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 could also just say to the folks pushing this idea; “You want my mind? Try and take it.”
But you lose even more on a patient who doesn't pay a pre-deductible copayment or one where the insurance company denies payment.
Also, I have never understood why some practices can afford to see significant numbers of Medicaid/Medicare patients and others can't. Differences in overhead, time spent with patients, type of practitioner who actually sees the patient, minimum earnings expectation... what is the explanation?
If you look at the Canadian commenters on some of these articles, they say they don't want their doctors to make a lot of money because they want to only have doctors who "really care" about them, not ones who are just trying to "get rich." Of course we hear the same thing here about insurance companies, how they're useless because all they do is get rich off of people's medical problems. Underpinning all of this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how and why capitalism works. You in essence have to end up talking to liberals and LOFO voters as if they are kindergarteners, but that is the level at which their education on capitalism stands these days.