Didn't Bill Clinton offer bribes to medical schools to limit the number of students enrolling? And doesn't a doctor shortage keep doctors' incomes higher than they would be if there were more competition? And doesn't that contribute to the high cost of medical care?
-- Cheers, Bev ======================================================================= "Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people who pissed me off."
> Didn't Bill Clinton offer bribes to medical schools to limit the number of > students enrolling? And doesn't a doctor shortage keep doctors' incomes higher > than they would be if there were more competition? And doesn't that contribute > to the high cost of medical care?
> -- > Cheers, Bev > ======================================================================= > "Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, > the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the > bodies of the people who pissed me off."
Can't really argue with your points, Bev. But I'm not so sure there is as critical a shortage of doctors as this article would have one believe. It is the Washington Post, after all. There are certainly shortages in some parts of the country. But I think that has more to do with geography and economics, than the numbers being turned out by the medical schools. Obviously, given the current medical care "reform" climate, more would be better.
I live in a mid-sized city. Out state university hospital is the network provider for my health care plan. There doesn't appear to be a shortage of interns and residents (or nurses and technicians for that matter) there. And on the rare occasion we've needed specialty care, our wait has never been more than a couple of weeks. As to primary car physicians: last year ours relocated her practice inconveniently far away. A quick visit to out plans web site, a quick phone call, and a new patient visit three days later, and we were up and running. Will things change? Maybe. For now I see nothing that needs fixing.
>>Didn't Bill Clinton offer bribes to medical schools to limit the number of >>students enrolling? And doesn't a doctor shortage keep doctors' incomes higher >>than they would be if there were more competition? And doesn't that contribute >>to the high cost of medical care?
>>-- >>Cheers, Bev >>======================================================================= >>"Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, >> the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the >> bodies of the people who pissed me off."
>Can't really argue with your points, Bev. But I'm not so sure there >is as critical a shortage of doctors as this article would have one >believe. It is the Washington Post, after all. There are certainly >shortages in some parts of the country. But I think that has more to >do with geography and economics, than the numbers being turned out by >the medical schools. Obviously, given the current medical care >"reform" climate, more would be better.
Although I'm not aware of shortages in this area, I am aware that many will not take on new patients. Some just don't want to deal with medicare & select insurers.
> http://tinyurl.com/yefvczh > (AP article from Washington Post) > Didn't Bill Clinton offer bribes to medical schools to limit the number of students enrolling?
Nope.
> And doesn't a doctor shortage keep doctors' incomes higher than they would be if there were more competition?
Yes, but there is no doctor shortage.
> And doesn't that contribute to the high cost of medical care?
>> Didn't Bill Clinton offer bribes to medical schools to limit the >> number of students enrolling?
> I have never heard that. So, did he?
News item, and then nothing. It doesn't sound unreasonable, does it? The AMA is just a high-class union, dedicated to enriching its members. Unions traditionally support the Democrats.
-- Cheers, Bev *************************************************************** When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb.
>> Didn't Bill Clinton offer bribes to medical schools to limit the number of >> students enrolling?
> Nope.
You sure about that?
>> And doesn't a doctor shortage keep doctors' incomes higher than they would >> be if there were more competition?
> Yes, but there is no doctor shortage.
>> And doesn't that contribute to the high cost of medical care?
> Nope, because there is no doctor shortage.
It took me two months to get an appointment with my ophthalmologist, and then she had to cancel because the tech who does the field tests got sick. Another 1.5 months. My GP only took a month, but I had to go back because SOMEBODY lost my blood and pee. I got in to see the new orthopedist in 2 weeks, and he schedules surgery 3 weeks in advance. I got there 15 minutes early for my 9:30 appointment and I didn't actually see him until 10:30, although I did have an x-ray in the interim.
A month is typical lead time for an appointmen, and a doc told me (in strict confidence, of course) that if the patient was out the door within an hour of the nominal appointment time it was regarded as "on time". I looked at a gastroenterologist's appointment book once -- he had 4 patients scheduled for each 15 minutes.
If there were more doctors they would neither have to do nor get away with shit like that.
-- Cheers, Bev *************************************************************** When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb.
> > Although I'm not aware of shortages in this area, I am aware that many > will not take on new patients. Some just don't want to deal with > medicare & select insurers.
There are two sides to the story.
I can tell you what the biller at the doctor's office I work at (a specialty practice that gets patients by referral only, not a primary care provider) says about Medicare -- if your claim is not 100% technically accurate and 100% photogenically perfect (e.g., if your printer doesn't print text totally within their OCR boxes), they reject your claim out of hand and you are not allowed to correct it and resubmit.
Some popular insurance companies in our area will not let us join their insurance group.
Some insurance companies want to low-ball what they will pay in best Walmart mentality and it's not worth our time to take 30-ish percent lower than the typical low-ball fee schedule (we are not taking about Blue Shield rates, but Medicare/Medi-Cal rates) plus hassle with the insurance company about getting payments.
Some insurance companies we are contracted with typically will authorize a procedure until it's done and then will refuse to pay for it, and our biller spends a LOT of time arguing with them trying to get them to pay for the procedure that they said, before it was done, that they would pay for.
As a variation on this theme, some insurance companies we are contracted with will say, "You do not need an authorization for this procedure," when we call for authorization prior to scheduling it, and then after it's done they will refuse to pay for it with the same results as in the previous paragraph.
Some insurance companies we are contracted with will keep claiming they never received the bill that we have proof of their receiving until 3-4 months have passed by, at which time they can change their tune and refuse to pay it because we did not submit it within 90 or 120 days or whatever their limit is.
> > Although I'm not aware of shortages in this area, I am aware that many > > will not take on new patients. Some just don't want to deal with > > medicare & select insurers.
> There are two sides to the story.
> I can tell you what the biller at the doctor's office I work at (a > specialty practice that gets patients by referral only, not a primary > care provider) says about Medicare -- if your claim is not 100% > technically accurate and 100% photogenically perfect (e.g., if your > printer doesn't print text totally within their OCR boxes), they reject > your claim out of hand and you are not allowed to correct it and resubmit.
...etc.
If all that is true I would think it was actionable and that large medical practices who don't sue ought to. Maybe a class action suit with other medical practices. No hungry lawyers to take a piece of the action?
-- Cheers, Bev ======================================================================= "Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people who pissed me off."
> If all that is true I would think it was actionable and that large > medical practices who don't sue ought to. Maybe a class action suit > with other medical practices. No hungry lawyers to take a piece of the > action?
That's a thought... but I am 100% positive the insurance companies have plenty of lawyers to ensure that they have loopholes to fall comfortably into.
I was just trying to say that the insurance companies are not without fault, and the insurance that is run by the federal government is actually one of the biggest offenders. I know there are undoubtedly doctors out there who are just as bad.
>> If all that is true I would think it was actionable and that large >> medical practices who don't sue ought to. Maybe a class action suit >> with other medical practices. No hungry lawyers to take a piece of the >> action?
> That's a thought... but I am 100% positive the insurance companies have > plenty of lawyers to ensure that they have loopholes to fall comfortably > into.
In theory that's the stuff that judges are supposed to sort out. I believe that lawyers need doctors more than doctors need lawyers.
> I was just trying to say that the insurance companies are not without > fault, and the insurance that is run by the federal government is > actually one of the biggest offenders. I know there are undoubtedly > doctors out there who are just as bad.
I don't trust people who make money by NOT providing services :-(
-- Cheers, Bev ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." -- H.S. Thompson
> Bob F wrote >> The Real Bev wrote >>> http://tinyurl.com/yefvczh >>> (AP article from Washington Post) >>> Didn't Bill Clinton offer bribes to medical schools to limit the number of students enrolling? >> I have never heard that. So, did he? > News item, and then nothing.
Which means it was only ever some journalist's lie.
> It doesn't sound unreasonable, does it?
Corse it does, they dont need to be bribed to do that.
> The AMA is just a high-class union, dedicated to enriching its members. Unions traditionally support the Democrats.
> Rod Speed wrote >> The Real Bev wrote >>> http://tinyurl.com/yefvczh (AP article from Washington Post) >>> Didn't Bill Clinton offer bribes to medical schools to limit the number of students enrolling? >> Nope. > You sure about that?
Yep, if it had ever happened, plenty would have howled about it.
>>> And doesn't a doctor shortage keep doctors' incomes higher than they would be if there were more competition? >> Yes, but there is no doctor shortage. >>> And doesn't that contribute to the high cost of medical care? >> Nope, because there is no doctor shortage. > It took me two months to get an appointment with my ophthalmologist, and then she had to cancel because the tech who > does the field tests got sick. Another 1.5 months.
I walked in off the street and got seen straight away.
> My GP only took a month, but I had to go back because SOMEBODY lost my blood and pee.
My GP's practice has someone who can see you the same day.
> I got in to see the new orthopedist in 2 weeks, and he schedules surgery 3 weeks in advance. I got there 15 minutes > early for my 9:30 appointment and I didn't actually see him until 10:30, although I did have an x-ray in the interim. > A month is typical lead time for an appointmen,
Not here it aint.
> and a doc told me (in strict confidence, of course) that if the patient was out the door within an hour of the nominal > appointment time it was regarded as "on time". I looked at a gastroenterologist's appointment book once -- he had 4 > patients scheduled for each 15 minutes.
My GP and cardiologist are nothing like that stupid/gouging.
> If there were more doctors they would neither have to do nor get away with shit like that.
The Real Bev wrote: > Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>> clams_casino wrote:
>> > Although I'm not aware of shortages in this area, I am aware that many >> > will not take on new patients. Some just don't want to deal with >> > medicare & select insurers.
>> There are two sides to the story.
>> I can tell you what the biller at the doctor's office I work at (a >> specialty practice that gets patients by referral only, not a primary >> care provider) says about Medicare -- if your claim is not 100% >> technically accurate and 100% photogenically perfect (e.g., if your >> printer doesn't print text totally within their OCR boxes), they >> reject your claim out of hand and you are not allowed to correct it >> and resubmit. > ...etc.
> If all that is true I would think it was actionable and that large > medical practices who don't sue ought to. Maybe a class action suit > with other medical practices. No hungry lawyers to take a piece of the > action?
Maybe but thats the very problem with mega organizations that folks seem to love so much. They can definitely outgun most everyone. But so what small is rotten and evil and mega huge with the tremendous power it brings is a good thing. Just ask all of those huge mega bankers who screwed so many folks and then had the politicians they own pick our pockets to bail them out when things went bad for them.
The Real Bev wrote: > Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> If all that is true I would think it was actionable and that large >>> medical practices who don't sue ought to. Maybe a class action suit >>> with other medical practices. No hungry lawyers to take a piece of >>> the action?
>> That's a thought... but I am 100% positive the insurance companies >> have plenty of lawyers to ensure that they have loopholes to fall >> comfortably into.
> In theory that's the stuff that judges are supposed to sort out. I > believe that lawyers need doctors more than doctors need lawyers.
It doesn't work that way. Big giant organizations own lots of politicians. They pretty much get what they want. Just ask anyone who has gone up against them. Cutsey little guy triumphs over super giant mega corp (that everyone loves) is a once every ten year event.
>> I was just trying to say that the insurance companies are not without >> fault, and the insurance that is run by the federal government is >> actually one of the biggest offenders. I know there are undoubtedly >> doctors out there who are just as bad.
> I don't trust people who make money by NOT providing services :-(
>>> Didn't Bill Clinton offer bribes to medical schools to limit the >>> number of students enrolling?
>> I have never heard that. So, did he?
> News item, and then nothing. It doesn't sound unreasonable, does it? > The AMA is just a high-class union, dedicated to enriching its > members. Unions traditionally support the Democrats.
Is that the kind of documentation you normally accept as proof?
Yes, it does sound unreasonable. Sort of like a Fox "news" news item.
>>> Didn't Bill Clinton offer bribes to medical schools to limit the >>> number of students enrolling?
>> Nope.
> You sure about that?
>>> And doesn't a doctor shortage keep doctors' incomes higher than >>> they would be if there were more competition?
>> Yes, but there is no doctor shortage.
>>> And doesn't that contribute to the high cost of medical care?
>> Nope, because there is no doctor shortage.
> It took me two months to get an appointment with my ophthalmologist, > and then she had to cancel because the tech who does the field tests > got sick. Another 1.5 months. My GP only took a month, but I had to go back > because > SOMEBODY lost my blood and pee. I got in to see the new orthopedist > in 2 weeks, and he schedules surgery 3 weeks in advance. I got there > 15 minutes early for my 9:30 appointment and I didn't actually see > him until 10:30, although I did have an x-ray in the interim.
> A month is typical lead time for an appointmen, and a doc told me (in > strict confidence, of course) that if the patient was out the door > within an hour of the nominal appointment time it was regarded as "on > time". I looked at a gastroenterologist's appointment book once -- > he had 4 patients scheduled for each 15 minutes.
> If there were more doctors they would neither have to do nor get away > with shit like that.
Either you need to find some new doctors, or you live in a really bad place for doctors.
>>>> Didn't Bill Clinton offer bribes to medical schools to limit the >>>> number of students enrolling?
>>> Nope.
>> You sure about that?
>>>> And doesn't a doctor shortage keep doctors' incomes higher than >>>> they would be if there were more competition?
>>> Yes, but there is no doctor shortage.
>>>> And doesn't that contribute to the high cost of medical care?
>>> Nope, because there is no doctor shortage.
>> It took me two months to get an appointment with my ophthalmologist, >> and then she had to cancel because the tech who does the field tests >> got sick. Another 1.5 months. My GP only took a month, but I had to go back >> because >> SOMEBODY lost my blood and pee. I got in to see the new orthopedist >> in 2 weeks, and he schedules surgery 3 weeks in advance. I got there >> 15 minutes early for my 9:30 appointment and I didn't actually see >> him until 10:30, although I did have an x-ray in the interim.
>> A month is typical lead time for an appointmen, and a doc told me (in >> strict confidence, of course) that if the patient was out the door >> within an hour of the nominal appointment time it was regarded as "on >> time". I looked at a gastroenterologist's appointment book once -- >> he had 4 patients scheduled for each 15 minutes.
>> If there were more doctors they would neither have to do nor get away >> with shit like that.
> Either you need to find some new doctors, or you live in a really bad place for > doctors.
This is my experience with my own doctors and the doctors of my mother and mother-in-law -- between one and two dozen of them over a 10-year period. And did I mention the parking situation? There is no on-street parking in the "medical district" where all the doctors practice, and parking costs between $2 and $4/hour. So in addition to hanging out in the waiting room, we also pay for the privilege of being sneezed on by strangers.
We live in Pasadena, CA. Thousands of doctors in all specialties. Within an hour's drive of half a dozen major hospitals and at least three medical schools.
-- Cheers, Bev MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software.
>>>>> Didn't Bill Clinton offer bribes to medical schools to limit the >>>>> number of students enrolling?
>>>> Nope.
>>> You sure about that?
>>>>> And doesn't a doctor shortage keep doctors' incomes higher than >>>>> they would be if there were more competition?
>>>> Yes, but there is no doctor shortage.
>>>>> And doesn't that contribute to the high cost of medical care?
>>>> Nope, because there is no doctor shortage.
>>> It took me two months to get an appointment with my ophthalmologist, >>> and then she had to cancel because the tech who does the field tests >>> got sick. Another 1.5 months. My GP only took a month, but I had >>> to go back because >>> SOMEBODY lost my blood and pee. I got in to see the new orthopedist >>> in 2 weeks, and he schedules surgery 3 weeks in advance. I got >>> there 15 minutes early for my 9:30 appointment and I didn't >>> actually see him until 10:30, although I did have an x-ray in the interim.
>>> A month is typical lead time for an appointmen, and a doc told me >>> (in strict confidence, of course) that if the patient was out the door >>> within an hour of the nominal appointment time it was regarded as >>> "on time". I looked at a gastroenterologist's appointment book once -- >>> he had 4 patients scheduled for each 15 minutes.
>>> If there were more doctors they would neither have to do nor get >>> away with shit like that.
>> Either you need to find some new doctors, or you live in a really >> bad place for doctors.
> This is my experience with my own doctors and the doctors of my > mother and mother-in-law -- between one and two dozen of them over a > 10-year period. And did I mention the parking situation? There is > no on-street parking in the "medical district" where all the doctors > practice, and parking costs between $2 and $4/hour. So in addition > to hanging out in the waiting room, we also pay for the privilege of > being sneezed on by strangers. > We live in Pasadena, CA. Thousands of doctors in all specialties. Within an > hour's drive of half a dozen major hospitals and at least > three medical schools.
I think I had a two week wait to get my eyes examined. I frequently can see my GP within a day, sometimes the same day I call.
On Nov 17, 9:52 pm, The Real Bev <bashley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is my experience with my own doctors and the doctors of my mother and > mother-in-law -- between one and two dozen of them over a 10-year period. And > did I mention the parking situation? There is no on-street parking in the > "medical district" where all the doctors practice, and parking costs between $2 > and $4/hour. So in addition to hanging out in the waiting room, we also pay > for the privilege of being sneezed on by strangers.
Pasadena makes its doctors practice in a ghetto? Doctors here are free to practice wherever they can rent or buy space. Sure, it can be difficult to park to patronize those who locate downtown, but there are plenty out in strip-mall land. Mine is in a little office park a stone's throw from a freeway exit, and a mile or two from my office (thus, five or six miles from my house). (And there's a coffee shop quite nearby, to tank up after those fasting blood draws.)
Wow, I knew Califonia is restrictive, but I had no idea it goes this far.
> We live in Pasadena, CA. Thousands of doctors in all specialties. Within an > hour's drive of half a dozen major hospitals and at least three medical schools.
Ann Arbor, Michigan. But I'd only go to the University of Michigan hospital if I was unconscious and in an ambulance. Otherwise, it's St. Joe's in Ypsilanti, which is probably quicker, anyway, from the places I usually hang out.
> This is my experience with my own doctors and the doctors of my mother and > mother-in-law -- between one and two dozen of them over a 10-year period. > And > did I mention the parking situation? There is no on-street parking in the > "medical district" where all the doctors practice, and parking costs > between $2 > and $4/hour. So in addition to hanging out in the waiting room, we also > pay > for the privilege of being sneezed on by strangers.
Pasadena makes its doctors practice in a ghetto? Doctors here are free to practice wherever they can rent or buy space. Sure, it can be difficult to park to patronize those who locate downtown, but there are plenty out in strip-mall land. Mine is in a little office park a stone's throw from a freeway exit, and a mile or two from my office (thus, five or six miles from my house). (And there's a coffee shop quite nearby, to tank up after those fasting blood draws.)
Wow, I knew Califonia is restrictive, but I had no idea it goes this far.
> We live in Pasadena, CA. Thousands of doctors in all specialties. Within > an > hour's drive of half a dozen major hospitals and at least three medical > schools.
As someone who has neither health insurance nor a doctor (I was informed that until I had a "complete physical with blood work" at the cost of hundreds of $ I was "no longer considered a patient") I go to the local "urgent care" office. They're open 20 hours a day and they share a practice with the doctor who fired me as a patient, so at least my records are there. Granted, I haven't seen any doctor in 10 years (haven't need one) but the last time it was for a tick bite. I only needed the antibiotics, but I still had to have at least 5 different doctors and 2 nurses look at the bite, exclaim, "Wow, that sure is a classic target, must be a tick bite", before I could get the prescription. The fact that I had actually been able to remove the tick and had it in a baggie for them to look at didn't even seem to register. "Umm, yeah, of COURSE it's a tick bite, here's the damn tick! Where's my 'script?"
I didn't have to make an appointment (you can't, it's walk-in only), waited about 20 minutes, then walked out with the prescription after paying $75. The prescription cost another $25, so the whole thing was $100 plus about 25 minutes of wasted time by 5 doctors. What was the point of all that? We have a seriously screwed up health care system. Anyone who had eyes could have diagnosed my problem, and antibiotics aren't/shouldn't be that expensive. What a total waste of time and money. My current plan is to never visit a doctor ever again. I'm mid-50s, so it's looking pretty good!
Marsha wrote: > Bob F wrote: >> I think I had a two week wait to get my eyes examined. I frequently can see my >> GP within a day, sometimes the same day I call.
> The time it takes me to get into my GP depends on what I tell them my > symptoms are when I call.
Certainly. If I'm in pain they'll squeeze me in within a day or so, but I'd just as soon not get a rep for ALWAYS being in pain.
-- Cheers, Bev /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Nobody needs to speak on behalf of idiots, they manage to speak entirely too much for themselves already.
Cindy Hamilton wrote: > On Nov 17, 9:52 pm, The Real Bev <bashley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is my experience with my own doctors and the doctors of my mother and >> mother-in-law -- between one and two dozen of them over a 10-year period. >> And did I mention the parking situation? There is no on-street parking in >> the "medical district" where all the doctors practice, and parking costs >> between $2 and $4/hour. So in addition to hanging out in the waiting >> room, we also pay for the privilege of being sneezed on by strangers.
> Pasadena makes its doctors practice in a ghetto? Doctors here are free to > practice wherever they can rent or buy space.
There are lovely new expensive medical hi-rises clustered near Huntington Memorial Hospital. This is where most of the specialists practice. Others are located in convenient free-parking locations, but a distinct minority, and others are located in more distant medical buildings with expensive parking, the most expensive of which is $6/hour. For that one I dropped my MIL off at the front door and found free on-street parking -- limited to one hour, so I had to jog back to move the car on perhaps half the visits.
> Sure, it can be difficult to > park to patronize those who locate downtown, but there are plenty out in > strip-mall land. Mine is in a little office park a stone's throw from a > freeway exit, and a mile or two from my office (thus, five or six miles from > my house). (And there's a coffee shop quite nearby, to tank up after those > fasting blood draws.)
That's why I always get early-morning appointments, but I don't think it really matters much.
> Wow, I knew Califonia is restrictive, but I had no idea it goes this far.
>> We live in Pasadena, CA. Thousands of doctors in all specialties. Within >> an hour's drive of half a dozen major hospitals and at least three medical >> schools.
> Ann Arbor, Michigan. But I'd only go to the University of Michigan hospital > if I was unconscious and in an ambulance. Otherwise, it's St. Joe's in > Ypsilanti, which is probably quicker, anyway, from the places I usually hang > out.
Based on my experience with the friendly local hospital and local doctor that killed my mom, I would ALWAYS go to the biggest teaching hospital if there were any question about the diagnosis. Most especially do not go to a hospital in the process of seeking out buyers.
And should cancer be a possibility, choose the City of Hope emergency room; they can't kick you out, but they can prevent you from coming in if your case doesn't look hopeful.
-- Cheers, Bev /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Nobody needs to speak on behalf of idiots, they manage to speak entirely too much for themselves already.
|
