I get routine care for "free," in that I don't have to pay the doc anything, but my insurance company pays the doc from the premiums I (and everyone else) have paid it.dgs49 wrote:And just where are the doctors going to come from to treat tens of millions more people who will start going to their PCP's for "routine care" when it's "free"?
Doctors will get paid, but there are only so many doctors to go around. If you add 30+ million patients who now have no- or low-cost access to doctors, will there be enough doctors to take care of the increased patients?Sue U wrote:I get routine care for "free," in that I don't have to pay the doc anything, but my insurance company pays the doc from the premiums I (and everyone else) have paid it.dgs49 wrote:And just where are the doctors going to come from to treat tens of millions more people who will start going to their PCP's for "routine care" when it's "free"?
Do you think docs won't continue to get paid under the same arrangement? Why do you hate free-market capitalism and America?
Medical school is 4 years. Licensing is done during school (board certification, which is not required to practice, happens later). During residency, the newly minted docs are actually practicing and seeing patients, albeit with some supervision.Long Run wrote:I guess who cares for you varies on where you live. I still see my doctor and he does all my doctoring, with a bit of assistance from his nurse. But the increasing use of PAs and the like is a market reaction to the limited availability of doctors. To some extent, there is not a free market for doctors since there is a huge barrier to entry (8 year medical school and then licensing), and the institutions that train doctors decide how many they will educate at any one time. Eventually there can be enough doctors since new schools will pop up to train doctors if existing ones do not fill the void, but that is a 10-20 year lag given the training/licensing requirements.
Edited to add;Healthcare ruling is good for democracy
There was not much calm before the storm. Political Washington has been living on its nerves for weeks and the crowds outside the Supreme Court today were jittery, in a good-natured way.
As the clock ticked down to 10:00 both sides of Washington's 1st Street NE were packed with supporters and opponents of President Barack Obama's healthcare law. They were waving banners, erupting in occasional chants.
As one side yelled: "Healthcare for all," there was an answering cheeky chorus of "we're broke".
It was so busy that there was no phone coverage, a sobering experience for those, like me, who frantically check Twitter, the superb Scotusblog and emails.
The first indication of the ruling was a scream of delight from a group carrying pink placards, declaring: "Women for healthcare".
To the surprise of many, and against the expectation of a lot of commentators, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Affordable Care Act - "Obamacare" to its detractors - was constitutional.
While supporters of the law danced in a small, celebratory circle, opponents took to the microphone venting their fury.
They warned this was the end of the republic, that socialism was heading to the US, and speaker after speaker said the court had proved that President Obama had lied (by saying the "individual mandate" was not a tax).
Inside the White House there must have been a gust of air as everyone from the president down breathed a huge sigh of relief.
This ruling means President Obama avoids a humiliating shellacking and does not have to make a near impossible decision about how to replace an eviscerated law.
He could wipe his brow and make a speech about how this was not about politics but about the American people.
It was not one of his best: slightly hectoring, with rather a lot of numbers. He did not, for once, use the word "choice" or talk about the election.
Mitt Romney did. This is good news for the president in the sense that the alternative would have been much worse.
That does not mean it is bad news for Republicans. Far from it. Mr Romney made a short and effective speech making the central point that the only way to get rid of the law was to elect him.
He has been handed a cause.
Remember that it was fiery opposition to President Obama's healthcare plans from individuals at town hall meetings that propelled the Tea Party to national prominence and helped make it into a movement with huge political clout.
So there is no doubt this really fires up the base, They love a good betrayal and can now add the conservative chief justice to their little list.
But that is not all. Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans want the law repealed. And some surveys show that feeling is strong among independents.
It is now clear the only way it will be repealed is at the ballot box, by putting Mr Romney in the White House.
If it is true that his promise appeals strongly to swing voters then Thursday's ruling gives them a big reason to vote for him.
This is good for democracy.
Although it is the Supreme Court's job to make far-reaching decisions, it would have left a slightly sour taste in some mouths if judges, not the people, had decided the fate of this important legislation.
Now, as Mr Romney said, people have a choice.
This election really is about two very different visions of America, and there could be no more appropriate issue to fight over than healthcare, where arguments about the size and role of government and the duty of citizens and care for the vulnerable clash head-on.
Something for which Republicans have expressed unanimous support, and which they state would form a part of whatever form their version of health care reform will take. Except they haven't said how it will be paid for.dgs49 wrote: insurance companies will then be required to insure everyone who seeks coverage, regardless of pre-existing conditions.
Which will be offset by the additional premiums collected by continuing "family coverage" on those policies.Some additional cost will also be seen due to the coverage of young-adult-slackers on their parents' policies.
Which is an argument for a single, universal PUBLIC payer, something Republicans are dead set against.If it goes through in its present form, this will ultimately be a HUGE windfall for the insurance industry (aka "Wall Street").
Which is why insurance premiums in Massachusetts increased dramatically under Romneycare.there is nothing in this law that changes the basics of insurance: premiums = cost + admin + profit. If you dramatically increase the cost, premiums will rise accordingly.
He's going to have a hard time running away from a plan that was inspired by his success in MA. He attempted to diss Obamacare by claiming that what worked in MA was unconstitutional when applied at the federal level. That argument now being completely debunked, what leg can he possibly have left to stand on in order to oppose it, without making himself look like more of a fool than he already does?It would appear to be required of the Republicans running for election this time around - especially Mr. Mitt - to come up with something better and more acceptable to the general public.
