What so you think about what California is doing?

[viper2fast505]

The plan, which Schwarzenegger estimated would cost $12 billion, calls for many employers that do not offer health insurance to contribute to a fund that would help pay for coverage of the working uninsured. It would also require doctors to pay 2 percent and hospitals 4 percent of their revenues to help cover higher reimbursements for those who treat patients enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program.

This would make me not want to treat those with Medicaid? If i understand this right.

ps sorry for the subject now I cant fix it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dopaminesurge]

The plan, which Schwarzenegger estimated would cost $12 billion, calls for many employers that do not offer health insurance to contribute to a fund that would help pay for coverage of the working uninsured. It would also require doctors to pay 2 percent and hospitals 4 percent of their revenues to help cover higher reimbursements for those who treat patients enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program.

This would make me not want to treat those with Medicaid? If i understand this right.

ps sorry for the subject now I cant fix it.

Yeah, I've been looking for the original document. To whom does this pertain? Residents? Citizens? All inhabitants?

 

[viper2fast505]

I used yahoo to find it on some news website. I think it is for the whole state every resident, and because its california the nation will look at how this works very closely.

 

[maestro1625]

watching CBS news now... sounds similar to Mass... though a bit less organized... and that's saying a lot.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

I'm not so sure I'm digging that approach.

Definitely something to think about. Med school interviewers love to pull current headlines for questions.

 

[Davjc2009]

This would probably crush a lot of small businesses.

Make a lot of doctors resentful.

 

[maestro1625]

This would probably crush a lot of small businesses.

Make a lot of doctors resentful.

life would be a lot easier if the SCOTUS hadn't struck down the "wal-mart" bills.

(at least I think it was the SC).

 

[FenderHM]

hmm now hospitals that are already at 0% income/expenses are going to be at -4%... they'll have to start cutting corners on medical care to make ends meet..but at least everyone will be covered? seems like poor city hospitals that mostly serve these underpriviledged people will be hit hard, unless the new insurance helps to offset the cost of free ER care for people who otherwise wouldnt have insurance.. .

I dunno if anyone has a good link w/ all the facts of the proposal please PM me

 

[wolfram241]

FYI, there's an entire SDN forum for you guys to fawn over socialized health care.

 

[viper2fast505]

I really hope this never gets anywhere. Our medical system is not perfect but its not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. the simple fact is medicine is expensive and the money has to come from somewhere. I dont think as a future doctor I am greedy nothing like that but with insurance only paying a certain percent of the bill and then having to pay the state more money on top of taxes that I am sure are a lot (dont know for sure no one in my family makes even close to what a doctor makes). But they will have to pay for my studant loans or something if this medical plan becomes national.

 

[kypdurron5]

The plan, which Schwarzenegger estimated would cost $12 billion, calls for many employers that do not offer health insurance to contribute to a fund that would help pay for coverage of the working uninsured. It would also require doctors to pay 2 percent and hospitals 4 percent of their revenues to help cover higher reimbursements for those who treat patients enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program.

This would make me not want to treat those with Medicaid? If i understand this right.

ps sorry for the subject now I cant fix it.

California is one of the craziest states when it comes to healthcare in general. I have personally worked for two companies in the insurance industry that had to spin off a separate division just to handle the complexities of California healthcare law. Here's a fun fact...between FMLA/CFRA/CAPFL/and PDLL pregnant women can potentially take up to 6 months off work for the birth of a child, some of which is paid for by the state and all of which requires that the company hold the job open. It's so much more socialistic than the rest of the nation, but then again, it can afford to be >). It's a great thing for people who need it, but it obviously has its (extremely high) costs.

 

[BellyDancingDoc]

Here's a fun fact...between FMLA/CFRA/CAPFL/and PDLL pregnant women can potentially take up to 6 months off work for the birth of a child, some of which is paid for by the state and all of which requires that the company hold the job open.

Hmmm, note to self:
1) get Cali residency
2) promptly get knocked up
3) enjoy 6 month break after intern year

 

[SoCuteMD]

Hmmm, note to self:
1) get Cali residency
2) promptly get knocked up
3) enjoy 6 month break after intern year

Ours is one profession that is different. Although you could still have all the time mandated by law, if you are absent from your "post" at the hospital for more than a certain number of consecutive days (varies from 28 to about 60 from what I understand) that year of training no longer counts toward your eligibility toward the specialty boards, so you have to redo the year. Yeah....not so much fun.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

This would make me not want to treat those with Medicaid?

I don't think anyone WANTS to treat people you are being underpaid to see, but most do it anyway.

But I agree, this is just one more reason to not practice in California. The only way I would support socialized medicine is if it increased my salary significantly.

 

[BellyDancingDoc]

Ours is one profession that is different. Although you could still have all the time mandated by law, if you are absent from your "post" at the hospital for more than a certain number of consecutive days (varies from 28 to about 60 from what I understand) that year of training no longer counts toward your eligibility toward the specialty boards, so you have to redo the year. Yeah....not so much fun.

Doh!

 

[maestro1625]

I don't think anyone WANTS to treat people you are being underpaid to see, but most do it anyway.

But I agree, this is just one more reason to not practice in California. The only way I would support socialized medicine is if it increased my salary significantly.

strangely enough, in certain regions, it just might. Of course places like where I live where the only industry is on its deathbed are kinda rare.

 

[deleted103644]

Maybe I was mistaken, but I thought the policy was that only doctors who pay the 2% can get the higher reimbursements from patients, whereas those who do not would get the original rates, so depending on the difference doctors might stand to make more money by treating MediCal patients.

 

[dutchman]

If you read that piece of crap carefully, you will see that doctors are about to get screwed big time. First you give up 2% of your income, then the hospital will adjust your pay to cover their 4% loss.Fellows this is the beginning of the end, because California will provide a blueprint for the Universal healthcare(paid for by doctors and hospitals) for the entire nation.

 

[Nomemory]

the simple fact is medicine is expensive and the money has to come from somewhere.

Well put.

 

[Tired]

I don't think anyone WANTS to treat people you are being underpaid to see, but most do it anyway.

And I think the reason they do it is that they can make up the difference off of their patients with good insurance. It's a balance. On the one hand, no doc wants to turn down any patient who comes to them, but on the other hand, they still have to come out in the black at the end of the year.

Let me offer an alternative interpretation of the Cali plan: As it stands, there are many patients who recieve medical care with zero insurance, and who never pay the bill. Thus physicians have a population they get no payment from. By providing them some sort of insurance, the state may get some money to doctors (albeit an underpayment) for patients they would otherwise recieve zero compensation for treating.

I have no idea if this is true, but I would be curious to hear the rationale of folks who think this idea is nonsense.

 

[dutchman]

If this medi-cal thing goes national you guys will wish you never used the words MCAT or medschool.

 

[maestro1625]

If you read that piece of crap carefully, you will see that doctors are about to get screwed big time. First you give up 2% of your income, then the hospital will adjust your pay to cover their 4% loss.Fellows this is the beginning of the end, because California will provide a blueprint for the Universal healthcare(paid for by doctors and hospitals) for the entire nation.

and somehow you'll still live comfortably. If you're in this for the money, you're gonna get a wakeup call eventually.

 

[maestro1625]

If this medi-cal thing goes national you guys will wish you never used the words MCAT or medschool.

overreact much?

 

[xcgirl]

hmm now hospitals that are already at 0% income/expenses are going to be at -4%...

The reason that they're "taking away" revenues from hospitals is that they're not actually taking those revenues away. As it currently stands, those hospitals are eating tons of money for treating the uninsured. By giving insurance to the uninsured, the hospitals will be reimbursed for their services. I don't know for sure, but I believe that charging the hospitals 4% is pennies compared (at least for some hospitals, especially large ones located in poorer areas) to what the uninsured are currently costing them.
As it currently stands, SOME hospitals are given funds to cover their high uninsured patient population, but those tend to be only larger tertiary care centers. The smaller hospitals get screwed over.

As far as this "killing businesses," first of all it only applies to businesses with 10 or more workers, and in addition, they have options as to what they want to do (employers can pay into a fund for all uninsured workers and employees can buy insurance on a sliding scale plan).

While many people are screaming "socialized medicine," the reality is that it's universal healthcare, not socialized medicine. People are able to chose what sort of plan they want, and doctors can still chose who they wish to treat.

The NYTimes has a good article that explains everything pretty well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/us/09calif.html?em&ex=1168491600&en=33ba82e108a65f53&ei=5087

 

[xcgirl]

If you read that piece of crap carefully, you will see that doctors are about to get screwed big time. First you give up 2% of your income, then the hospital will adjust your pay to cover their 4% loss.Fellows this is the beginning of the end, because California will provide a blueprint for the Universal healthcare(paid for by doctors and hospitals) for the entire nation.

If you read that "piece of crap" carefully you will see that they are INCREASING reimbursements by $4 billion... then taxing the doctors to pay for that. I don't know the numbers on that, but it sounds like it'd come out to something close to even?

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

But the state would tax doctors 2 percent of their total revenues, and hospitals 4 percent, to help pay for the greater reimbursement.

2%....on REVENUES? Not profit, but ****ing revenues?!!!!

Arnold, what were you thinking...

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

The reason that they're "taking away" revenues from hospitals is that they're not actually taking those revenues away. As it currently stands, those hospitals are eating tons of money for treating the uninsured. By giving insurance to the uninsured, the hospitals will be reimbursed for their services. I don't know for sure, but I believe that charging the hospitals 4% is pennies compared (at least for some hospitals, especially large ones located in poorer areas) to what the uninsured are currently costing them.
As it currently stands, SOME hospitals are given funds to cover their high uninsured patient population, but those tend to be only larger tertiary care centers. The smaller hospitals get screwed over.

As far as this "killing businesses," first of all it only applies to businesses with 10 or more workers, and in addition, they have options as to what they want to do (employers can pay into a fund for all uninsured workers and employees can buy insurance on a sliding scale plan).

While many people are screaming "socialized medicine," the reality is that it's universal healthcare, not socialized medicine. People are able to chose what sort of plan they want, and doctors can still chose who they wish to treat.

The NYTimes has a good article that explains everything pretty well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/us/09calif.html?em&ex=1168491600&en=33ba82e108a65f53&ei=5087

Socialism is where government controls the means of production and distribution. This is socialized medicine.

We need to start listening to the other superstar California Governor.
http://texasbestgrok.mu.nu/archives/038360.php

 

[tp709]

I find it interesting that everyone has failed to comment (or care) on the one good thing that will come out of this: 6.5 people who couldn't previously afford it will now have access to healthcare. I find it ridiculous that among the industrialized nations (and also considering how rich we are) that we have the highest number of uninsured patients. I think its a disgrace, personally, that out of the 45 million people who are without insurance, currently 1/4 of them are children. At least I'll sleep better at night.

If you're going to whine about your salary, then go into another profession, or better yet, go focus on the thievery going on in the malpractice world, which is eating at doctor's paychecks.

 

[xcgirl]

I find it interesting that everyone has failed to comment (or care) on the one good thing that will come out of this: 6.5 people who couldn't previously afford it will now have access to healthcare. I find it ridiculous that among the industrialized nations (and also considering how rich we are) that we have the highest number of uninsured patients. I think its a disgrace, personally, that out of the 45 million people who are without insurance, currently 1/4 of them are children. At least I'll sleep better at night.

Thank you
I was too busy yelling at people to say this...

 

[dutchman]

and somehow you'll still live comfortably. If you're in this for the money, you're gonna get a wakeup call eventually.

There goes that bull**** that you selfrighteous slow thinkers like to spill. The politicians(who BTW just voted to get a raise) are counting on sheepish/naive attitudes like this from all "brains" no "common sense" doctors.

 

[dutchman]

If you read that "piece of crap" carefully you will see that they are INCREASING reimbursements by $4 billion... then taxing the doctors to pay for that. I don't know the numbers on that, but it sounds like it'd come out to something close to even?

My genius friend, while you don't know the numbers on the plus side we are very sure of what the -ve is(2% of revenue). You will not come out close to even because you remember that 4% hospitals have to eat? Guess who is going to pay to cushion that loss? You the unsuspecting "I like to justify my own paycut" doctor.

 

[riceman04]

Yeah, I've been looking for the original document. To whom does this pertain? Residents? Citizens? All inhabitants?

supposedly all inhabitants of Cali.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

supposedly all inhabitants of Cali.

Except the massive numbers of illegals who pay no taxes as it stands.

 

[xcgirl]

My genius friend, while you don't know the numbers on the plus side we are very sure of what the -ve is(2% of revenue). You will not come out close to even because you remember that 4% hospitals have to eat? Guess who is going to pay to cushion that loss? You the unsuspecting "I like to justify my own paycut" doctor.

first of all it's not that much of a paycut. second of all, people will likely be visiting doctors more frequently for preventative care/mental health care as they will now have the means to pay for it.
As a doctor, I'm going to earn far more than my parents earn right now, and we live fine on that. I think that most doctors certainly deserve to have high salaries, but to me it's far more important that everyone has access to healthcare.

 

[tp709]

Except the massive numbers of illegals who pay no taxes as it stands.

I think there is some sort of consideration in his plan for illegals (they will not by any means be eligible for this insurance), but it will likely be shot down.
But yea, it will only help taxpayers.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Except the massive numbers of illegals who pay no taxes as it stands.

I've got it! We round up the illegals, rent them out to Halliburton to help rebuild Iraq and use that money to raise physician salaries. No....wait. I mean "provide healthcare access for all the currently uninsured". Yeah.....that's what I meant.

Not to mention, for those that survive their stint in Iraq, and somehow find a way home, will suddenly have a new appreciation for Mexico not being so bad after all. I mean when was the last time an IED exploded in Guadelajara?

 

[tp709]

first of all it's not that much of a paycut. second of all, people will likely be visiting doctors more frequently for preventative care/mental health care as they will now have the means to pay for it.
As a doctor, I'm going to earn far more than my parents earn right now, and we live fine on that. I think that most doctors certainly deserve to have high salaries, but to me it's far more important that everyone has access to healthcare.

Yes. If my primary concern was my pocketbook, then I'd become a banker (some of my recently-graduated friends are already well over the $100k mark), but treating patients and providing healthcare equitably when it is well within our means as a nation, and when we have the most advanced treatments is much more important to me.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Yes. If my primary concern was my pocketbook, then I'd become a banker (some of my recently-graduated friends are already well over the $100k mark), but treating patients and providing healthcare equitably when it is well within our means as a nation, and when we have the most advanced treatments is much more important to me.

I'm in it to make a living while being challenged; anything else is secondary and if I can improve people's lives while I'm at it, all the better. However I will NOT do or even support something that I know is going to lower my income. Its not like these people are not getting treatment already.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

I'm in it to make a living while being challenged; anything else is secondary and if I can improve people's lives while I'm at it, all the better. However I will NOT do or even support something that I know is going to lower my income. Its not like these people are not getting treatment already.

Exactly. Why do they feel the need to force their values on others? They can take 2% of their revenues right now and help start a community free clinic. Instead, they want to take 2% of everybody's money and throw it down the sinkhole known as socialized medicine.

 

[maestro1625]

My genius friend, while you don't know the numbers on the plus side we are very sure of what the -ve is(2% of revenue). You will not come out close to even because you remember that 4% hospitals have to eat? Guess who is going to pay to cushion that loss? You the unsuspecting "I like to justify my own paycut" doctor.

I know what you mean man! after the passage of Chapter 58, Massachusetts doesnt have a single doctor left!

 

[dutchman]

Yes. If my primary concern was my pocketbook, then I'd become a banker (some of my recently-graduated friends are already well over the $100k mark), but treating patients and providing healthcare equitably when it is well within our means as a nation, and when we have the most advanced treatments is much more important to me.

If all the selfrighteous doctors out there that say they don't need money had just voluteered to treat these uninsured for free, maybe we won't need this paycut.

 

[maestro1625]

If all the selfrighteous doctors out there that say they don't need money had just voluteered to treat these uninsured for free, maybe we won't need this paycut.

why yes, if it were only the doctor's salary that was in play here, you wouldn't look like an idiot with your overreaction.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

If all the selfrighteous doctors out there that say they don't need money had just voluteered to treat these uninsured for free, maybe we won't need this paycut.

It's because maybe 0.5% of docs actually care enough to do that with any regularity. Most lose that drive the moment they matriculate, if not as soon as they have an acceptance letter in hand.

 

[tp709]

If all the selfrighteous doctors out there that say they don't need money had just voluteered to treat these uninsured for free, maybe we won't need this paycut.

wtf why should they have to suffer and work without a paycheck? if you have such a problem with it, then you go volunteer so your precious salary won't lose its 2%.

 

[dutchman]

why yes, if it were only the doctor's salary that was in play here, you wouldn't look like an idiot with your overreaction.

I will like to be your employer. You seem to have that natural "bent over" posture, and I bet I will enjoy the humping.

 

[maestro1625]

I will like to be your employer. You seem to have that natural "bent over" posture, and I bet I will enjoy the humping.

why yes lets give a non-civil response to my criticism of your economic shortsightedness. that should work quite well

but hey, You and I both know that universal health insurance is going to happen eventually... the question now becomes: Why the hell are YOU still here fighting a losing battle?

after all, you're the one who said that we'd all regret our career decisions above.

(and no, I dont expect you to give a mature response to this)

 

[Tired]

If all the selfrighteous doctors out there that say they don't need money had just voluteered to treat these uninsured for free, maybe we won't need this paycut.

In a perfect world, everyone would have their insurance carrier tatooed on their forehead. That way when they landed in the trauma bay after a car accident, dutchman could sort out right away whether to treat them or walk out and go watch TV . . .

 

[DropkickMurphy]

I will like to be your employer. You seem to have that natural "bent over" posture, and I bet I will enjoy the humping.

 

[riceman04]

Except the massive numbers of illegals who pay no taxes as it stands.

No actually he says that it is meant to cover EVERYONE...that is one of the controversial components of his plan!!

 

[hye345]

No actually he says that it is meant to cover EVERYONE...that is one of the controversial components of his plan!!

This is corrent; I heard on the Glenn Beck Program that this program will cover everyone, whether or not they are here legally.