Who is better for Pathologists: Romney or Obama

[Unty]

Pardon my ignorance but who is better for pathologists and physicians? Romney or Obama? I am thinking the former but can someone break it down for me why? There are these ACOs I have been hearing about as well.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mlw03]

This could get ugly...

 

[deleted103644]

Whoever is most likely to bring the zombie apocalypse.

Then pathologists will be the main providers of primary care.

 

[pathstudent]

It's mixed.

Romney likely would want to make medicare smaller which would impact payments to pathologists which would could lower pathologists income, but he will keep taxes low.

Pathologists and Docs in general make money from billing insurance. If Obama gets everyone insured with reimbursements similar to now that would be good. But at the same time Obama is likely against physicians making 300k a year or more and in general his ideal is one of wealth redistrubution, which makes physicians an easy target and other professionals that have to grind it out to make a good living (lawyers, dentists, architects, etc...) an easy target. Plus Obama obviously feels us "millionaires" making 200k should pay much higher taxes to support the 99%,

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Physicians are gonna end up hospital employees regardless so it probably doesnt matter.

Which president could prevent the US from turning into a Mad Max movie is the question.

 

[bauber]

Why is the primary concern always money and amassing wealth?

 

[scienceguy19]

One of Romney's sons is a doctor so probably he wouldn't completely screw over doctors.

 

[lipomas]

I think both of them suck because neither has a credible plan for deficit reduction, for reversing the inequality in wealth distribution, or for in general dealing with any complicated problem.

Obama thinks you can save everything by raising taxes on the wealthy and perhaps by cutting payments to doctors and hospitals. Not a good idea - if you cut reimbursement you drastically cut money that goes to anyone who works in healthcare. These people also spend money, which they won't have.

Romney thinks you can just ignore everything, cut taxes, and it will get better on its own (apparently). The number of uninsured will continue to rise, medicare will essentially fail, and medicaid will cease to exist. The burden will be left to health care providers and the uninsured themselves. Doctors who are very close to retirement age, however, will make out just fine.

Nobody has a credible plan for anything except getting reelected. Americans need to stop being such sheep and falling for this crap. People vote for the politicians who say what they want to hear, even if what the politician is saying makes no logical sense. We can cut taxes, preserve medicare spending, and help small businesses grow and proliferate, and the deficit will also go down! NO WE CAN'T.

Just once I want to hear a politician get up there and say, "well, currently we are spending about 40% more than we are taking in as a country this year, despite the fact that people think taxes are still too high. Medicare is unsustainable in its current form. We cannot solve this problem by increasing marginal tax rates on millionaires by 5% and cutting funding for food stamps, NPR, and foreign aid to Africa. We need a radical change to the tax code which limits deductions and loopholes as a way to increase federal revenue. And most importantly, we need to stop listening to lobbyists and political mouthpieces who claim to speak for 'the american people.' The american people are not of uniform opinion on nearly anything except perhaps the fact that our political leadership sucks."

 

[deleted314957]

I think both of them suck because neither has a credible plan for deficit reduction, for reversing the inequality in wealth distribution, or for in general dealing with any complicated problem.

Obama thinks you can save everything by raising taxes on the wealthy and perhaps by cutting payments to doctors and hospitals. Not a good idea - if you cut reimbursement you drastically cut money that goes to anyone who works in healthcare. These people also spend money, which they won't have.

Romney thinks you can just ignore everything, cut taxes, and it will get better on its own (apparently). The number of uninsured will continue to rise, medicare will essentially fail, and medicaid will cease to exist. The burden will be left to health care providers and the uninsured themselves. Doctors who are very close to retirement age, however, will make out just fine.

Nobody has a credible plan for anything except getting reelected. Americans need to stop being such sheep and falling for this crap. People vote for the politicians who say what they want to hear, even if what the politician is saying makes no logical sense. We can cut taxes, preserve medicare spending, and help small businesses grow and proliferate, and the deficit will also go down! NO WE CAN'T.

Just once I want to hear a politician get up there and say, "well, currently we are spending about 40% more than we are taking in as a country this year, despite the fact that people think taxes are still too high. Medicare is unsustainable in its current form. We cannot solve this problem by increasing marginal tax rates on millionaires by 5% and cutting funding for food stamps, NPR, and foreign aid to Africa. We need a radical change to the tax code which limits deductions and loopholes as a way to increase federal revenue. And most importantly, we need to stop listening to lobbyists and political mouthpieces who claim to speak for 'the american people.' The american people are not of uniform opinion on nearly anything except perhaps the fact that our political leadership sucks."

I'm sure this is a "hot button" but wealth is not "distributed'----it is earned.

 

[scienceguy19]

obama might be worse for medical malpractice

Trial Lawyer Expects Medical Malpractice Claims to Increase Under Obamacar


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tri...l-malpractice-claims-increase-under-obamacare

 

[Arctic Char]

Why is the primary concern always money and amassing wealth?

we're all trying to make a living. that's why. if medicine was all about benevolence and altruism, we wouldn't bury our physicians under thousands of dollars of debt. when you graduate, and see that principle on your students loans (if you're amongst the paying sub-population), you will understand. its not about wealth necessarily, its about being adequately reimbursed for the service you provide

 

[Enkidu]

I'm sure this is a "hot button" but wealth is not "distributed'----it is earned.

Not generally. People born poor tend to stay poor, while people born wealthy are given the opportunities to amass power. Hereditary wealth and poverty are huge social justice issues, I think.

 

[DrAwsome]

Not generally. People born poor tend to stay poor, while people born wealthy are given the opportunities to amass power. Hereditary wealth and poverty are huge social justice issues, I think.

While it is a huge blessing and certainly it gives you an advantage to grow up in wealth, a lot of the poor choose to not do much with their lives. It is not that hard in this country to live a decent life with a little bit of work. As an immigrant who came from another country with my family with 6 suitcases and nothing else, I can assure you that. Even though my parents were both professionals, we had to leave everything and start from scratch. It's doable. Lots of people are simply entitled.

 

[pathstudent]

Not generally. People born poor tend to stay poor, while people born wealthy are given the opportunities to amass power. Hereditary wealth and poverty are huge social justice issues, I think.

That's fine go after the Kennedy's, The Kerry's , The Pelosi's, The Clintons, etc... who have amassed 9 figure fortunes. Take whatever you want from them and give it to whoever you want.

Don't villianize those of us who middle class raised kids who now grind it out 50-60 hours a week after 10 years of specialized training and tons of debt and call us millionaires for earning 200k for "not paying our fair share" just so you can get re-elected.

By the way, 91% of all "millionaires" grew up middle class or lower. So when you talk about hereditary wealth, you are talking about almost nobody.

 

[Enkidu]

While it is a huge blessing and certainly it gives you an advantage to grow up in wealth, a lot of the poor choose to not do much with their lives. It is not that hard in this country to live a decent life with a little bit of work. As an immigrant who came from another country with my family with 6 suitcases and nothing else, I can assure you that. Even though my parents were both professionals, we had to leave everything and start from scratch. It's doable. Lots of people are simply entitled.

Good points, but the situation is convoluted. Part of growing up in poverty relates to social issues like addiction and abuse, and often these social problems result in poor outcomes in education.

I don't think that entitlement is a very good explanation of poverty, more likely it's a result of poverty and perceived (or real) lack of options.

This is a vastly different situation from that of two professionals starting from scratch in a new country, although that is definitely admirable.

 

[Enkidu]

That's fine go after the Kennedy's, The Kerry's , The Pelosi's, The Clintons, etc... who have amassed 9 figure fortunes. Take whatever you want from them and give it to whoever you want.

Don't villianize those of us who middle class raised kids who now grind it out 50-60 hours a week after 10 years of specialized training and tons of debt and call us millionaires for earning 200k for "not paying our fair share" just so you can get re-elected.

By the way, 91% of all "millionaires" grew up middle class or lower. So when you talk about hereditary wealth, you are talking about almost nobody.

Well I'm not sure that I villianized anyone, particularly not the class that I myself am trying to join. But raising taxes on people above 250K is pretty reasonable, since they are currently the lowest that they've been in generations and the result has not been particularly stimulating to our economy.

In reality, I don't think regular income has been particularly villianized in this election at all, but low-tax income from capital gains and high-end tax loopholes have been (e.g. The "buffet rule"). Since these high-end tax breaks more likely reflect the lobbying power of the financial industry, they seem like good targets to reduce the deficit.

As for 91% of millionaires growing up middle class, that's an interesting statistic. But presumably the children of that 91% of self-made millionaires will themselves be in the upper class (through privilege if not through inheritance), so that would describe a pretty exponential increase in the upper class, which is the exact opposite of what is actually observed.

I think that the Kennedy's are definitely emblematic of the problem, along with the Bush's. It's not right that being born into a wealthy connected family should result result in the accumulation of so much political power. Although I don't see this in the Clinton's. Is Chelsea running for office or something?

 

[Torsed]

Not generally. People born poor tend to stay poor, while people born wealthy are given the opportunities to amass power. Hereditary wealth and poverty are huge social justice issues, I think.

Gotta be rich to think like that in the first place.

 

[Enkidu]

Gotta be rich to think like that in the first place.

Are you suggesting that I may be secretly rich?

But people who are born into wealth are probably generally defective. They defy our capitalist ethic that people receive the fruit of their labor. Ironically I think that entitlement is a bit more characteristic of the wealthy than the poor. The poor may feel entitled to basic survival, but not to the presidency, generally.

As for the position of pathologists in all this... I predict that they will do better under Obama. Increased number of insured patients means more jobs. Tax increase back to the Clinton levels is not that profound or unwise, given our current deficit.

 

[scienceguy19]

i guess us rich pathologists who are making 250,000 will be paying higher taxes.

 

[Enkidu]

i guess us rich pathologists who are making 250,000 will be paying higher taxes.

Is it worth the trade off to improve the job market at the cost of a few percentage points higher in taxes?

I guess from the perspective of a medical student trying to go into pathology it is.

 

[cjw0918]

"Just once I want to hear a politician get up there and say, "well, currently we are spending about 40% more than we are taking in as a country this year, despite the fact that people think taxes are still too high. Medicare is unsustainable in its current form. We cannot solve this problem by increasing marginal tax rates on millionaires by 5% and cutting funding for food stamps, NPR, and foreign aid to Africa. We need a radical change to the tax code which limits deductions and loopholes as a way to increase federal revenue. And most importantly, we need to stop listening to lobbyists and political mouthpieces who claim to speak for 'the american people.' The american people are not of uniform opinion on nearly anything except perhaps the fact that our political leadership sucks."

I like this. I might vote for you, Lipomas.

 

[lipomas]

I'm sure this is a "hot button" but wealth is not "distributed'----it is earned.

Says who? It is technically earned for the most part but the level of earning depends on so many variables that it is essentially distributed as well. Earning even in exclusively private sector positions depends on many many things that the government does, some are passive and some are active.

If you work in a research lab funded by government money, did you earn that or was it distrbuted to you? I would posit the latter. What if you practice sees almost entirely medicare patients? What if you build a fighter jet for the defense department and charge exorbitant rates for it, which is all paid by tax dollars? What if you're a banker who sells mortgages which are more freely available because the government lowers central interest rates?

And if your wealth is taxed through taxes on your investment income, who earned that? What did it go pay for?

 

[LADoc00]

A second Obama admin would likely end pathology as we understand it today. A HUGE portion of his Obamacare doctrine is massive specialist provider cuts and a redistribution to primary care.

A few things could happen:
1.) Pathology is reduced to a sort of technical school trade or something akin to nursing midwifery, this would be 20+ years down the road
2.) End of all private practice, this is an absolutely definite prospect with full Obamacare implementation
3.) A complete breakdown of fee for service in general, another highly likely possibility with Obama 2016.

 

[lipomas]

I think things will be essentially exactly the same if either is elected.

Obamacare is a huge wasteful boondoggle but is is essentially settled law. Romney is not going to overturn it while keeping certain parts, whatever that even means.

There is going to have to be further reform but this is probably not going to happen for 5-10 years, meanwhile healthcare spending will continue to explode and no one will do anything about it, except maybe more cuts to physician fees. This will happen if Romney wins too. IF romney wins however the federal debt is likely to get even worse because republicans have ZERO credibility on deficit issues. They will try to cut taxes and increase military spending and maintain healthcare. That will make future changes worse. I'm going to just try to save my money and hope the economy improves so more people have healthcare.

 

[scienceguy19]

With 50% cuts to 88305 reimbursement to pathology, which president is going to bail pathology out??

 

[scienceguy19]

I guess Obama might be better for pathologists, because he will provide us food stamps when we are out of jobs

 

[2121115]

With 50% cuts to 88305 reimbursement to pathology, which president is going to bail pathology out??

It is not a 50% cut, it is 50% to the TC and a 2% update to the PC. Overall if you bill global you will get a 33% reduction.

 

[scienceguy19]

33% reduction instead of 50% reduction. sigh of relief.

 

[2121115]

33% reduction instead of 50% reduction. sigh of relief.

The difference between 33% and 52% is a lot of $$$.

Sure it isn't ideal, but it could be worse. The only people getting a 52% cut are TC-only billers, namely in office labs and hospitals who have an arrangement where they keep the TC and their pathologists keep the PC. This is a concession, but we had to give up something, and this was the least worst option.

 

[scienceguy19]

And what's preventing office labs and hospital labs to take a cut of the PC payment, when the TC payment has been reduced 52%?

The difference between 33% and 52% is a lot of $$$.

Sure it isn't ideal, but it could be worse. The only people getting a 52% cut are TC-only billers, namely in office labs and hospitals who have an arrangement where they keep the TC and their pathologists keep the PC. This is a concession, but we had to give up something, and this was the least worst option.