Obamacare Means 1/3 Fewer MDs

[GreyICE]

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.

Lets see. I claim that a headhunting firm which doesn't normally do studies (duh?). I claim when the results of the 'study' appear in one news source with a known bias (and the study supports that bias) it is amazingly likely that the 'news source' paid the headhunting firm to do it.

I will defend the fact I have a rational basis for this belief, and since I've done a pretty thorough search for the study, which isn't showing up online, I'm going to guess that I'm right.

You can continue your naive belief that MurdochWorld doesn't pull these stunts

 

[Leif Roar]

Nearly one-third of physicians responding to the survey indicated that they will want to leave medical practice after health reform is implemented.

Good. We need more cab drivers.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Tell me how to increase the slots without requiring the accreditation of new schools or new programs in existing schools?

Add slots to existing accredited programs. You seem to be of the opinion that a school that expands is threatening its accreditation. What is your basis for that idea?

 

[Dancing David]

Um, if there is a doctor shortage it is because people don't want the crappy hours, high work load and relatively low pay. Then there are those whow ant to be doctors but don't want to be Gps.

But let us blame malpractice suits and promote tort reform.

 

[Neally]

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.

I'm saying I don't know who funded the study. GreyICE is claiming Murdoch funded it, simply because it was published on Market Watch, as well as other sites. Up to him to support his claim.

You can continue your naive belief that MurdochWorld doesn't pull these stunts

And you can continue your conspiracy theories and claim the respondents lied just because you don't like the results.

 

[WildCat]

Add slots to existing accredited programs. You seem to be of the opinion that a school that expands is threatening its accreditation. What is your basis for that idea?

The statement that accreditation is for "structure, function, and performance".

You can't just change, say, double te size of the medical school. I'm not saying that you can't add a few students here or there (after all class sizes will vary from year to year) but any major change will require new accreditation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The statement that accreditation is for "structure, function, and performance".

You can't just change, say, double te size of the medical school. I'm not saying that you can't add a few students here or there (after all class sizes will vary from year to year) but any major change will require new accreditation.

Weird how the physics department I went to seemed to double the number of graduates in 10 years but med schools can't do anything like that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Um, if there is a doctor shortage it is because people don't want the crappy hours, high work load and relatively low pay. Then there are those whow ant to be doctors but don't want to be Gps.

This has been about doctors in general. I remember hearing yesterday on the radio how pissed a cardiologist was that he might have to earn less than the 400k he was pulling down a year, due to cuts in medicare payment.

He can quit and feel what it is like earning 50k a year.

 

[GreyICE]

I'm saying I don't know who funded the study. GreyICE is claiming Murdoch funded it, simply because it was published on Market Watch, as well as other sites. Up to him to support his claim.
And you can continue your conspiracy theories and claim the respondents lied just because you don't like the results.

Neally, 1 sentence this time: where's the original study (third time I'm asking, too)?

 

[tyr_13]

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?

No, the tin-foil comes from your assertion that they want to keep the number of doctors artificially low to make more money. Your claim is still tin-foil conspiracy theory. FEMA prison camps can be backed up with the exact same logic and documentation. They aren't happening either.

And no, you're still wrong because they can increase class sizes and 'copy-pasting' class "structure, function, and performance" requires a simple review of the teaching staff and facilities.

Your basic claim that the AMA is holding up costs and down the number of doctors is not proven because they have the authority to try to do so.

I know there are a bunch of people who become doctors to make money. However, ever single person I have ever spoken to who was in the process of becoming any type of medical professional, including administration, has expressed the primary motivation of helping people.

 

[mhaze]

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?

What absolute nonsense.

MD's are licensed at the state level. Many are not even a member of the AMA. Schools could increase class sizes if they so chose.

Your argument about possible refusal of the AMA to accredit new schools is bunko. Show a case where they did so and I'll pay attention to it.

 

[joobz]

The statement that accreditation is for "structure, function, and performance".

You can't just change, say, double te size of the medical school. I'm not saying that you can't add a few students here or there (after all class sizes will vary from year to year) but any major change will require new accreditation.

Sorry, wildcat, I call BS.

I'm going through an accreditation right now for ABET(engineering)....
it isn't so much that you can't double your class size. It's that you can provide the needed resources for the students you have. If you were to double your enrollment, the board is extremely happy, as long as you have enough faculty, class space, sufficient and updated laboratory resources...

Of course, it may be possible that med school accreditation is vastly different and that they are artificially keeping the numbers down but I suspect the limiting enrollment has more to do with financial success of the school rather than some evil cartel keeping the number of doctors low.

1.) School rankings matter. A marker of a school's success is the % of students who graduate and the % of those who become board certified.
2.) Any school wants to keep those numbers as high as possible. As such, they will only admit students they think will likely succeed.
3.) The lower you go down the GPA/MCAT scoring, the less likely this is going to happen.
4.) When all other schools keep entrance requirements high, you can't afford to go too low in your's, otherwise you look like the "easy school"
5.) If you have a reputation for being an easy school, residency programs will not consider your students, and the number of quality students further decreases.

 

[The True Scotsman]

Lets see. I claim that a headhunting firm which doesn't normally do studies (duh?). I claim when the results of the 'study' appear in one news source with a known bias (and the study supports that bias) it is amazingly likely that the 'news source' paid the headhunting firm to do it.

I will defend the fact I have a rational basis for this belief, and since I've done a pretty thorough search for the study, which isn't showing up online, I'm going to guess that I'm right.

OK, just don't expect anyone else to believe your claims if you're not willing to or can't post evidence of them.

You can continue your naive belief that MurdochWorld doesn't pull these stunts

It's funny how you jump to conclusions on the basis that I point out a structural flaw in your argument.

 

[The True Scotsman]

I'm saying I don't know who funded the study. GreyICE is claiming Murdoch funded it, simply because it was published on Market Watch, as well as other sites. Up to him to support his claim.

True, but you are also putting forth a poll that's reliability has been put into question. It is up to you to find more information about it.

 

[Mojo]

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.

I think some doctors in the UK tried the same sort of thing on when the NHS was being set up.

 

[Upchurch]

Would it be pedantic to point out the above is wrong? Decreased labor supply doesn't increase demand.

You misunderstand me, or I worded it poorly not being a trained economist.

As the labor supply decreases the demand on the remaining labor supply would increase. Which, as you say...

with fewer workers, wages go up

 

[GreyICE]

OK, just don't expect anyone else to believe your claims if you're not willing to or can't post evidence of them.

It's funny how you jump to conclusions on the basis that I point out a structural flaw in your argument.

I've posted all the evidence that exists. That alone should give you pause. This study wasn't published in any journal? The methodology isn't public? They didn't release the full paper?

Now those things are clearly irregular. Very irregular.

Now factor in the fact that the result is clearly anti-healthcare reform. And the results appeared in a Murdoch publication first and foremost. Without being publicly available.

Now maybe this headhunting firm did the study because they were curious, and like to do scientific studies. And maybe it was properly conducted and innocent, and they just haven't published the results because it's a confidential internal study for their own edification. And maybe they just happened to tell a reasonably obscure Murdoch publication about this - instead of the NYT, CBS, NBC, WaPo, USA Today, or even if we consider big name Murdoch publications, the WSJ, Fox News, or any one of a number of organizations (that people have heard of, and associate with Murdoch).

Holy crap man. Your hypothesis requires more weird things to happen then mine does. A headhunting firm just happens to conduct a study which just happens to be negative on Obama's agenda, which just happens to be private and they just happen to give the results to a Murdoch publication.

Or, y'know, a paper paid a publication to do a push poll using an obscure, neutral-sounding internet subsidiary. Because that's a radical hypothesis

Skepticism does not mean we have to turn our brains off, or beat them against the wall until they are pudding.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You misunderstand me, or I worded it poorly not being a trained economist.

As the labor supply decreases the demand on the remaining labor supply would increase. Which, as you say...

The thing is that depends on an ideal market, and medicine is far from an ideal market.

 

[bpesta22]

You misunderstand me, or I worded it poorly not being a trained economist.

As the labor supply decreases the demand on the remaining labor supply would increase. Which, as you say...

I still think this is off-- it's easy to confuse a shift in demand with a decrease in demand.

I think as the supply curve shifts left hospitals should react by demanding fewer doctors (so demand actually decreases, though wages go up).

Maybe we can get our two resident economists to comment, whom are catfighting about econ (meow) in another thread which I find strangely arousing...

 

[The True Scotsman]

I've posted all the evidence that exists. That alone should give you pause. This study wasn't published in any journal? The methodology isn't public? They didn't release the full paper?

Now those things are clearly irregular. Very irregular.

Now factor in the fact that the result is clearly anti-healthcare reform. And the results appeared in a Murdoch publication first and foremost. Without being publicly available.

Now maybe this headhunting firm did the study because they were curious, and like to do scientific studies. And maybe it was properly conducted and innocent, and they just haven't published the results because it's a confidential internal study for their own edification. And maybe they just happened to tell a reasonably obscure Murdoch publication about this - instead of the NYT, CBS, NBC, WaPo, USA Today, or even if we consider big name Murdoch publications, the WSJ, Fox News, or any one of a number of organizations (that people have heard of, and associate with Murdoch).

Holy crap man. Your hypothesis requires more weird things to happen then mine does. A headhunting firm just happens to conduct a study which just happens to be negative on Obama's agenda, which just happens to be private and they just happen to give the results to a Murdoch publication.

Or, y'know, a paper paid a publication to do a push poll using an obscure, neutral-sounding internet subsidiary. Because that's a radical hypothesis

Skepticism does not mean we have to turn our brains off, or beat them against the wall until they are pudding.

I see you ignored the second half of my post that you quoted. You are jumping to the conclusion that because I don't entirely accept your argument then I must necessarily accept the argument you are arguing against. Not true. I accept neither that the poll was DEFINITELY done with good methodology (Neally's argument) or that it was DEFINITELY done with poor methodology (Your argument). I accept neither argument until more evidence is brought forth for either side. You are both presupposing and that is what I am arguing against.

Furthermore, you are making an ad homenim argument against a study possibly done by an organization that is probably untrustworthy. You are saying that since the organization performed the study, it is therefore useless.