Obamacare Means 1/3 Fewer MDs

[joobz]

Time will tell.
That being?

that you were...

being stupidly wrong.

 

[Leif Roar]

Time will tell.

Uh, no. That's the point. Time won't tell, because the assertion can't be tested.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Uh, no. That's the point. Time won't tell, because the assertion can't be tested.

Exactly. Not unless you can make a copy of the universe and try going the next ten years with "Obamacare" in one and without in the other, ceteris paribus, and then compare the number of MDs in the U.S. in each one.

 

[Upchurch]

Exactly. Not unless you can make a copy of the universe and try going the next ten years with "Obamacare" in one and without in the other, ceteris paribus, and then compare the number of MDs in the U.S. in each one.

Alternatively, unless the number of MDs had dropped by 1/3 almost immediately after the bill had been passed (or at a specific point when it is "implemented"), there is no way to pinpoint the cause to this bill. There are too many other factors in a prolonged period of time to make that determination.

This is claim is just unsupportable fear mongering.

 

[Neally]

Alternatively, unless the number of MDs had dropped by 1/3 almost immediately after the bill had been passed (or at a specific point when it is "implemented"), there is no way to pinpoint the cause to this bill. There are too many other factors in a prolonged period of time to make that determination.

This is claim is just unsupportable fear mongering.

So in 5 or 10 years, if the number of MDs has dropped substantially, and polling the physicians that have quit practicing as to why they left, results in a substantial number saying it was due to Obamacare, that wouldn't pinpoint the cause to this bill?

 

[Leif Roar]

So in 5 or 10 years, if the number of MDs has dropped substantially, and polling the physicians that have quit practicing as to why they left, results in a substantial number saying it was due to Obamacare, that wouldn't pinpoint the cause to this bill?

Well, not trivially, no. Ten years is too long after the fact (if you waited eight years before you quit "over Obamacare", it can hardly be said to have been the decisive factor,) but five might be workable. Still, you will have to account for the expected number of MDs to have quit over that period, check against the number of new MDs that have entered the field during the same period and you have to evaluate how accurate the MDs are in their self-appraisal of their reasons of quitting. People tend to overstate things like this. (A doctor who was 70 when the bill was passed and quit three years later ... well -- do we count him or do we not? Sure, he might have disliked the new system, but how much of his decision came down to age?)

 

[willhaven]

Apologize for what? I linked a survey showing a certain % of MDs would quit practicing if Obamacare passed. If they did what they said, there would be a shortage and longer wait times. If they don't, then they either lied or changed their mind.

The survey was presuming the passage of a public option... which is not in the law.

We can guess as to whether there will be more or fewer MDs in 5 years. We can guess whether there will be a shortage of MDs in 5 years. What we can't do is see if these numbers end up being accurate, because a major factor in arriving at those numbers in the survey (the public option) is not in the law.

 

[Iamme]

I do enjoy watching Fox News. But I do have to say that when I heard that all these doctors plan to quit? I agree with those here who think that is bunk. Ya, what are they going to go do? I think those surveyed were simply venting their disgust. They ain't goona quit. I dare them. If there are any doctors out there reading this, and you do quit, be sure to come here and correct me.