Obamacare Means 1/3 Fewer MDs

[GreyICE]

Cool. I agree. (except for the first 3 words)

Here comes my issue. You are assuming that it was done dishonestly, rather than simply with unintentionally poor methodology.

Here's the thing. If someone unintentionally screws up, they tend to publish the results, get roundly kicked in the crotch, and drop it.

It's the fact that they're keeping it secret that leads me to call it dishonest. If your hypothesis is the study is unintentionally flawed, why would they keep it secret? Once again we're left hypothesizing strange things (the group does the study, decides to keep it secret because they think the results are private, then... publish a summary of the results...).

At every step, for this to be an innocent coincidence, the very strangest series of things must have happened.

 

[The True Scotsman]

Here's the thing. If someone unintentionally screws up, they tend to publish the results, get roundly kicked in the crotch, and drop it.

It's the fact that they're keeping it secret that leads me to call it dishonest. If your hypothesis is the study is unintentionally flawed, why would they keep it secret? Once again we're left hypothesizing strange things (the group does the study, decides to keep it secret because they think the results are private, then... publish a summary of the results...).

At every step, for this to be an innocent coincidence, the very strangest series of things must have happened.

I believe this may be useful to the discussion, though may change the direction of our discussion.

http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/survey

The above link is a showing of the poll's methodology which was linked from the original article.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I believe this may be useful to the discussion, though may change the direction of our discussion.

http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/survey

The above link is a showing of the poll's methodology which was linked from the original article.

It was an on-line survey. (They sent out the survey via e-mail.)

It says they used their own database of MDs, but doesn't mention at all how that database was compiled.

I wouldn't put much stock in it.

ETA: And beyond that, there's nothing in the survey that says what the net change in MDs might be. That is, some the 22% who replied that they would take early retirement, for example, might already have been planning to take early retirement, and nowhere does the survey address how many new doctors would be entering the field (to calculate what the net change might be).

 

[Rolfe]

Look at the businessmen who said they'd leave the country if Scotland got a devolved parliament.

Still here.

Rolfe.

 

[GreyICE]

I believe this may be useful to the discussion, though may change the direction of our discussion.

http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/survey

The above link is a showing of the poll's methodology which was linked from the original article.

This really fails to meet the criteria of 'enough information.' The following points represent things you need to know to know if you're looking at an accurate poll (and things that Gallup, Pew, etc. regularly publish and account for).

• What percentage of US physicians does their database represent? It's clearly a nonrandom sample, but if its a nonrandom, small sample, that's its own pile of bias.
• What were the opinions of the (nearly half) of all physicians who did not respond? What steps did they take to estimate and normalize for this?
• When they say the survey is not targeted at any demographic, they lie (their demographic is people in the Medicus database, obviously. More specifically, it's the people in the database who responded to their query. As they should know). What does does this demographic look like, versus the general population of physicians?
• As a followup, was this normalized by comparing the results of the non-political questions to the general population, and doing a demographic adjustment?
• What other questions were asked to determine the demographic of people versus their responses? Was it primarily physicians with large amounts of experience who thought it would be negative, or inexperienced students (10% of respondents had never practiced medicine)

As you can see, I rightly dismissed this nonsense as completely insufficient and useless. Linking to it again doesn't make it less nonsensical.

 

[Travis]

I seriously question the sanity of any doctor who looks at something that will bring in more patients (and thus more income) and just says, "to heck with that! I quit!"

I think it's safe to say that we would be better off without such people.

 

[McHrozni]

I seriously question the sanity of any doctor who looks at something that will bring in more patients (and thus more income) and just says, "to heck with that! I quit!"

Well, there is a quite real possibility that the said doctor can't spend all the money he makes now, and is overworked to the point where he just can't take any more work. Evidence for that is mostly anecdotal, but I'm quite certain there are a few such doctors in the US.

The more you push somebody the more will you have to pay him. That much is clear, but at a certain point you'll need to increase his wage by proportionally greater amount that the amount of work you'll get from him. That's where you better hire somebody else so share that workload. If the US doctor paychecks are any indication, the US is way past that point already.

McHrozni

 

[Dancing David]

I think the question of the Medicus data base is very relevant, as is the skew in the survey (of any sort)

http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/survey

Specialists (all other) 65.7%

 

[Neally]

Reading comprehension fail. The fact that the study isn't findable, verifiable, or in any way testable makes it worthless. If the study is done well, it's worth something.

This is also an example of Murdoch's dishonest flavor of 'journalism,' but it's the fundamental flaw of the study not, well existing in any verifiable form that makes it useless.

Typical truther argumentation tactics. First you claimed they were lying, then it was funded by Murdoch, on and on. Just like when when you provide an answer to a truther, then they say, but what about this, what about that...

We all see that you are desperate to discount the results and no amount of information will change that.

 

[Architect]

And yet, strangely, you ignored the times where it was pointed out that in other UHC systems there didn't seem to be issues around doctor retention/recruitment.

 

[GreyICE]

Typical truther argumentation tactics. First you claimed they were lying, then it was funded by Murdoch, on and on. Just like when when you provide an answer to a truther, then they say, but what about this, what about that...

We all see that you are desperate to discount the results and no amount of information will change that.

Well since you're still reading the thread, try five!

Neally, 1 sentence this time: where's the original study?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Look at the businessmen who said they'd leave the country if Scotland got a devolved parliament.

Good point. The survey isn't a measure of doctors who will leave the profession if the healthcare bill passes; it's a measure of doctors who say they will leave.

Another way of looking at it is that these responses to the question are more a measure of who strongly the doctors from their database (that we still don't know how was compiled--and the skew Dancing David pointed out) who responded to their e-mail like or dislike a given proposal.

And again, some of the doctors who replied that they'll retire early if this passes might have already been planning to retire early.

And it's certainly not logical to say how many fewer doctors there might be overall since we have no idea of how many new doctors there will be. The claim made in the thread title is analogous to noting that some Americans emigrate to other countries and based on that figure alone claiming that the U.S. population is shrinking by the percentage that emigration represents.

 

[Upchurch]

Have 1/3 of doctors quit yet?

 

[Neally]

Have 1/3 of doctors quit yet?

Has the bill been implemented yet?

 

[willhaven]

When does Rush Limbaugh move to Costa Rica?

 

[GreyICE]

Has the bill been implemented yet?

Where's the original study, try 6? Does it not exist?

 

[Upchurch]

Has the bill been implemented yet?

Oh, okay. I'll check back later.




Incidentally, while we're waiting, will there be a point where we can declare the bill "implemented" and take a head count of doctors, or will there always be some obscure clause to point to where you could say "Well they didn't do X so the bill isn't fully implemented yet"?

 

[Beerina]

Ready for rationing?

A total of 1,195 physicians from various specialties and career levels in locations nationally were surveyed. Nearly one-third of physicians responding to the survey indicated that they will want to leave medical practice after health reform is implemented.

This combined with the expected increase in demand could result in 50% reduction in available physicians.

http://www.nejmjobs.org/rpt/health-reform-may-reduce-physician-workforce.aspx

I don't understand. Why would they want to leave? People around here swore there was no direct legislation controlling profits, and that would include salaries.

Darat, you are a big proponent. Tell him there's nothing that's stopping free doctors from continuing to freely ply their trade.

 

[Darat]

I don't understand. Why would they want to leave? People around here swore there was no direct legislation controlling profits, and that would include salaries.

Darat, you are a big proponent. Tell him there's nothing that's stopping free doctors from continuing to freely ply their trade.

Big proponent of what - "universal health care"?

 

[Upchurch]

So, any count on how many doctors have quit so far?