Why does Dr. Waters favor socialized medicine?

[SeattleUte]

Drs. generally don't get to choose whether they will see midicare or medicaid insured patients.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Drs. generally don't get to choose whether they will see midicare or medicaid insured patients.

yes they can. I know doctors that take neither medicare nor insurance.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

yes they can. I know doctors that take neither medicare nor insurance.

How common is that? I know carriers and/or facilities where docs have privileges often require them to take medicare and medicaid patients. The really toney ones that are "free agents" and see movie stars maybe not. But I understand that realistically most doctors do have to. Wrong?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

How common is that? I know carriers and/or facilities where docs have privileges often require them to take medicare and medicaid patients. The really toney ones that are "free agents" and see movie stars maybe not. But I understand that realistically most doctors do have to. Wrong?

if you take care of hospitalized patients, then probably yes. but medicare is not such a bad deal for the hospitals.

if you run your own practice, you can make choices. You actually have to APPLY to be a medicare provider. It's not automatic. and there is no law that says I must see any patient on a non-emergent basis.

Most psychiatrists I know, that are starting out, don't take anytning but cash.

[jay santos]

I know something's wrong when I go see the doctor and they have a support staff of about 15 people for three doctors. They have as many people in accounts receivable as locations in my company that generate $50M in revenues a year. My company is laying people off, slicing more fat off each year, trying to compete in the global economy. This place had a bunch of women sitting around drinking Big Gulps, gabbing, or playing solitaire on their computer. Something's got to happen, but I don't see the government being the one to do it.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I know something's wrong when I go see the doctor and they have a support staff of about 15 people for three doctors. They have as many people in accounts receivable as locations in my company that generate $50M in revenues a year. My company is laying people off, slicing more fat off each year, trying to compete in the global economy. This place had a bunch of women sitting around drinking Big Gulps, gabbing, or playing solitaire on their computer. Something's got to happen, but I don't see the government being the one to do it.

that's why my friends don't take insurance. if they did, they would have to hire people to deal with it.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

if you take care of hospitalized patients, then probably yes. but medicare is not such a bad deal for the hospitals.

if you run your own practice, you can make choices. You actually have to APPLY to be a medicare provider. It's not automatic. and there is no law that says I must see any patient on a non-emergent basis.

Most psychiatrists I know, that are starting out, don't take anytning but cash.

Okay, so it's less than I said. Still, my point is that it's not "unethical" for the paying entity to limit contractually what a dr. can charge (I know this post is not really directed at you). And by the way, that's no different than what insurance companies do with lawyers who defend their insureds. Moreover, health insurers have computerized systems that exclude payment for certain line item if the computer decides that efficiencies inherent in doing multiple surgical procedures don't justify charging as if each procedure was done on a different day. Insurers also retain the right by contract to tell a dr. something he did wasn't medically necessary, and therefore not reimbursible, though this isn't done by computer but by staffs of in-house drs. Again, it's the same with lawyers.

[SeattleUte]

So waters is right, there's much that wouldn't change under "socialized medicine." Medaid and Medicare even use much the same billing coding systems as private insurers (this only adds efficiency, especially if the fed. gov. has gone to the trouble of developing the codes, etc.), and pay at similar rates. What we're really talking about is just the feds getting into our wallets for more money, partly to fund a new federal agency or huge expansion of the soc. sec. admin. Is that an argument for or against fed. intervention?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Why is this different from health insurers' physician networks? I don't think it's an "ethical problem." Today most any dr. gets paid for services to insured patients at a huge discount from their regular rates, and agree in wrinting to look ony to the carrier for payment. On top of that the carriers are pervasively regulated by state government. I see this as a "states rights" issue more than anything.

you are right about dr.s and Hospitals getting paid at at a huge discounts. However, they also negotiate those deals... with NHI there is no negotiation, you get paid what the government says you get paid

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

So waters is right, there's much that wouldn't change under "socialized medicine." Medaid and Medicare even use much the same billing coding systems as private insurers (this only adds efficiency, especially if the fed. gov. has gone to the trouble of developing the codes, etc.), and pay at similar rates. What we're really talking about is just the feds getting into our wallets for more money, partly to fund a new federal agency or huge expansion of the soc. sec. admin. Is that an argument for or against fed. intervention?

wrong wrong wrong wrong.... You're wrong

A lot will change with National health insurance (socialized medicine is different as the government would own all the hospitals and clinics). First of all Dr.s will be paid a lot less...Don't believe me ask Canadian or English Drs.

BTW do You really think the government is going to be more efficient than things are now? If anything we need less government and more market in the system.