatory health insurance, he coupled his initiative with an expansion of federal aid to medical schools. But Obama makes no provision for an expansion of the pool of doctors, even as he grows the population of patients by up to 50 million.

Indeed, by cutting medical fees by dropping the reimbursement rates under Medicare, he likely will hasten the retirement of many medical professionals, worsening the underlying shortage. The Times quotes medical experts as predicting that the three years specified in the House bill as the time by which universal health insurance coverage will take effect "is not nearly enough time to build the supply of doctors needed to care for the additional tens of millions of people who would become newly insured."

Because there will not be enough doctors, nurses, and medical equipment for the massive influx of patients under the Obama plan, there will be rationing, more draconian year after year. As in Canada, it is this fundamental discrepancy between the number of patients and the population of doctors that will lead to rationing. From there, the inevitable consequence will be cutbacks in care for the elderly. Optional procedures, vital to quality life but not to survival, are likely to be limited. Hip replacements, new knees, hearing aids, and such are less and less likely to be approved. And, medical administrators will be less likely to OK surgery or expensive medical treatments for the elderly, whom they perceive to be at the end of their "quality" years.

It is the shortage of doctors, not any specific language in the text of the legislation, that makes rationing and the so-called "death panels" cited by Sarah Palin inevitable.

We all agree that everybody should have health insurance, but let us precede this step by expanding the number of doctors and nurses so that we can cover everyone without sacrificing the care for anyone. Otherwise, we are not giving 50 million new people medical care. We are consigning 300 million, and particularly the elderly among them, to long waiting lists.

Simple ... the same way is they would have if they had private insurance.

.. But the Private option is not "private insurance" they are going to do things so much cheaper one would

question if providers would accept doing "Government work".

Look I know a few seniors and one of the problems I hear is finding doctors who will take their coverage now.

[HAL 9000 96]

So they can accept private insurance. New graduates can willfully and skillfully do some public service. People go to medical school, and graduate, and go to residency and internship you know.

[sly_wolf 199]

Doctor shortages are a separate issue all together.

On top of that the profession also regulates the flow to some extent .... since too many doctors would also create less earnings potential.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Doctor Shortage Will Worsen Health Bill Impact

Simple ... the same way is they would have if they had private insurance.

.. But the Private option is not "private insurance" they are going to do things so much cheaper one would question if providers would accept doing "Government work".

Look I know a few seniors and one of the problems I hear is finding doctors who will take their coverage now.

And people with private insurance don't have that problem?

According to a national CAHPS survey conducted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2007, 56 percent of enrollees in traditional fee-for-service Medicare give their "health plan" a rating of 9 or 10 on a 0-10 scale. Similarly, 60 percent of seniors enrolled in Medicare Managed Care rated their plans a 9 or 10. But according to the CAHPS surveys compiled by HHS, only 40 percent of Americans enrolled in private health insurance gave their plans a 9 or 10 rating.

More importantly, the higher scores for Medicare are based on perceptions of better access to care. More than two thirds (70 percent) of traditional Medicare enrollees say they "always" get access to needed care (appointments with specialists or other necessary tests and treatment), compared with 63 percent in Medicare managed care plans and only 51 percent of those with private insurance.

Again, these stubborn FATCS will get you every time.

[HAL 9000 96]

Darn those facts.

[rebeccajo 14]

Look I know a few seniors and one of the problems I hear is finding doctors who will take their coverage now.

Probably because these patients don't have a Medicare supplement to pay the co-pays and deductibles, and then they ####### out on the balance.

[Mark&Steph 0]

Look I know a few seniors and one of the problems I hear is finding doctors who will take their coverage now.

I've had that problem already. But it was because our company switched over to AETNA and hardly any of the doctors on their provider list took them anymore because they weren't very good at paying what they were supposed to. The lady in one particular doctor's office actually laughed at me when I told her who I was with. Needless to say, we didn't stay with them very long.

[Danno 1,228]

So they can accept private insurance. New graduates can willfully and skillfully do some public service. People go to medical school, and graduate, and go to residency and internship you know.

Thank you for that nugget but you forgot to mention the concept of also enlisting the Boy scouts in this effort.

(With first aide merit badges of course)