We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
"Is there a doctor in the house?" is likely to be increasingly heard in coming years, according to one of the largest surveys ever of doctors. The Physicians Foundation contacted most of the doctors in the US and had the replies checked for statistical representativeness. Among the results:
A whopping 61 percent of doctors said they would retire today if they had the ability to do so. That's up from 45 percent in 2008.
More than 68 percent of doctors have a negative view of the current state of the medical profession. Just 3.9 percent have a "very positive" view.
Nearly three-quarters of all doctors have a pessimistic view of the future of the medical profession. Just 3.1 percent have a "very optimistic" view.
More than 59 percent of doctors have a more negative view of the medical profession as a result of ObamaCare. Just 18.5 percent of doctors have a more positive view as a result of ObamaCare.
Nearly 56 percent of doctors believe that more widespread use of health savings accounts will improve quality and reduce costs.
Nearly 73 percent of doctors believe that less government regulation will improve quality and reduce costs.
More than 35 percent of doctors have closed their practice to Medicare and/or Medicaid patients. That's up from 24 percent in 2008.
As a physician, this survey doesn't represent a referendum on Obamacare (or Romneycare in Mass), but a referendum on the industrialization and moneterization of medicine.
Corporations are making heavy dough on the backs of patients and doctors: malpractice lawyers, scavengers of living beings; insurance companies, the crap tables of industry; corporate medical hospitals, often run by MBA's, whose plaint, as one once said to me, is "Why can't you run this clinic more like McDonalds, more standardization?" When my staff didn't have its notes in order (they were wrong, I was deficient in not being more demanding), he said he would close the clinic for the indigent immediately. (Actually, he told me to close it; I told him to do this himself, but in not such polite words. He backed off.)
Medicine is a fine, honorable field. I worked as a Doc for the Indian Health Service: great care, no concern about malpractice (we couldn't be sued) and I could practice the best medicine I knew how to do. I would love such a practice. I dropped out of HMO's because I was not getting paid (wrong form, too late , etc..) I lowered my fees, refuse Medicare and all insurance and make a better living at it.
As one who has been both a practicing physician, an administrator for a physician practice and a consultant for hospital outpatient department services, this survey is not only a referendum against ObamaCare, but a referendum against the federal governments gradual, but progressive, interference with and control of medical care over the last 50 years.
In reference to the first post, what is "moneterization"? If you meant monetization instead, please elaborate as this is a vague statement.
It seems like you're taking your anger out on a number of private entities - corporations, attorneys, insurance companies, hospitals, etc. - who are only acting in a rational manner based upon conditions imposed by government legislation. Your real beef should be with the politicians in Washington who have changed the rules of the game to suit their agenda or, in modern parlance, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
ObamaCare is simply another step in the long march by the federal government to socialize medicine. For those not clear about the meaning of that sometime vague term, it means that socialist principles will be applied to medicine. In other words, the federal government will control (and hence effectively own) the health care providers (the means of production). That means that health care providers will owe their allegiance to and follow the commands of the government rather than their patients.
Both patients and providers will increasingly look to the government to provide them with what they seek from what was previously the doctor patient relationship. In any economic transaction - and that's really what health care or any other service boils down to - each party gives up something it has in order to obtain something it values more highly whether this is money, personal satisfaction or happiness, improvement in one's physical condition, etc. Under our new medical systems, this transaction increasingly involves a middle man - the federal government - that determines what constitutes a "fair" transaction. Both suppliers (health care providers) and demanders (patients) increasingly deal with the government, rather than each other, in determining what each will receive. The government increasingly determines how much money health care providers will receive and it increasingly determines how much (in terms of quantity and quality) medical care the patient will receive.
There is nothing finer or more honorable about the field of medicine than there is about the field of law or insurance or hospital administration. There are good and honorable as well as bad and dishonorable practitioners in all of these fields and as long as there is (or was) a free market with suppliers competing for patients based on the quality, quantity and price of the health care they would provide, an equilibrium point or happy medium would be established where both sides would be be not only better off, but the best off that both could simultaneously be. In economic terms, there would be no deadweight loss. With the federal government involved, both parties will have unmet wants - even though the federal government (and heir cronies) will benefit.
I received a letter from my doctor a few weeks back informing me of his leaving his practice, followed by a letter from the insurance company that he was no longer on their preferred provider roles. My chart was passed to Dr. I Don't Know in the practice that has been bought and sold like a pig on market day. What started as a 2 doctor practice ended up as a cog in a conglomerate machine, practicing insurance and lawyer medicine on pass through units of flesh.