Hospitals / Doctors now refusing to take Medicare

[95CobraR]

Originally Posted by Bobcat

It all depends on their specialty and how hard they are willing to work. He is at the hospital at 5:30am , 6 days a week for rounds.....

Bob,
Your post was right-on.

But please allow me to explain exactly what a guy (or girl) has to do before to even start practicing medicine:

• College: 4 years (and you better have a GPA of over 3.5 [of 4.0]).
• Medical School: 4 years (then you compete with other guys that also had superior grades as a mere undergraduate).
• Internship: 1 year.
• Residency: 2 years. This is where they really test you. They'll send you down to a hospital ER and place you on call for 72 hours in a row. You hopefully can nap between gunshot victims, heart attacks, and bleeders. Many die at your hands so you must go talk to the surviving family members.
• Fellowship: 3 years. This is where experienced doctors watch your every move for three years.

Then you must pass the Board Certified exams, if you desire to be Board Certified. And who wants to see a doctor that isn't?

Then it gets easier. You just need to rent office space, hire a nurse, and a receptionist (at a minimum). That is $300,000 in annual overhead expenses before you see the first patient (including a massive malpractice insurance premium to protect against idiot lawyers who can get a law license online on the internet). Of course, you need to hook-up with other partners or other doctors in your specialty unless you want to be on call 24/7 for the rest of your life.

And despite the rumors, most doctors are sworn to help the sick. They always do it for free if the patient doesn't have insurance (you swear by your Creed of Conduct). Most doctors take Medicare (it actually pays better and quicker than most insurance companies).

Obama and his fellow crooks in Congress have solved nothing. They just want control of 17% of this country's GDP.

[Excaliber]

They just want control of 17% of this country's GDP.

I believe that is an absolutely false statement, all though it makes a great sound bite. Nor do I believe Health Care reform is about securing more votes or is even politically sound reasoning! It would be far more expediant to just leave it alone. So what IS the motivation? I think it stems from a sincere motivation to grant access to health care to a segment of the population that has been denied such coverage.

The Republicans and Democrats have attempted various reforms over the decades with some success and some failures. It is an extremely difficult issue to grapple with and no way will you keep all people happy all the time. It's an impossible task and this latest attempt at reform may ultimately fail to pass as well.

Flawed though it may be, I hope it does pass. We really do need to address the issue of to many American's being denied quality health care for one reason or another. THAT is simply not acceptable in a civilized society.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I believe that is an absolutely false statement, all though it makes a great sound bite. Nor do I believe Health Care reform is about securing more votes or is even politically sound reasoning! It would be far more expediant to just leave it alone. So what IS the motivation? I think it stems from a sincere motivation to grant access to health care to a segment of the population that has been denied such coverage.

The Republicans and Democrats have attempted various reforms over the decades with some success and some failures. It is an extremely difficult issue to grapple with and no way will you keep all people happy all the time. It's an impossible task and this latest attempt at reform may ultimately fail to pass as well.

Flawed though it may be, I hope it does pass. We really do need to address the issue of to many American's being denied quality health care for one reason or another. THAT is simply not acceptable in a civilized society.

You cannot be serious!!! (why does that sound familiar?)

A politicians every waking moment, probably sleeping ones too, is about power and re-election. NOTHING ELSE. Compassion? That's pure bullsh!t they sell to the doting liberal public. And the public eats it up because they want to feel good about themselves. But the politicians, either party, care about your vote and your money. Your life, health, and happiness are nothing to them. If you have no money and/or no vote, YOU mean nothing to them. That is why more than half of the alleged "Uncovered" will remain without coverage when and if this worst of all legislation passes.

They lie, you buy!

[DAVID GAGNARD]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I believe that is an absolutely false statement, all though it makes a great sound bite. Nor do I believe Health Care reform is about securing more votes or is even politically sound reasoning! It would be far more expediant to just leave it alone. So what IS the motivation? I think it stems from a sincere motivation to grant access to health care to a segment of the population that has been denied such coverage.

The Republicans and Democrats have attempted various reforms over the decades with some success and some failures. It is an extremely difficult issue to grapple with and no way will you keep all people happy all the time. It's an impossible task and this latest attempt at reform may ultimately fail to pass as well.

Flawed though it may be, I hope it does pass. We really do need to address the issue of to many American's being denied quality health care for one reason or another. THAT is simply not acceptable in a civilized society.

Your last paragraph is the total BS that the public has swallowed hook/line/sinker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one is denied health care for one reason or another that I know of,unless your counting people that can't afford it or people that would rather drive a new Escalade and watch television on their new 50" big screen tv than buy health insurance and then those very same people still have access to health care...........they are not being DENIED health care, they have chosen NOT to do whatever it takes to afford it,that's their choice,not mine.........

I chose to drive a Ford (8 to 10 years at a time) and watch tv on an old 32" "conventional" tv and go to work everyday,10 to 14 hours a day and HAVE health care........not rely on the goverberment to take care of me,while I sit home and eat and drink all day while watching the tv...............

Not sure about your neck of the woods, but in mine (Louisiana), we have a number of state/goverment run hospitals, we refer to as Charity Hospitals. Anyone can walk into one and get all the health care they need FREE of charge regarless of their financial well being 24/7.........There is also a law here that basically states anyone brought into or going into ANY hospital emergency room MUST be seen and given care/treatment until their condition is stable and they can be transfered to another hospital............

This I know for a fact, cause in Dec. of 08 I sat in the emergency room for 3 hours bleeding a nice puddle of blood on the floor while the waiting room was filled with welfare recipients with everything from a sore throat to a hang nail waiting to be seen and they were all seen and treated before me and I have health insurance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If someone can't afford health insurance, there ARE alternatives, like the ones I've mentioned and I truly feel sorry for them, but it's hard for me to feel sorry for anyone that drives a new Escalade and watchs tv on a new 50" LCD tv and sits home all day drinking and eating and is 150 pounds overwieght and then they complain about the lack of helath care avaliable to them.........

Now, your president wants to make sure these people have FREE health care when they have contributed nothing/nadda/zilch in the way of taxes or anything else to deserve the same or better health care that I pay dearly for every month and hope I never have to use!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AT MY EXPENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, but I just don't see things from your perspective.........

David

[95CobraR]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I think it stems from a sincere motivation to grant access to health care to a segment of the population that has been denied such coverage.

Flawed though it may be, I hope it does pass. We really do need to address the issue of to many American's being denied quality health care for one reason or another. THAT is simply not acceptable in a civilized society.

I am not sure where you live, but I am sure it is in a liberal region of the country. Are your citizens falling over dead every day because they are denied medical care? I can promise that no one in Georgia is denied health care.

Social Security and Medicare is so well managed by the federal government; it is underfunded by ~$10 trillion. The Post Office is so well run for parcel delivery that two companies (UPS and FedEx) have grown into huge companies.

Passage of the health-care bill will be, for the administration, a catastrophic victory. If it is voted through in time for the State of the Union Address, as President Obama hopes, half the chamber will rise to their feet and cheer. They will be cheering their own demise.

If health care does not pass, it will also be a disaster, but only for the administration, not the country. Critics will say, "You didn't even waste our time successfully."

What a blunder this thing has been, win or lose, what a miscalculation on the part of the president. The administration misjudged the mood and the moment. Mr. Obama ran, won, was sworn in and began his work under the spirit of 2008—expansive, part dreamy and part hubristic. But as soon as he was inaugurated ,the president ran into the spirit of 2009—more dug in, more anxious, more bottom-line—and didn't notice. At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second, the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about. The great recession changed everything, but not right away.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...673362182.html

[Excaliber]

My point about the Ferrari vs Vette was a little tongue in cheek, but not totally. Long schooling and high schooling bill's justify a very good wage if you can command it. One of the problems I've been hearing about with traditional family doctors type practice is that they are a dieing breed. Most Med Students are going into some kind of "specialist" field. Perhaps in part BECAUSE of Medicare, Medicaid, Medical issues equaling lower pay? Of course the specialist fields pay better and that alone may be the primary factor.

At any rate, the lower numbers of general practioners is in decline and health care reform is not going to help change that fact. So, it is a dilemma...

Going broke? Making less that what they are "entitled to" or less than they deserve/want is a more likely scenario.

[Wayne Maybury]

There must be some sort of statistics available for the average pay that doctors receive. I am skeptical about any doctor earning less than $100K if he/she is putting in a normal number of hours in Canada or the US. Many health professionals, including doctors, leave Canada for the bigger pay in the US.

I know that one of the big expenses for MDs in the US is the cost of malpractice insurance.

Wayne

[Wayne Maybury]

A very quick search turned up the following average annual salaries for the US in 2008.

General Practicioners $161,490
Surgeons $206,770
Ob, Gyn $192,780
Physicians & Surgeons, all other $165,000

These are average salaries.

Wayne

[Excaliber]

80% of Americans believe they are in the middle class, which is really tough to define but the middle means about 50%, not 80%.

The average wage for a working man (blue collar) is $32,000 a year.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Making less that what they are "entitled to" or less than they deserve/want is a more likely scenario.

If everbody is entitled to good healthcare, then maybe doctors are entitled to a good salary.

Originally Posted by Excaliber

80% of Americans believe they are in the middle class, which is really tough to define but the middle means about 50%, not 80%. .

I don't understand your point.

Originally Posted by Excaliber

The average wage for a working man (blue collar) is $32,000 a year.

Probably more like $50-60K, including benefits.

[Dan40]

One foot in boiling water and one foot in icy water, on AVERAGE, you're comfortable.

Average blue collar worker makes $32,000. Probably has just under a 12 grade education and DOES NOT work a full 8 hour day.

AVERAGE Doctor has a very expensive education of college, med school and residency, putting him/her into their late 20's before they start to make money. Also they do work hard, probably too hard for our best benefit. Days start at 6AM and go till 5PM with a constant stream of patients all day. Plus they are employers of 2 to 10 people and they pay a massive premium for malpractice insurance alone. Don't know that I'd have any interest in living their lives.

[Excaliber]

Doctors are entitled to a reasonable wage according to their skills, training and what the public is willing to pay for their services. No different than anybody else in that regard. If Medicare is going to pay less, the doctors can opt out. When and if those rates become the norm, well, things are just tough all over.

My point about the middle class is, I repeat, virtually EVERYONE thinks they ARE the "middle class". That would include many doctors, lawyers and indian chiefs. Logically, this cannot be if it's the "middle".

If we are going to add "benefits" to the working mans salary, then let's add "benefits" to the doctor's salaries listed above.

To put the working man's wage in a different perspective I'll cite the US Census Bureau: "Average American makes $27,590.16 a year or $13.26 an hour." I guess blue color workers make slightly more? Actually, it is difficult to nail down figures such as these, or for doctors. Many different sources measuring many different ways. Perhaps some DO calculate benefits, others not. Suffice to say, doctors make considerably more than the average American. That's just a fact, good, bad or ugly, it is what it is.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

To put the working man's wage in a different perspective I'll cite the US Census Bureau: "Average American makes $27,590.16 a year or $13.26 an hour." I guess blue color workers make slightly more? Actually, it is difficult to nail down figures such as these,

I don't know which century you got your information from, but from current Social Security report of wages, for 2008, the average wage was $41,000, and the current census data from 5/08 shows an average of $42,270

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b00-0000

[Excaliber]

Many Union and Government workers are up in arms about the Health Care reform for one simple reason, THEY are a target for more taxes. NOT the "average working man".

These two groups, Union and Government workers, are OFTEN PORTRAYED as the MIDDLE CLASS and the right wing is all upset these "poor" workers will bear the brunt of the tax. How? These two groups, especially auto marnufacturers, have the BEST Health Care plans money can buy! About $23,000 a year in health benefits ALONE. These are the so called "Cadillac Plans" the Government want's to tax. Essentially taxing the "benefit".

Every state (and that's a lot) that I've ever lived and worked in had one thing in common when it came to job's. It was universally recognized that if you could land a Union or Government job that was the cat's meow. You were in high cotton. You had made it.

Sorry, Union class and Government workers with Cadillac Health Care plans don't have a freakin' clue what the middle class life is like. Give up your excellent health care and start working for $13 an hour and you might get a clue! Until then, screw 'em, tax the hell out of that Cadillac plan, I don't care where you work or who provides it. It's so far beyond the reach of the average working man it's nothing but a dream to them.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Many Union and Government workers are up in arms about the Health Care reform for one simple reason, THEY are a target for more taxes. NOT the "average working man".

These two groups, Union and Government workers, are OFTEN PORTRAYED as the MIDDLE CLASS and the right wing is all upset these "poor" workers will bear the brunt of the tax. How? These two groups, especially auto marnufacturers, have the BEST Health Care plans money can buy! About $23,000 a year in health benefits ALONE. These are the so called "Cadillac Plans" the Government want's to tax. Essentially taxing the "benefit".

Every state (and that's a lot) that I've ever lived and worked in had one thing in common when it came to job's. It was universally recognized that if you could land a Union or Government job that was the cat's meow. You were in high cotton. You had made it.

Sorry, Union class and Government workers with Cadillac Health Care plans don't have a freakin' clue what the middle class life is like. Give up your excellent health care and start working for $13 an hour and you might get a clue! Until then, screw 'em, tax the hell out of that Cadillac plan, I don't care where you work or who provides it. It's so far beyond the reach of the average working man it's nothing but a dream to them.

The liberals called! They demand you burn your membership card forthwith~ You are now re-classified as an Independent/Conservative. The GOP will be mailing you contribution solicitations SOON.

[Excaliber]

Dan, I totally deny that of course. I'm a flamin' Liberal riding a muti-colored Unicorn, honest...

Anthony, as I stated earlier these numbers are really difficult to nail down due to the various methods of measurment. Take "average" for instance. A small percentage of the population makes X number of times the rest of the population makes, which then tend to scew the "average" or "mean" wage. It would get WAY to involved to break it down to individual groups but from my research of various methods and sources I believe it is accurate to say: The typical blue collar worker, working a typical 8 hour day, 40 hour week makes about $30,000 a year.

Interesting comment about education, suggestion being this group likely has no more than a high school education. I might pursue that aspect of my own personal "research" and look a little closer at the demographics, family size, education, etc.

The "middle class" remains a very fuzzy and difficult to nail down definition.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Anthony, as I stated earlier these numbers are really difficult to nail down due to the various methods of measurment. Take "average" for instance. A small percentage of the population makes X number of times the rest of the population makes, which then tend to scew the "average" or "mean" wage. It would get WAY to involved to break it down to individual groups but from my research of various methods and sources I believe it is accurate to say: The typical blue collar worker, working a typical 8 hour day, 40 hour week makes about $30,000 a year.
.

The numbers are easy to nail down.

The average is what it is. Maybe you don't understand what the "average" is? I don't know about you, but I think I learned that in around 6th grade.

Are you trying to re-write mathematics ?

I know blue collar workers who make $80,000 /yr + benefits.

Believe what you want to believe.

That's the problem with the Government, too many people believe what they want to believe and base their decisions on their belief rather than the facts.

[Excaliber]

The "average" wage is a miss leading indicator of the reality of the middle class. A concept you seem to be stuggling with.

The UAW "average" wage is $65 to $75 an hour, including benefits, depending on your source. Thats about 115-120K a year. UAW and Republicans consider this group to be part of the middle class. They too are struggling with the concept. The problem is, "simple math" goes right over their head.

Let's review: Middle is self explanatory. 50% above, 50% below. Did you flunk 6th grade?

[Ron61]

Ernie,

I am not wanting to get into your and Anthony's discussion, but your math confuses me if I am reading it correctly. How can you have 50% above middle class and 50% below and still have a middle class? That is 100% of the people and leaves nothing for any middle class.

Ron

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

The "average" wage is a miss leading indicator of the reality of the middle class. A concept you seem to be stuggling with.

The UAW "average" wage is $65 to $75 an hour, including benefits, depending on your source. Thats about 115-120K a year. UAW and Republicans consider this group to be part of the middle class. They too are struggling with the concept. The problem is, "simple math" goes right over their head.

The "average" wage, is the "average" wage, whatever it may be, determined from elementary mathematics. I think you have the problem understanding what the "average" is.

You made the connection between "average wage" and middle class, not me or anyone else

$65-$75 / hr is actually like $130-$150 / yr. It's simple math, your calculations, as usual, are incorrect.

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Let's review: Middle is self explanatory. 50% above, 50% below. Did you flunk 6th grade?

Middle is not average. There is a mathematical term for middle, it's called the median. I learned that in 7th grade, although I flunked 8th. It appears you flunked 3rd.

I can see why you're divorced. If I was married to you, the only way I would keep you around is if you had a tight A-hole. Squeeeeelllllll.