Say Happy Birthday to Jim!!
Please Contribute Today!
Keep FR Alive!
Posted on 11/03/2013 1:54:28 PM PST by markomalley
That'll work! Of course, when we run out of doctors, we'll have to import Muzzies from Pakistan to do the job, but oh, well!
How come affordable quality legal representation isn't a fundamental right?
“Why don’t these physicians get together, buy a new or used cruise ship and station it XXX miles offshore and see patients there?”
Once we get to single payer government run healthcare it is very the free market will provide hospital cruising off the coasts of the US within a quick helicopter flight of shore. The wealthy will opt for high quality private care instead of the British style socialized healthcare coming to this country.
For those with enough disposable income to spend for healthcare above our forced contribution to government healthcare, there will be private health care insurance available to pay for annual physicals, surgery, and other care at the floating hospital. The situation will be similar to education today where upper middle class and wealthy parents pay to send their children to private school instead of the government indoctrination centers provided by the taxpayers.
“Fascist wet dreams aside, it’s hard to force a bankrupt medical practice to stay in operation.”
The Government will make them do it or the doctors will face prison. If the doctors lack money they will be put on welfare and housed in Section 8 homes.The Looters goal is to make the capable people slaves of the state. The lazy, incapable, and non-essential will vote the Looters into office.
“...Why don’t they treat lawyers the same way they treat doctors?...”
-
Any company with more than 50 full time employees
could be required to contract with a lawyer.
Failure to do so could result in a “tax”.
People might end up in various legal situations
and become a burden on the legal system.
Each person could be required to contract with a lawyer.
Failure to do so could result in a tax.
Minimum standards could be developed for lawyers
and what services they must provide,
and what they are allowed to charge for their services.
Why not?
The supreme court has said it’s all good!
If you like your lawyer, you will be able to keep your lawyer.
Period.
No one will take that away from you.
No matter what.
That’s one solution to recruiting doctors in neighboring states. We are getting out of state (and Canadian) doctors moving to Texas every day. Go for it you wild and crazy Virginia Progressives.
It could force them to get outta Dodge.
That’s the first step, but multiple steps are needed
1) Require they accept medicare
2) Don’t allow retirement
3) Don’t allow moving out of state
4,5,6,...) I’m sure they’ll need more
There are other options, right now. Paying dimes on the dollar for treatments and surgery is within the reach of some of the middle class.
Health and Wellness Tourism in the Philippines
http://www.euromonitor.com/health-and-wellness-tourism-in-the-philippines/report
Singapore Medical Tourism
http://www.mymedholiday.com/country/singapore
They can put a requirement that if you are going to be a doctor, you have to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. It's closer to the civil rights laws where you can't refuse to serve a person because of their race.
However, the doctors could contest it if there is not fair compensation. But providers are currently required to provide emergency care whether a person can pay or not and there is zero compensation. Not sure why nobody has contested that. Seems to me if one is an unconstitutional "taking", then the other should be too.
They can tell a doctor what he has to do to hold himself out as a doctor, but they can't tell a person he has to be a doctor.
They can put a requirement that if you are going to be a doctor, you have to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. It's closer to the civil rights laws where you can't refuse to serve a person because of their race.
However, the doctors could contest it if there is not fair compensation. But providers are currently required to provide emergency care whether a person can pay or not and there is zero compensation. Not sure why nobody has contested that. Seems to me if one is an unconstitutional "taking", then the other should be too.
They can tell a doctor what he has to do to hold himself out as a doctor, but they can't tell a person he has to be a doctor.
“I quit when medicine was placed under State control some years ago,” said Dr. Hendricks. “Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I could not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything—except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the ‘welfare’ of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, but ‘to serve.’ That a man’s willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards—never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness at which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.”
—Ayn Rand, *Atlas Shrugged*
the two parties are hard to differentiate these days. that’s the problem.
we have democrats - liberals, socialists, marxists, america haters, communists, islamicists, unions, 95% of MSM journalists, racebaiters, feminists, proaborts, econuts, liberal religious of all kinds, perverts of all stripes, big brother control nuts, big education, fascists and capital cronyism
we have republicans - tea party, liberal republicans, rinos, undercover democrats, country club republicans, moderates, traditional/conservative religious, log cabin fags, benedict arnold sellouts like McCain and Graham, big brother control nuts, big military, capital cronyism
We have too many moderate liberal groups within the current party to show we are substantially different than the democrats. we haven’t purged our own party adn these little splinter groups inside taint it so that liberals can say -look they have people like us in there too.
Since MD’s are licensed by the state rather than the federal government could put such a restriction on their right to practice. Most licensed professions have the legal right to place all kinds of restrictions on those professions.
However, doing so would motivate many of those MD’s to relocate to a friendlier state creating a shortage of physicians in the over regulating state and a surplus in free states. Since the wealthier can travel anywhere for health care, this policy would hurt the poor more than help them.
“Would the last doctor to exit the state of Virginia, please turn out out the lights?”
At a local ER...patient talking to the ER doctor...
“Where did you get your training, Doc?”
“Well sir, I’m not actually a doctor. But I was a vet’s assistant for 5 years.”
This idea is such a joke. I know that as a physician there are many of ways of not treating a patient. The risks of any treatment can be overemphasized, you can treat the patient conservatively and then give the patient a referral for a second opinion, you can order a test or procedure and have the patient schedule it and get the insurance approval themselves.
Or, you can be really honest with the patient and tell them, look, I’m losing money by seeing you, do you really want me to take care of you under these conditions? How many people actually want to receive care from someone that has no incentive to provide the care?
In WW2, the Nazis used a lot of slave labor for factory work. There were also quite a few unexploded bombs that came out of those slave labor factories.
You can’t force a mind.
The reimbursement rates of Medicaid is only one reason that many doctors don’t take Medicaid. As big of a problem is that Medicaid patients have the highest no-show rate. Doctors schedule patients, and then they don’t show up. This happens with every type of covered person, but for Medicaid, it’s much higher than the general population. I guess the Medicaid patients are too busy not working or something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.