Eradication of Obamacare

[JoeShmoe44]

Just want to hear your thoughts about this and Trump's new healthcare plan

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[673441]

It's ObamaCare Lite... Hardly even considered a "plan," rather a mass-deletion of paragraphs from the existing ACA. I truly don't believe that even in the current political climate, any changes are unlikely to be of any benefit to physicians. The general consensus is we make too much and we have a plush life. Case in point, recent law to remove limits on shift-work for residents. What we should really be discussing is the robbery occurring right before our eyes w/ shrinking salaries, increased work-load, and medical school tuition at the 99th percentile for graduate schools.

 

[Yadster101]

Can someone give a short explanation of the new healthcare plan? From my understanding they are cutting medicaid, give (inadequate) tax credits to us, and reach people are getting massive tax cuts...?

edit: meant to say rich ppl

 

[673441]

Can someone give a short explanation of the new healthcare plan? From my understanding they are cutting medicaid, give (inadequate) tax credits to us, and reach people are getting massive tax cuts...?

Goal #1 => wants to increase "access" to healthcare
Problem: the emphasis on access is key, since coverage and access are not the same thing.

Goal #2 => wants to transfer medicaid spending power back to the states
Problem: the previous administration made it a point to increase funding to Medicaid; so its unclear how that will affect the millions of people covered under that expansion (they'll probably lose their benefits). Bare in mind, residency slots are paid for by Medicaid so its unclear how that would pan out under his legislation.

Goal #3 => kids can stay on their parents plan till 26 and insurance companies can NOT refuse coverage based on pre-existing conditions
Problem: no problem here, screw the insurance companies. FYI this already is in place from the ACA.

Goal #4 => wants to eliminate the non-enrollment tax/fee (which was illegal)
Problem: this will likely cause the price of health insurance to sky-rocket. Insurance only works if you have more healthy people than sick people paying for it. In this strategy, the healthy people will say screw insurance, I'll just have some Wheaties, which will leave sick people out to dry.

Goal #5 => wants to allow small businesses access to insurance across state-lines and give individuals access to tax-deductions on their premiums
Problem: Trump said this a few times and I haven't really seen any action on this. I'm not too sure if it'll actually be put into place.

 

[sovereign0]

From what it seems like so far, the bill it it's current state isn't what we will see come to pass.

As it stands, it's a trainwreck. Parts of it are so bad that I actually wish I could laugh at it, until I realize that these are the people running our country.

 

[Astra]

Goal #3 => kids can stay on their parents plan till 26 and insurance companies can NOT refuse coverage based on pre-existing conditions

This is gonna help so many med students.

 

[RogueBanana]

From what it seems like so far, the bill it it's current state isn't what we will see come to pass.

As it stands, it's a trainwreck. Parts of it are so bad that I actually wish I could laugh at it, until I realize that these are the people running our country.

Agreed.

On a side note, your profile pic is my PC background. Love those Pillars, so sad that they're disintegrating

 

[SunsFun]

Eradication sounds like you're talking about a pest problem. Repeal maybe?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Yadster101]

Goal #1 => wants to increase "access" to healthcare
Problem: the emphasis on access is key, since coverage and access are not the same thing.

Goal #2 => wants to transfer medicaid spending power back to the states
Problem: the previous administration made it a point to increase funding to Medicaid; so its unclear how that will affect the millions of people covered under that expansion (they'll probably lose their benefits). Bare in mind, residency slots are paid for by Medicaid so its unclear how that would pan out under his legislation.

Goal #3 => kids can stay on their parents plan till 26 and insurance companies can NOT refuse coverage based on pre-existing conditions
Problem: no problem here, screw the insurance companies. FYI this already is in place from the ACA.

Goal #4 => wants to eliminate the non-enrollment tax/fee (which was illegal)
Problem: this will likely cause the price of health insurance to sky-rocket. Insurance only works if you have more healthy people than sick people paying for it. In this strategy, the healthy people will say screw insurance, I'll just have some Wheaties, which will leave sick people out to dry.

Goal #5 => wants to allow small businesses access to insurance across state-lines and give individuals access to tax-deductions on their premiums
Problem: Trump said this a few times and I haven't really seen any action on this. I'm not too sure if it'll actually be put into place.

wait so what's the things everyones complaining about regarding massive tax cuts for rich people? How are rich ppl going to get tax cuts from the healthcare plan?

 

[QualityProcess]

wait so what's the things everyones complaining about regarding massive tax cuts for rich people? How are rich ppl going to get tax cuts from the healthcare plan?

its not the healthcare plan that cuts taxes, its the spending cuts in healthcare that will pay for tax cuts elsewhere

 

[673441]

wait so what's the things everyones complaining about regarding massive tax cuts for rich people? How are rich ppl going to get tax cuts from the healthcare plan?

Fake News.


Jk. Trump would likely go after the 200k salary provision that's in ACA that pretty much says that if you make more than 200k as a single person or 250k as a couple you go into a higher tax bracket. Nothing really new on that, except it was an ADDITIONAL tax to an already existing tax?!? Weird, huh? Obamaology is the most complex of the political sciences. Its also probably due to the Medicare/Medicaid provision that now assists Americans based on an age-need basis rather than an income-need basis. Pretty much if you're a 25 year old with no job, no income, no savings, no hope (lol), you can currently apply and get approved for Medicaid.

TBH this law is so far from being passed that too much variability exists... What we talk about today, will likely be fake news by tomorrow.

 

[Yadster101]

Fake News.


Jk. Trump would likely go after the 200k salary provision that's in ACA that pretty much says that if you make more than 200k as a single person or 250k as a couple you go into a higher tax bracket. Nothing really new on that, except it was an ADDITIONAL tax to an already existing tax?!? Weird, huh? Obamaology is the most complex of the political sciences. Its also probably due to the Medicare/Medicaid provision that now assists Americans based on an age-need basis rather than an income-need basis. Pretty much if you're a 25 year old with no job, no income, no savings, no hope (lol), you can currently apply and get approved for Medicaid.

TBH this law is so far from being passed that too much variability exists... What we talk about today, will likely be fake news by tomorrow.

So then can't a good chunk of med students (>26 yrs old, no job) get medicaid?

 

[SunsFun]

I've put some thought into it and there are few components that, imo, must be implemented in order for any scheme to work.

1. The pricing model must be heavily regulated to prohibit the use of health status and much of personal info as independent factors influencing the final number. Otherwise, the insurance prices will only be affordable for relatively healthy people and play a "safety net for catastrophic events" role. No insurance company that wants to stay in business will be willing to incur losses on clear cut train wreck cases. The only way I can think around this problem is government meddling with pricing algorithms and making it impossible for insurance company to completely segregate high risk customers.

2. Pricing information and formulas used to come up with the price must be shared by the company in their monthly reports. These should be freely available to the public and, more importantly, their competition. What looks like an infringement on proprietary information is actually one way to make sure the marketplace remains competitive and no company emerges as a clear winner, driving others out of business. This is btw a standard practice in auto insurance industry, keeping multiple companies in business and providing lowest premiums.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[673441]

So then can't a good chunk of med students (>26 yrs old, no job) get medicaid?

Yes, you can get Medicaid now since the qualifying criterion was redacted from the Bush Era and made to include 40% above the poverty line??? I believe that's the number not too sure. The problem with that is doctors are not getting paid by Medicaid for literally anything. You can already see most Docs turning a hard nose to an Medicaid patient that walks into their doors. Expanding the qualifying criterion includes virtually all of the middle class (w/ the exception of the upper-middle). But the thought is, if you have a good paying job that offers insurance, you will likely just get insurance through your employer. If not, you go with the Medicaid that you get for free and can't use unless you drive to the inner-city.

Quick caveat tho:
The amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789 reads as follows:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -Wikipedia
Obamacare has a mandate that anyone refusing to get covered under the ACA will be subject to a logarithmic-increasing fee for each year they decide not to get covered. The argument is that this is in fact unconstitutional based on the 8th amendment. Well Obama of course knew this, and decided to allow the IRS to lay the gauntlet not the Federal Govt directly. For those of you who are unaware, the IRS is a NON-REGULATED segment of the govt that isn't an actual part of the govt, so in fact, the govt isn't violating any amendment at all! Ha, I thought it was both a funny and sick caveat.

 

[OnePunchBiopsy]

[QUOTE="567WingsO'Heaven, post: 18765551, member: 673441"ia
Obamacare has a mandate that anyone refusing to get covered under the ACA will be subject to a logarithmic-increasing fee for each year they decide not to get covered. [/QUOTE]

Not if you're a medical student with no income to tax

 

[ChrisMack390]

If someone wanted to repeal the ACA in its entirety, I would disagree with them, but I would agree there is a discussion to be had and there are several valid points against the ACA.

The AHCA (current bill) is absolute stupidity.

 

[sovereign0]

So then can't a good chunk of med students (>26 yrs old, no job) get medicaid?

Yes, you can get Medicaid now since the qualifying criterion was redacted from the Bush Era and made to include 40% above the poverty line??? I believe that's the number not too sure. The problem with that is doctors are not getting paid by Medicaid for literally anything. You can already see most Docs turning a hard nose to an Medicaid patient that walks into their doors. Expanding the qualifying criterion includes virtually all of the middle class (w/ the exception of the upper-middle). But the thought is, if you have a good paying job that offers insurance, you will likely just get insurance through your employer. If not, you go with the Medicaid that you get for free and can't use unless you drive to the inner-city.

Quick caveat tho:
The amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789 reads as follows:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -Wikipedia
Obamacare has a mandate that anyone refusing to get covered under the ACA will be subject to a logarithmic-increasing fee for each year they decide not to get covered. The argument is that this is in fact unconstitutional based on the 8th amendment. Well Obama of course knew this, and decided to allow the IRS to lay the gauntlet not the Federal Govt directly. For those of you who are unaware, the IRS is a NON-REGULATED segment of the govt that isn't an actual part of the govt, so in fact, the govt isn't violating any amendment at all! Ha, I thought it was both a funny and sick caveat.

Just gonna point out that a number of states didn't expand Medicaid, and in a number of those states a single, child-less adult can't qualify for Medicaid regardless of income.

 

[673441]

Just gonna point out that a number of states didn't expand Medicaid, and in a number of those states a single, child-less adult can't qualify for Medicaid regardless of income.

Hm... I know in my home state a buddy of mine is getting Medicaid without any income nor a child.

 

[sovereign0]

Hm... I know in my home state a buddy of mine is getting Medicaid without any income nor a child.

What state would that be? As my post said, we're talking about a subset of a subset of states - those that didn't expand Medicaid, and among those, those that decided to screw poor people over even more.

Edit: I got curious.

Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility Levels | Medicaid.gov

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin (?), and Wyoming.

These states refused to expand Medicaid. Some of these states may have state-level programs to help cover low income single adults, but looking at the list and their historic partisanship... I doubt it for most of them.

 

[mik30102]

The plan is going to worsen premiums even more long term. I don't think the 30% penalty is enough for going without coverage. What I envision is people 26-40 going without insurance then jumping on when like all of us they get old and sick.. It will be the financially responsible thing to do since the savings over 14 years plus will be much more then this little penalty. We need to get healthy people on one way or another. Overall its just going to make what people hate about the aca even worse.

 

[Redpancreas]

If someone wanted to repeal the ACA in its entirety, I would disagree with them, but I would agree there is a discussion to be had and there are several valid points against the ACA.

The AHCA (current bill) is absolute stupidity.

My biggest problem is simple. There was no reason for putting this forth. When the Obama administration put the ACA forth, the theory/intent was to provide universal coverage to prevent catastrophes down the line so that costs were less (oversimplified). When Trump put his plan in, it was a 100% political ploy as opposed to attempting to solve a problem. I'm not surprised considering this whole Trump debacle is like a giant reality show instead of a presidency.

 

[deleted731525]

Its unlikely to pass.

1) It might not even pass in the house as it isnt conservative enough for the freedom caucus

2) If it passes in the house it wont pass in its current form in the senate as the republican senators from medicaid expansion states arent going to want to commit political suicide

3) Even if it does somehow pass both the house and the senate there are some arguments to be made that parts of the bill dont fall under the criteria required for a reconciliation bill and would need to pass the senate the traditional way with 60 votes to prevent a filibuster.

My guess is that this bill will either just barely pass the house or fail. In the case of failure they make it more conservative to appease the freedom caucus and it passes. Either way it fails in the senate and the house republicans and Trump say "hey we tried"

 

[Ismet]

Moving to Topics in Healthcare forum.

 

[ChrisMack390]

My biggest problem is simple. There was no reason for putting this forth. When the Obama administration put this forth, the theory/intent was to provide universal coverage to prevent catastrophes down the line so that costs were less (oversimplified). When Trump put his plan in, it was 100% politically motivated as opposed to attempting to solve a problem. I'm not surprised considering this whole Trump debacle is like a giant reality show instead of a presidency.

The purpose is to spite Barack Obama.

 

[RogueBanana]

The purpose is to spite Barack Obama.

Really tells you something about the quality of the man when he's willing to risk knocking thousands of people off their health insurance just to make an immature jab at someone who can't defend themselves.....

 

[ChrisMack390]

Really tells you something about the quality of the man when he's willing to risk knocking thousands of people off their health insurance just to make an immature jab at someone who can't defend themselves.....

He has already rolled back all kinds of environmental regulations Obama put in place. It's absolute nihilism.

 

[RogueBanana]

He has already rolled back all kinds of environmental regulations Obama put in place. It's absolute nihilism.

Trump's 2020 slogan

"Things are so bad now that nothing matters anymore. Vote Trump. Idiots."

 

[ChrisMack390]

“Obamacare is the law of the land. We’re going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future.” - Paul Ryan

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

“Obamacare is the law of the land. We’re going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future.” - Paul Ryan

But the unemployed millennials at Starbucks told me that Trump was a dictator and would just repeal the ACA on his own.

 

[SunnyDO]

I think the major issue here is whether it is the government's responsibility vs. the individual's responsibility to attain health insurance. Trump's administration clearly supports individual responsibility, which is the mentality of most people who understand the kind of abuse that happens with welfare programs like Medicaid (i.e. people spending their money on "wants" (not "needs"), and then using government tax payer dollars to pay for their health insurance). While it stands to reason there are many people who need this system as a necessity, there are just as many people who abuse the system. Although I love Obama and what he was trying to do with Obamacare, I am interested to see what happens when we place the responsibility back on the individual as opposed to allowing people to rely on the government so heavily.

 

[673441]

Everyone would be much happier if they stopped confusing the "want" with the "need." Also, no one deserves anything in this life. You work and you acquire what you need and want. No one is responsible for you, but you.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Bada Ba Baba]

Everyone would be much happier if they stopped confusing the "want" with the "need." Also, no one deserves anything in this life. You work and you acquire what you need and want. No one is responsible for you, but you.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Wow, to think our future physicians have this mentalitiy. Some people are not in a position to help themselves, mainly children and people living in poverty. Also, it is not solely about "deserving" healthcare because a healthy population equates to a healthy economy and healthy communities. I guess we should let people drop like flies according to you?

 

[673441]

Wow, to think our future physicians have this mentalitiy. Some people are not in a position to help themselves, mainly children and people living in poverty. Also, it is not solely about "deserving" healthcare because a healthy population equates to a healthy economy and healthy communities. I guess we should let people drop like flies according to you?

The basic premise of your disagreement with my statement is based on your personal political viewpoint. A doctor does not equal a socialist democrat. That's the first point.

To answer your question, no we should not let people drop like flies. We should create an environment where the social safety net is just that, a net to catch you when you fall down on your luck. If you're debilitated or can't work, that's an entirely different argument.

We should foster an environment that allows those living in poverty to get ahead. Currently, the guidelines in place do nothing but penalize drug abusers, rather than get them help. Which make up the bulk majority of the homeless population. So, you're saying let's just throw other people's money at our problems. Maybe they'll just go away? Social welfare was developed to keep the lower class society complacent. Do some research. The beneficiary is the one most harmed.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Bada Ba Baba]

The basic premise of your disagreement with my statement is based on your personal political viewpoint. A doctor does not equal a socialist democrat. That's the first point.

To answer your question, no we should not let people drop like flies. We should create an environment where the social safety net is just that, a net to catch you when you fall down on your luck. If you're debilitated or can't work, that's an entirely different argument.

We should foster an environment that allows those living in poverty to get ahead. Currently, the guidelines in place do nothing but penalize drug abusers, rather than get them help. Which make up the bulk majority of the homeless population. So, you're saying let's just throw other people's money at our problems. Maybe they'll just go away? Social welfare was developed to keep the lower class society complacent. Do some research. The beneficiary is the one most harmed.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

That's my point, the net should not catch you once you fall down. That is when things get most expensive. We need to invest in preventative services, which is why socialized medicine is a step in the right direction. In some countries, there are different political ideologies, but that doesn't stop the government from making sure all of their citizens have access to healthcare.

Also, my sources suggests that social welfare was not at all designed to keep certain communities complacent. In most cases, social welfare programs were brought on due to public health practices:
*The Sheppard-Towner Act
*Affordable Care Act
*Medicaid
*Medicare
*SNAP
*WIC

All of these programs were driven by public health incentives, not for the sake of keeping poor communities complacent.

We should invest in communities that are in need, the economical burden of poverty is real.

 

[673441]

That's my point, the net should not catch you once you fall down. That is when things get most expensive. We need to invest in preventative services, which is why socialized medicine is a step in the right direction. In some countries, there are different political ideologies, but that doesn't stop the government from making sure all of their citizens have access to healthcare.

Also, my sources suggests that social welfare was not at all designed to keep certain communities complacent. In most cases, social welfare programs were brought on due to public health practices:
*The Sheppard-Towner Act
*Affordable Care Act
*Medicaid
*Medicare
*SNAP
*WIC

All of these programs were driven by public health incentives, not for the sake of keeping poor communities complacent.

We should invest in communities that are in need, the economical burden of poverty is real.

That's an interesting take... I'm a conservative libertarian. I believe in fairness above all. But don't mistake my political beliefs with my moral beliefs. They coincide a lot in the media, but I'm sure I'll be good about keeping them at my patients' door.



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Bada Ba Baba]

That's an interesting take... I'm a conservative libertarian. I believe in fairness above all. But don't mistake my political beliefs with my moral beliefs. They coincide a lot in the media, but I'm sure I'll be good about keeping them at my patients' door.



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Do you mind elaborating on "I'll be good about keeping them at my patients' door"?

 

[ChrisMack390]

The idea that a sick person must "earn" medical care is gross.

 

[Bada Ba Baba]

The idea that a sick person must "earn" medical care is gross.

Wow, okay.

 

[TwoCarGarage]

The plan is going to worsen premiums even more long term. I don't think the 30% penalty is enough for going without coverage. What I envision is people 26-40 going without insurance then jumping on when like all of us they get old and sick.. It will be the financially responsible thing to do since the savings over 14 years plus will be much more then this little penalty. We need to get healthy people on one way or another. Overall its just going to make what people hate about the aca even worse.

Requiring people to purchase insurance is essentially just a tax that goes into the pockets of insurance companies. Maybe it's time we consider switching to a single-payer system where the government provides basic healthcare coverage and people can purchase advanced insurance or pay for elective procedures...Cut out a big chunk of insurance companies; put more power and money back into the hands of the physicians and patients. Unfortunately that will never happen because there are something like 12 insurance/healthcare/hospital/pharma lobbyists for every member of congress...

 

[673441]

Requiring people to purchase insurance is essentially just a tax that goes into the pockets of insurance companies. Maybe it's time we consider switching to a single-payer system where the government provides basic healthcare coverage and people can purchase advanced insurance or pay for elective procedures...Cut out a big chunk of insurance companies; put more power and money back into the hands of the physicians and patients. Unfortunately that will never happen because there are something like 12 insurance/healthcare/hospital/pharma lobbyists for every member of congress...

Single payer sounds great in theory, but you may end up with an income cap like Canada has. After you reach a certain aggregate limit with your billed services, you can no longer bill for that year!!!! Incentivizes the doctor to see less patients.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[TwoCarGarage]

Single payer sounds great in theory, but you may end up with an income cap like Canada has. After you reach a certain aggregate limit with your billed services, you can no longer bill for that year!!!! Incentivizes the doctor to see less patients.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Sure, but what do the malpractice stats look like in Canada? Far better than here. Lower insurance payments and fewer lawsuits.

 

[673441]

Sure, but what do the malpractice stats look like in Canada? Far better than here. Lower insurance payments and fewer lawsuits.

From the internal aspect of the system I'd say that's cool that doctors don't get sued as much, but I'm biased since it's my future profession. I'm more concerned about the quality metrics and time to see a provider. In some rural towns, patients will die bc of poor management of care or lack there-of. There are different ways to look at this. Point being is, pick your poison. Single payer = more efficient, less hassle payment system, but whether or not it translates to better outcomes is another thing entirely.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[ChrisMack390]

From the internal aspect of the system I'd say that's cool that doctors don't get sued as much, but I'm biased since it's my future profession. I'm more concerned about the quality metrics and time to see a provider. In some rural towns, patients will die bc of poor management of care or lack there-of. There are different ways to look at this. Point being is, pick your poison. Single payer = more efficient, less hassle payment system, but whether or not it translates to better outcomes is another thing entirely.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

At the same time, a single payer system allows the greatest opportunity to broadly study the system and learn how to correct problems like the ones you are talking about (assuming there is a database like the Medicare one).

 

[ProfMD]

Single payer sounds great in theory, but you may end up with an income cap like Canada has. After you reach a certain aggregate limit with your billed services, you can no longer bill for that year!!!! Incentivizes the doctor to see less patients.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I'm curious where you got this info. I know quite a few Canadian doctors and they are certainly not hurting financially. Also, they certainly are not disincentived from seeing patients - several of them work harder than my colleagues in the US.

 

[673441]

I'm curious where you got this info. I know quite a few Canadian doctors and they are certainly not hurting financially. Also, they certainly are not disincentived from seeing patients - several of them work harder than my colleagues in the US.

This article compares the US:Canadian physician salaries

https://www.google.com/amp/news.nat...atically-less-than-u-s-counterparts-study/amp

This is a story about a doctor who over billed OHIP

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...illing-doctor-charged-ohip-66m-last-year.html

The take home here is, Canadian med students don't have a loan program as heavily subsidized as the US to finance your education. Most elect to pay with private loans which have less lax terms. Their projected income is 1/2 of an American physician. Their salaries are all but set in stone regardless of speciality. Now, if they had completely free education, then I'd say it evens out a bit. But to put an income cap on the earning potential of a physician seems like a bit of an overreach, don't ya think?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[ProfMD]

This article compares the US:Canadian physician salaries

https://www.google.com/amp/news.nat...atically-less-than-u-s-counterparts-study/amp

This is a story about a doctor who over billed OHIP

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...illing-doctor-charged-ohip-66m-last-year.html

The take home here is, Canadian med students don't have a loan program as heavily subsidized as the US to finance your education. Most elect to pay with private loans which have less lax terms. Their projected income is 1/2 of an American physician. Their salaries are all but set in stone regardless of speciality. Now, if they had completely free education, then I'd say it evens out a bit. But to put an income cap on the earning potential of a physician seems like a bit of an overreach, don't ya think?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

So, to be fair, physician income in Canada is less than in the US, but it is not capped, as you suggested. Also, the story is a bit more muddled depending on whether a physician is hospital based (low overhead) or office based (higher overhead). Also, many physicians in Canada incorporate, thus lowering their tax burden.

How much are Canadian doctors paid? - The Globe and Mail

Also, Canadian medical schools are much cheaper than those in the US.

https://afmc.ca/node/256

I am not suggesting that the Canadian system could be imported to the US - there are many reasons it could not be done easily. However, the Canadian system is also not a dumpster fire like many Americans seem to think it is.

 

[Bada Ba Baba]

You guys, ObamaCare is more than just the doctor's incomes, it's also about the preventative services it provides at no costs to patients.

 

[673441]

You guys, ObamaCare is more than just the doctor's incomes, it's also about the preventative services it provides at no costs to patients.

Ya, at the expense of spending money that the USFG doesn't have... OR quite possibly at the expense of the doctor losing on every preventative test he performs so he has to fire that NP in his office to get ahead.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[673441]

So, to be fair, physician income in Canada is less than in the US, but it is not capped, as you suggested. Also, the story is a bit more muddled depending on whether a physician is hospital based (low overhead) or office based (higher overhead). Also, many physicians in Canada incorporate, thus lowering their tax burden.

How much are Canadian doctors paid? - The Globe and Mail

Also, Canadian medical schools are much cheaper than those in the US.

https://afmc.ca/node/256

I am not suggesting that the Canadian system could be imported to the US - there are many reasons it could not be done easily. However, the Canadian system is also not a dumpster fire like many Americans seem to think it is.

Ya, but the AAMC includes the states and many Canadian students venture into the states for their medical education. Many of my friends financed their education with Sallie-MAE loans.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You guys, ObamaCare is more than just the doctor's incomes, it's also about the preventative services it provides at no costs to patients.

The vast majority of preventative care that it provides is incredibly cheap and doesn't need to be free to the patient.