• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obamacare Means 1/3 Fewer MDs

That works when you're discussing the free market, but government programs and policies don't necessarily follow the same rules. If the final bill contains a fixed wage for medical practitioners, then no matter how many practitioners leave or enter the field, the wages of these practitioners will remain the same.
True, but I haven't heard that being proposed. From what I can tell, the health care bill only deals with requirements for everyone to carry health care. This would have the effect of potentially more patients for doctors to see. Hence the greater need for health care practitioners. This would likely mean more screening, and more diseases caught early, meaning cheaper to treat and a healthier populous.

Of course, I could be wrong however.
 
Especially since my bet is approximately 0% of those physicians would actually leave the field.

After spending 10+ years to get a medical licence, the idea of walking away from it in a political snit-fit seems "unlikely."

I seriously doubt that a full 1/3 of doctors would stop practicing, but a smaller fraction could indeed stop practicing and still put their medical degrees to work and make good pay by working for a pharmaceutical company. Another small fraction could very easily be family practice doctors who just change fields to become specialists.
 
Really? mhaze or BAC debunked it?

Maybe WildCat is correct after all....
You're very clever!

The Liaison Committee on Medical Education, ever heard of them?
Who accredits medical schools? What standards are used to accredit schools?
In the United States, the accreditation status of programs leading to the M.D. degree is determined solely by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME). In cooperation with the Committee on Accreditation of Canadian Medical Schools (CACMS), the LCME also accredits M.D. programs in Canada. To be accredited, programs must meet the national standards described in the document, Functions and Structure of a Medical School. For further information, refer to the Overview and Accreditation Procedures sections of this site.

And who sponsors the LCME?
Why are there two LCME offices? Which one should I contact?
The LCME is jointly sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association (AMA). The AAMC and the AMA each appoint an LCME Secretary and maintain accreditation offices in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, respectively. Primary responsibility for coordinating survey visits, hosting LCME meetings, and serving as LCME spokesman (the "principal Secretary") alternates between the offices each academic year. In even-numbered years beginning each July 1, the principal Secretary is at the AAMC. In odd-numbered years beginning each July 1, the principal Secretary is at the AMA. Contacts to either office should provide answers to any questions.

This is self-explanatory I assume?
 
No, it isn't. How does the lcme determining accreditation mean that the AAMC sets student numbers low?
Tell me how to increase the slots without requiring the accreditation of new schools or new programs in existing schools?

Anyone (such as Congress) wishing to markedly expand the number of medical school graduates will need the backing of the AMA. Even when the AMA approves Congress would be foolish not to consult with them in drafting any legislation aimed at affecting the number of medical school graduates.
 
I wonder why nothing like this happened when the universal health system was introduced in Australia?
 
Tell me how to increase the slots without requiring the accreditation of new schools or new programs in existing schools?

Duplicate classes. Increase class sizes. Expand existing programs.

But aside from that, your premise is that the AAMC won't accredit new schools. You've not presented evidence of that. Even if that were the case, you'd have to show that they were doing so in order to keep the number of doctors down, not to say, keep bad schools from receiving accreditation.
 
Fewer doctors won't matter, since there will be a smaller patient population due to the murderous death panels.
 
It's right there under where the information was reported, in the article you linked to - Market Watch. A murdoch shop.
The article says the survey results were mentioned "Market Watch". Other places have posted the results of the survey as well. Again do support your claim that it was bought and paid for by Murdoch, and therefore totally bogus.
A headhunting firm (which is all they are) got paid to do a hack job poll is the only thing I see going on here.
Evidence? I know you desperately want to discount the results of the poll-either the physicians are all lying, or that it's all just a Murdoch scam, but without evidence you must be rather frustrated.
 
Duplicate classes. Increase class sizes. Expand existing programs.
All of which may require new accreditation. "Accreditation is a process of quality assurance in postsecondary education that determines whether an institution or program meets established standards for function, structure, and performance." You can't just change the program using an existing accreditation.

But aside from that, your premise is that the AAMC won't accredit new schools. You've not presented evidence of that. Even if that were the case, you'd have to show that they were doing so in order to keep the number of doctors down, not to say, keep bad schools from receiving accreditation.
Evidences:
At the current time, questions about the supply of physicians are simply off the radar screens of most federal policymakers. Historically, the federal government has been slow to act on issues related to the supply of physicians and has waited for evidence of public distress, a firm professional consensus, or both before acting either to augment or to restrain the number of physicians. There is at present no indication that shortages of physicians have captured voters' attention, and experts and professional groups are far from a consensus on the adequacy of current or projected workforce numbers. In fact, according to Michael Whitcomb of the AAMC and Barbara Barzansky of the AMA, both these organizations seem to be admitting defeat in the effort to predict the required number of physicians, and, for now, neither plans to take a definite position on this issue. Despite the likely conclusion by the COGME that a physician deficit looms, the suddenness of the council's change in view, together with the reticence of the AAMC and the AMA, may well give policymakers pause. Therefore, it seems exceedingly unlikely that Congress or the executive branch will venture into the debate on the physician supply anytime soon.
Bold emphasis mine. The AMA plays a significant role in increasing the numbers of medical students.
 
Last edited:
Funny, your own link shows that they do this to keep quality high.
 
I wonder why nothing like this happened when the universal health system was introduced in Australia?

I'm sure it did! You just didn't notice because... Umm... It was a secret! Yeah... That must be it...

Seriously, when you Aussies were heading toward UHC, did you have the same or similar ideological clashes as we are having in the USA now?
 
Funny, your own link shows that they do this to keep quality high.
Of course. All cartels/guilds will say that's why they do it.

But you now agree that the AMA has at least a very strong say in the number of medical school graduates?
 
Last edited:
Of course. All cartels/guilds will say that's why they do it.

But you now agree that the AMA has at least a very strong say in the number of medical school graduates?

In a round about way they have a say in it.

I'll be back to comment more once I get my tin-foil hat on.
 
In a round about way they have a say in it.

I'll be back to comment more once I get my tin-foil hat on.
Sweet, a claim backed up by documentation by the only group authorized to accredit medical schools in the US and Canada and also an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine and it's tin-foil hat time?
 
You may or may not be familiar with this, but there is an economic theory out there called "capitalism". It deals a lot with a concept called "supply and demand". When the supply of doctors goes down, the demand goes up. With the rise in demand, the compensation for doctors will go up. This will entice more people to enter (or stay in) the field, thus equalizing the supply and deman.

Would it be pedantic to point out the above is wrong? Decreased labor supply doesn't increase demand. The demand curve stays where it is, but now with fewer workers, wages go up, as the intersection of supply and demand is now higher up the old/unmoved demand curve?
 
True, but I haven't heard that being proposed. From what I can tell, the health care bill only deals with requirements for everyone to carry health care. This would have the effect of potentially more patients for doctors to see. Hence the greater need for health care practitioners. This would likely mean more screening, and more diseases caught early, meaning cheaper to treat and a healthier populous.

Of course, I could be wrong however.

Yeah, I don't believe the bill is heading in this direction either. I was simply attempting to clear up an error I noticed in the person I quoted's economic theory. :D
 
I'm sure it did! You just didn't notice because... Umm... It was a secret! Yeah... That must be it...

Seriously, when you Aussies were heading toward UHC, did you have the same or similar ideological clashes as we are having in the USA now?
Not at all. The vast majority saw it as a very good idea.

I should say that we do have a two-tiered system, with Medicare covering everyone, but only to a standard level. If you want private rooms and a doctor of your choice, you have to also have private insurance - which I have. And there are gaps - most GPs charge over the "scheduled fee" and you pay the difference.

But we were mercifully spared this socialism/communism/doctors will leave in droves crap.
 
The article says the survey results were mentioned "Market Watch". Other places have posted the results of the survey as well. Again do support your claim that it was bought and paid for by Murdoch, and therefore totally bogus.
Evidence? I know you desperately want to discount the results of the poll-either the physicians are all lying, or that it's all just a Murdoch scam, but without evidence you must be rather frustrated.

Neally, your ability to trim two sentences from my posts and respond to them is so ***************** that I am giving you exactly two sentences to work with here.

Provide me the study right the hell now, or everything I said about it is correct, and since you are going to be unable to do that because it's a crappy study done by a crappy headhunting firm, with crappy methodology and crappy questions that you can't even locate and didn't even try to, because they're not publishing it for people with actual knowledge to dissect (and yes this sentence is long, but I don't trust you not to dishonestly trim my words again).

Edited, Breach of Rule 0.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The article says the survey results were mentioned "Market Watch". Other places have posted the results of the survey as well. Again do support your claim that it was bought and paid for by Murdoch, and therefore totally bogus.
Evidence? I know you desperately want to discount the results of the poll-either the physicians are all lying, or that it's all just a Murdoch scam, but without evidence you must be rather frustrated.

If I may jump in for a second, I notice that this argument has come down to a question of burden of proof. As burden of proof necessarily falls on the person making a claim and seeing how you are both rejecting each other's arguments while simultaneously putting forth claims, I believe you both need to put forth proof of your claims. Ok, jumping back out now. :whistling
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom