Doctors Quitting - Wonderful

[hortysir]

No doctors will quit medicine like no rich people will dump their citizenship to get out of the US.

Liberals need their dreams. They rely on them.

The government knows that doctors are going to leave medicine. That's why they have already made provisions to advance physician assistants and nurse practioners to have more responsibility. The same ability to practice medicine, without the same education.

Many doctors will just not accept insurance. They will go to direct pay or concierge services. Who ever can afford it will get medical care, those who can't will be getting care from a nurse practitioner staffed clinic.

That sounds fucked up.

I know of doctors that will no longer accept Medicaid and those that do will not do per-approvals.

Then there are some doctors that won't take Cash payments.....

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm sticking to it.

Just like Drudge is.

So you have nothing to say about their huge selection bias?

What about the fact that almost 90% of respondents were in solo or small group practice (which has the latitude to no accept certain types of insurance or see patients with no insurance - in other words, those who have the most to lose under the ACA)?

What about the fact that only 4% of the respondents bothered to respond?

What about the fact that hospital based physicians are virtually unrepresented in the poll (11%)?

What about the fact the Emergency Medicine Physicians (who treat the bulk of the uninsured/noninsured thanks to Reagan passing EMTALA) are completely unrepresented in the poll?

Stick with it all you want. It's not going to fool anyone with a minute degree of statistical literacy.

Claiming that "83% of physicians" based on this poll is hysterical. That would be like conducting a survey in my small town and claiming it was representative of the entire state.

Show me a credible source that say single digit participation rates are invalid... That argument is B.S. If it exceeds 10% -- I suspect the participation was coerced.

You have to be kidding. A 4% response rate is more desirable to a 10% response rate?

Statistical power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And EVEN IF the respondents ended up representing private practice -- I AM concerned about the future of those folks. I don't want them them to go away.. So maybe I don't CARE if LARGE institutional staffs were represented. It tells us something.....

It's not "even if", it absolutely does overwhelmingly represent private practice. Only 11% of the respondents represent hospital based physicians who assume the burden of the under and non insured?

I am concerned about all physicians, however if we are going to start ban-tying about bombastic numbers, then we should be honest enough to point out that this survey was skewed towards physicians who likely have a financial interest to oppose the ACA.

To that end, you should care if large institutions were represented. If this statistic is going to be accurate, it should accurately represent physicians in this country statistically.

A LOT more than some LEFTIST approved factoids in this forum that just won't die...
I'm thinking of one that THAT POLLED readers of a single magazine slanted towards academia and proclaimed something about ALL SCIENTISTS.. You know who I'm talking about..

So what? What does that have to do with me?

 

[geauxtohell]

How is this statistically relevant?

I suggest you contact the author of the piece and ask him/her.

I am sure he/she will be impressed with your statistical brilliance, or lack thereof.

Thanks.

I did. They didn't have a good answer for their obviously skewed poll. Their response was: "It was politically biased! Just look at the responses!" as if physician responses can compensate for their own screwy methodology.

 

[Pho_King]

Thanks for one of the few sane answers and reasons! In my opinion the above reason are projections that may or may not be realized.

True. They are projections. Perhaps the ACA will reduce the trend of doctors refusing Medicare patients due to....lower reimbursements, perhaps adding 40,000,000 new insureds will not have much of an effect on a pool of available professionals that is the same size (hello wait times), and perhaps the massive liability doctors already have will actually be lessened by the ACA. On the same page, perhaps the "affordable" part of the ACA will prove to be anything but, perhaps the cost projections will be, like damn near every other government cost projection, massively underestimated (purposefully), and the unicorns we all are waiting for wil not show up. And in the meantime, with all these projections that may or may not happen, we have endured a successful and massive new power grab from the Feds, a new and far-reaching power to tax individuals for purchases they do not even make, changes that impact every citizen, for the benefit of the roughly 10,000,000 that genuinely cannot afford insurance, and do not already qualify for assistance.

And maybe if you put a radio in a birds ass you'd have music in the air.

Excellent point. I wonder how many lefties have applied that to the utopia promised by the ACA.

 

[hortysir]

Claiming that "83% of physicians" based on this poll is hysterical. That would be like conducting a survey in my small town and claiming it was representative of the entire state.

83% of the physicians who responded to the poll.

Better now, numbnuts?

Which is 4% of the people that they recruited. So, 700 physicians our of 16000 recruitments, of which 90% were in solo or small group practice, say they might leave medicine due to the ACA."

How is this statistically relevant?

I've noticed, with our Guest Satisfaction Surveys, that when there is a very low response rate the scores are generally lower.
Meaning that, mostly, people that are unhappy are the majority of those responding.

Thanks for pointing out the participation rate, Geaux.

 

[blu]

lol people are so gullible and stupid. the 699 that responded were a small % of the overall number of doctors that were contacted (the rest ignored it) and the questions were skewed towards not liking obamacare

but dumbasses eat up whatever fox and drudge shove down their throats

 

[Dot Com]

If you're in favor of some government-issue Doc sticking his fingers in your ass during a routine physical - have at it.

That's why I avoid the VA

Yes Grampa, I know it's part of an annual exam. Why not take a break from cheerleading Obama's failed health care plan (that President-Elect Romney will repeal) and put your mouth back on Obama's ass where it belongs.

You come out yet like Anderson Cooper? If not, why not? You always resort to homo-erotic imagery You a Log Cabin Repub son?

 

[CandySlice]

lol people are so gullible and stupid. the 699 that responded were a small % of the overall number of doctors that were contacted (the rest ignored it) and the questions were skewed towards not liking obamacare

but dumbasses eat up whatever fox and drudge shove down their throats

I don't really believe the American people are that dumb. I'm not a big fan of FOX and I couldn't find the Drudge Report with a compass but Fox DOES have quite a following and I find it hard to believe they're alll crazy. And Im not overlooking the fact the radical right has co-opted factions like the Tea Party etc and there are no shortage of crazies out there but when clearer heads prevail (as they always do, eventually) I think this bill will be seen for what it is and I just hope Obamamania doesn't cost us too dearly.

 

[geauxtohell]

83% of the physicians who responded to the poll.

Better now, numbnuts?

Which is 4% of the people that they recruited. So, 700 physicians our of 16000 recruitments, of which 90% were in solo or small group practice, say they might leave medicine due to the ACA."

How is this statistically relevant?

I've noticed, with our Guest Satisfaction Surveys, that when there is a very low response rate the scores are generally lower.
Meaning that, mostly, people that are unhappy are the majority of those responding.

Thanks for pointing out the participation rate, Geaux.

Thanks. I am not trying to tout the ACA. I am just interested in pointing out a biased survey.

RE: response rate. I agree. That is an inherent problem with Press Ganey Scores.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you have nothing to say about their huge selection bias?

What about the fact that almost 90% of respondents were in solo or small group practice (which has the latitude to no accept certain types of insurance or see patients with no insurance - in other words, those who have the most to lose under the ACA)?

What about the fact that only 4% of the respondents bothered to respond?

What about the fact that hospital based physicians are virtually unrepresented in the poll (11%)?

What about the fact the Emergency Medicine Physicians (who treat the bulk of the uninsured/noninsured thanks to Reagan passing EMTALA) are completely unrepresented in the poll?

Stick with it all you want. It's not going to fool anyone with a minute degree of statistical literacy.

Claiming that "83% of physicians" based on this poll is hysterical. That would be like conducting a survey in my small town and claiming it was representative of the entire state.

Show me a credible source that say single digit participation rates are invalid... That argument is B.S. If it exceeds 10% -- I suspect the participation was coerced.

You have to be kidding. A 4% response rate is more desirable to a 10% response rate?

Statistical power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And EVEN IF the respondents ended up representing private practice -- I AM concerned about the future of those folks. I don't want them them to go away.. So maybe I don't CARE if LARGE institutional staffs were represented. It tells us something.....

It's not "even if", it absolutely does overwhelmingly represent private practice. Only 11% of the respondents represent hospital based physicians who assume the burden of the under and non insured?

I am concerned about all physicians, however if we are going to start ban-tying about bombastic numbers, then we should be honest enough to point out that this survey was skewed towards physicians who likely have a financial interest to oppose the ACA.

To that end, you should care if large institutions were represented. If this statistic is going to be accurate, it should accurately represent physicians in this country statistically.

A LOT more than some LEFTIST approved factoids in this forum that just won't die...
I'm thinking of one that THAT POLLED readers of a single magazine slanted towards academia and proclaimed something about ALL SCIENTISTS.. You know who I'm talking about..

So what? What does that have to do with me?

I hate polling -- even more than lawyers or psychiatrists.. (hope I didn't step in it there).

But the BIAS and MISINTERPRETATION is part of the process. Here's a PEW Methodology for the recent ACA debate, and BURIED in the methodology you find...

Any Court Health Care Decision Unlikely to Please | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 7-17 among 2,013 adults, finds that none of these outcomes is particularly appealing to independents, though more would like to see the law entirely overturned than kept in place. Half (50%) of independents say they would be happy if the entire law is overturned, while only 35% would be happy if the entire law is upheld. Independents have a divided reaction to the court throwing out the individual mandate while upholding the rest of the law (44% happy, 49% unhappy).

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted June 7-17, 2012, among a national sample of 2,013 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (1,127 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 886 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 455 who had no landline telephone).

Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home.

Think THAT made it to media blitz campaign eh? That it was a study of YOUNG ADULTS?

Shamans --- all of them...

But note --- they got +/- 2.5 percentage points by surveying JUST 2013 people in the whole f'in country !!!!

And what is the EXPECTED response from the GENERAL PUBLIC?

Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey

Where the 1997 Rigorous study completed 1,201 interviews after making 31,385 calls, the 2003 Rigorous study completed 1,089 interviews after 72,485 calls.This decline in productivity is consistent with previous research showing that the number of calls needed to achieve a given response rate has increased dramatically in recent years (Brick et al. 2003; Curtin, Presser, and Singer 2000).

Single - Digit eh? And those ARE THE RIGOROUS surveys... ((note in a RIGOROUS survey, the number of calls refers to retries, opt-outs, and coercing completion of the selected survey participants. Something that takes LOTS of bucks))

1) My conclusion is never trust a poll at all if you don't read the methodology.
2) Then STILL be skeptical.
3) Never accept the journalistic slant.
4) Consider GOOD polling as an anecdotal factoid..

So -- I'm not completely defending this non-rigorous poll. It may be IMPOSSIBLE anymore to even do GOOD polling because of general decline in participation. But it IS good enough to make me want to be concerned...

 

[geauxtohell]

Show me a credible source that say single digit participation rates are invalid... That argument is B.S. If it exceeds 10% -- I suspect the participation was coerced.

You have to be kidding. A 4% response rate is more desirable to a 10% response rate?

Statistical power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It's not "even if", it absolutely does overwhelmingly represent private practice. Only 11% of the respondents represent hospital based physicians who assume the burden of the under and non insured?

I am concerned about all physicians, however if we are going to start ban-tying about bombastic numbers, then we should be honest enough to point out that this survey was skewed towards physicians who likely have a financial interest to oppose the ACA.

To that end, you should care if large institutions were represented. If this statistic is going to be accurate, it should accurately represent physicians in this country statistically.



So what? What does that have to do with me?

I hate polling -- even more than lawyers or psychiatrists.. (hope I didn't step in it there).

But the BIAS and MISINTERPRETATION is part of the process. Here's a PEW Methodology for the recent ACA debate, and BURIED in the methodology you find...

Any Court Health Care Decision Unlikely to Please | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 7-17 among 2,013 adults, finds that none of these outcomes is particularly appealing to independents, though more would like to see the law entirely overturned than kept in place. Half (50%) of independents say they would be happy if the entire law is overturned, while only 35% would be happy if the entire law is upheld. Independents have a divided reaction to the court throwing out the individual mandate while upholding the rest of the law (44% happy, 49% unhappy).

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted June 7-17, 2012, among a national sample of 2,013 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (1,127 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 886 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 455 who had no landline telephone).

Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home.

Think THAT made it to media blitz campaign eh? That it was a study of YOUNG ADULTS?

Shamans --- all of them...

But note --- they got +/- 2.5 percentage points by surveying JUST 2013 people in the whole f'in country !!!!

And what is the EXPECTED response from the GENERAL PUBLIC?

Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey

Where the 1997 Rigorous study completed 1,201 interviews after making 31,385 calls, the 2003 Rigorous study completed 1,089 interviews after 72,485 calls.This decline in productivity is consistent with previous research showing that the number of calls needed to achieve a given response rate has increased dramatically in recent years (Brick et al. 2003; Curtin, Presser, and Singer 2000).

Single - Digit eh? And those ARE THE RIGOROUS surveys... ((note in a RIGOROUS survey, the number of calls refers to retries, opt-outs, and coercing completion of the selected survey participants. Something that takes LOTS of bucks))

1) My conclusion is never trust a poll at all if you don't read the methodology.
2) Then STILL be skeptical.
3) Never accept the journalistic slant.
4) Consider GOOD polling as an anecdotal factoid..

So -- I'm not completely defending this non-rigorous poll. It may be IMPOSSIBLE anymore to even do GOOD polling because of general decline in participation. But it IS good enough to make me want to be concerned...

No, I am in Emergency medicine not psychiatry.

I agree the poll you cited is also biased. Two wrongs don't make a right.

There was certainly a way to conduct a more rigorous poll on this matter. Physicians in each state are licensed and that is public information. It wouldn't have been hard to track them down. The DPMA just wasn't interested in that. As I said, it would have been more accurate if they would have simply sent out mailers. Thta's what most other organizations do. I have no idea why they solicited responses based on fax numbers. Well, I do, but it's more of a conspiracy theory.

At any rate, when I see a bombastic poll number or something startling, my antenna goes up and I start researching.

That is what I did here, and with a small degree of work, it's obvious that this poll is skewed.

I suspect intentionally so considering the DPMA has a stated bias.

 

[Katzndogz]

So typical liberal.

Doctors say they will leave the practice of medicine.
Liberals say the doctors are all lying.

 

[geauxtohell]

So typical liberal.

Doctors say they will leave the practice of medicine.
Liberals say the doctors are all lying.

When did I ever say they were lying?

 

[Pheonixops]

Actually, I like FactCheck.


the IRS is going to dictate what level of coverage I can afford, thereby determining the quality of care I receive.

LOL, that's good to know. Here:
"“Massive government takeover of health care.” Actually, the law expands business for private insurance companies by requiring nearly everyone to have health insurance. Medicaid eligibility is also increased, but this is no government-run system, as single-payer advocates wanted. And as we’ve noted again and again, government already accounted for 43.6 percent of all health care spending before the new law was enacted, and that share is projected to rise by 3.8 percentage points by 2015, a year after the law takes full effect. Plus, much of that increase would happen anyway as more and more seniors reach Medicare age."

How is the IRS allegedly going to 'dictate what level of coverage you can afford'?

Okay, Pheonix, you've convinced me.

The reason I just told Greenbeard that I didn't feel like bitching about it tonight is because I just lost my job.

So, rather than trying to work and keep up with any COBRA payments I'm going to have to worry about, I'm just going to let your tax dollars take care of me.



I feel MMMUUUUUCH better now. Thanks.

I wish you the best of luck in your new endeavors! Those COBRA payments CAN be a bitch to make. Depending on your age and health, maybe it would be better for you to get off of COBRA, find another job and join their group plan. If you qualify for Medicaid, so be it.

 

[Pheonixops]

Have you ever read the bill shit for Brains, one of the ways they cover all the uninsured now, is by Asking the States to Expand access to MC. You do know who pays for MC right?

Wow I mean you guys run around like Experts on the ACA, and do not even understand the basics of it.

Well , I asked a fucking question. Secondly shit for brains not everyone who is uninsured will qualify for MC, and yeah the states will pay for MC. That certainly IS NOT "the government" paying for everyone's health care, now is it?

In so far as the states will have to pay for the MC expansion, and they are part of our government, Yes it is. And don't be Naive, the states will have to come Begging for Bail outs again, and then we will be back passing another bill to Bail them out.

You can claim what ever you want. Facts are Facts.

2 well 3 Things in the ACA will increase federal and State liabilities massively.

First the MC expansion,

Second and Third the Tax Credits to help people buy Insurance, and Tax Credits to Encourage Business to Offer Insurance. Those are Direct Pay outs of Government Money, to Business and People to encourage people to get Insurance.

How you guys can ignore that, and pretend the ACA is not going to massively Increase the Amount State and Fed government spends on peoples health Care is simply Funny, and frankly Very dishonest.

The states may just have to raise state taxes to pay for it before they go asking for a bailout.

What am I actually "claiming"?

The same can be said about all tax credits if that's your line of thought.

I'm not 'ignoring' anything, I'm trying to have a discussion/debate about it so the facts can come out.

 

[hortysir]

LOL, that's good to know. Here:
"“Massive government takeover of health care.” Actually, the law expands business for private insurance companies by requiring nearly everyone to have health insurance. Medicaid eligibility is also increased, but this is no government-run system, as single-payer advocates wanted. And as we’ve noted again and again, government already accounted for 43.6 percent of all health care spending before the new law was enacted, and that share is projected to rise by 3.8 percentage points by 2015, a year after the law takes full effect. Plus, much of that increase would happen anyway as more and more seniors reach Medicare age."

How is the IRS allegedly going to 'dictate what level of coverage you can afford'?

Okay, Pheonix, you've convinced me.

The reason I just told Greenbeard that I didn't feel like bitching about it tonight is because I just lost my job.

So, rather than trying to work and keep up with any COBRA payments I'm going to have to worry about, I'm just going to let your tax dollars take care of me.



I feel MMMUUUUUCH better now. Thanks.

I wish you the best of luck in your new endeavors! Those COBRA payments CAN be a bitch to make. Depending on your age and health, maybe it would be better for you to get off of COBRA, find another job and join their group plan. If you qualify for Medicaid, so be it.

I've, generally, been lucky in that I'm never out of work so I'm hoping to be able to just step over to another provider.

COBRA price is 440/mo. Got the letter today.
I was paying less than half of that number for everything...Med, Vision, STD, LTD, and FSA.
Employer paid the rest.

It is what it is, though.

Thanks

 

[Pheonixops]

What is this country becoming?

Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare | The Daily Caller

The American Medical Association, which endorsed Obama’s health care overhaul, was not able to immediately offer comment on the survey. Spokesperson Heather Lasher Todd said it would take time to review the information in the survey.

Read more: Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare | The Daily Caller


This is worth all sides of the issue reviewing:

PolitiFact | Health Care statements

Nothing at that PolitiFart page about doctors quitting.. Not that I'd take their analysis without extreme skepticism anyway..

((ObamaCare doesn't CUT Medicare by $500B -- it just reduces the growth)) LOL

Are you adverse to reducing growth in government programs such as Medicaid?

 

[MikeK]

The practice of Medicine has devolved from a virtuous calling into a business and the mercenary nature of our increasingly profit-oriented culture has infected the profession with the disease of greed.

If 83% of the Nation's physicians say they are "considering" quitting the profession I believe them to be individuals who aspired to the business rather than the calling of Medicine and they are voicing the kind of resentment which might be expected from a group of disappointed labor union members. The first question that occurs is what are all these resigning MDs going to do with all their education and training? That's also the last question, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to this idle complaining.

I blame the insurance and the pharmaceutical industries for corrupting the medical profession and luring students into the profession with the promise of assured wealth. That should not be the motivating force that induces one to enter the field of healing, mainly because it attracts the wrong mentality. The practice of medicine is not a business or a trade, it is an art. And artists are born not made by the lure of money.

If the transition to ACA does indeed reduce the income of the average MD the doctors will still be living very well. They just won't be doing as well as they would if they'd studied business and finance instead. But those who value the prestige, respect and admiration afforded to the physician over the second Mercedes and the bigger swimming pool will have no regrets and in time their profession will once again be dominated by artists as opposed to businessmen with stethoscopes and prescription pads.

 

[auditor0007]

What is this country becoming?

Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare | The Daily Caller

Yup, they hate all the paperwork involved with insurance companies. They would rather see a one payer system to make things easier, so they could devote their time to being doctors rather than filling out so much paperwork.

 

[CandySlice]

The practice of Medicine has devolved from a virtuous calling into a business and the mercenary nature of our increasingly profit-oriented culture has infected the profession with the disease of greed.

If 83% of the Nation's physicians say they are "considering" quitting the profession I believe them to be individuals who aspired to the business rather than the calling of Medicine and they are voicing the kind of resentment which might be expected from a group of disappointed labor union members. The first question that occurs is what are all these resigning MDs going to do with all their education and training? That's also the last question, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to this idle complaining.

I blame the insurance and the pharmaceutical industries for corrupting the medical profession and luring students into the profession with the promise of assured wealth. That should not be the motivating force that induces one to enter the field of healing, mainly because it attracts the wrong mentality. The practice of medicine is not a business or a trade, it is an art. And artists are born not made by the lure of money.

If the transition to ACA does indeed reduce the income of the average MD the doctors will still be living very well. They just won't be doing as well as they would if they'd studied business and finance instead. But those who value the prestige, respect and admiration afforded to the physician over the second Mercedes and the bigger swimming pool will have no regrets and in time their profession will once again be dominated by artists as opposed to businessmen with stethoscopes and prescription pads.

That was a powerful opinion and I applaud it. And I agree with you 100%. So much so I wonder why Obama didn't focus on the fraud and double-billing (yes I've said this before)and the pharmaceutical rape that's going on? THERE is our problem. Not overhauling the whole system. Gov't intervention will not solve the problem, it will exacerbate it.