If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Obamacare is bad because: (a) higher premiums, (b) the individual mandate, or (c) more people will get to see doctors, which makes doctors sad   (foxnews.com) divider line 25
    More: Stupid, obamacare, individual mandate, premiums, Langone Medical Center, Association of American Medical Colleges, man hours  
•       •       •

1800 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Oct 2012 at 4:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-03 04:11:10 PM
4 votes:
Survey after survey from Deloitte, Sermo.com, the Doctor-Patient Medical Association, and Investors Business Daily have all previously shown that doctors are not happy with the direction of medicine and that it is impacting how we practice.

Link

People paid to not support Obamacare do not support Obamacare. Ground breaking stuff.
2012-10-03 04:27:28 PM
3 votes:
You think you're over worked? Hire a goddamn nurse practitioner. She can handle over half your workload without breaking a sweat.

Can't find a nurse practitioner? Try paying them a competitive wage. Amazing how that works.

Think you're underpaid? Try working for the amount that you refuse to pay the nurse practitioner. See how you like it.
2012-10-03 04:12:17 PM
3 votes:
So treating more people, regardless of how its paid for is a BAD thing because doctors don't want more work? So instead, those 30 million extra people should just FARK off? Wow, this guy is the worst doctor ever.
2012-10-03 05:12:00 PM
2 votes:
Man, what a terrible side effect of universal health care: A demand for more doctors.

It's really going to suck when we start making medical school more accessible in terms of cost so we can fill this labor gap. It's going to mean everyone's worst nightmare: More Doctors.

More highly educated health professionals that A) Make good money B) Pay taxes C) Advocate healthier lifestyles D) Increase the availability of health care.

Oh, the humanity. What kind of world are we creating for our children?
2012-10-03 04:01:48 PM
2 votes:

DamnYankees: (The survey was sent to over 600,000 doctors and over 14,000 responded).

Is it just me, or is this a horrifically bad response rate? This poll seems farked up.


I would generally think the most pissed-off doctors are likely to respond. It ends up being more of a petition than an actual survey.
2012-10-04 07:36:47 AM
1 votes:
Here's how to fix both the doctor and nurse problem :

TRAIN 'LOTS MORE' DOCTORS AND NURSES.

Farking A.
2012-10-03 11:36:08 PM
1 votes:

BoxOfBees: But the real problem is that when medicine becomes very cheap or free (little or no cost to the recipients), overuse is rampant.


You know how I know you're full of shiat? As can be seen in the rest of the developed world, where medical care is very cheap or free to the recipients, they get more preventative care than we do, which results in less usage of the more expensive medical procedures. Any competent doctor, in the US or elsewhere, will tell you that good preventative care is cheaper and more effective than waiting until you get sick or hurt.
2012-10-03 09:10:36 PM
1 votes:

Lunaville: I have this fantasy wherein the government funds med school for 100 people per year. It's rather an elaborate fantasy so, hopefully, my description won't bore anyone to tears. Each year all interested military personnel or veterans could take the MCAT at the governments' expense with the intent of applying to a government funded medical training program. Let's call it Med-corp for now. Civilians could also apply to Med-corp, but the government will not pay for their MCAT. Of the applicants applying to Med-corp, each year, the individuals with the top 100 scores would be chosen to attend medical school for free. The government would pay for it. In return, graduates of Med-corp, upon receiving the requisite license to practice medicine, would agree to be assigned to work in underprivileged communities with a dearth of available healthcare for four years. Once new doctors began to be produced by Med-corp, ideally, two doctors would be assigned to each state each year. Assignments would be made in order beginning from the poorest county within a state and working gradually towards wealthier ones. Once our Med-corp doctors have completed their four years on assignment, they would be free to practice medicine where ever they like.


Medical school costs footed by the government, doctor required to work in a rural community for four years then free to do as he wishes? I think I've seen this post before.

upload.wikimedia.org
2012-10-03 08:11:04 PM
1 votes:
There aren't enough Doctors is just sort of another way of saying "God damn, I wish you and your family couldn't afford to see a doctor because me or my family might have to see one, maybe".
2012-10-03 07:36:32 PM
1 votes:

Lunaville: joonyer: Man, what a terrible side effect of universal health care: A demand for more doctors.

It's really going to suck when we start making medical school more accessible in terms of cost so we can fill this labor gap. It's going to mean everyone's worst nightmare: More Doctors.

More highly educated health professionals that A) Make good money B) Pay taxes C) Advocate healthier lifestyles D) Increase the availability of health care.

Oh, the humanity. What kind of world are we creating for our children?

I have this fantasy wherein the government funds med school for 100 people per year. It's rather an elaborate fantasy so, hopefully, my description won't bore anyone to tears. Each year all interested military personnel or veterans could take the MCAT at the governments' expense with the intent of applying to a government funded medical training program. Let's call it Med-corp for now. Civilians could also apply to Med-corp, but the government will not pay for their MCAT. Of the applicants applying to Med-corp, each year, the individuals with the top 100 scores would be chosen to attend medical school for free. The government would pay for it. In return, graduates of Med-corp, upon receiving the requisite license to practice medicine, would agree to be assigned to work in underprivileged communities with a dearth of available healthcare for four years. Once new doctors began to be produced by Med-corp, ideally, two doctors would be assigned to each state each year. Assignments would be made in order beginning from the poorest county within a state and working gradually towards wealthier ones. Once our Med-corp doctors have completed their four years on assignment, they would be free to practice medicine where ever they like.


I would not have a problem with my tax dollars going to this sort of thing. I like it.
2012-10-03 07:26:03 PM
1 votes:
There have only been a few thousand threads on this topic, and they all sort of bleed together and become white noise to me... so forgive me if this has been addressed. Do all of these Chicken Little "ZOMG!! THERE AREN'T ENOUGH DOCTORS!!" types believe that ALL 30 million people are currently sick and likely to make an appointment the first week the program is running?
2012-10-03 05:24:23 PM
1 votes:
Does this survey invalidate the American Medical Association coming out for Obamacare--not because it was so good, but because the system we have now is so incredibly farked that they figured hey, it couldn't possibly be any worse than what we already have?

Because the AMA backed Obamacare.
2012-10-03 04:46:02 PM
1 votes:
Six paragraphs of how discouraged and concerned doctors are that they can't provide care to people, and not one hard fact about why this is so, other than that they are "overworked."

I'm so sorry you are discouraged and concerned. If you can't find a way to provide care to your patients, maybe you should find another line of work.
2012-10-03 04:40:26 PM
1 votes:

Rent Party: You do know that it doesn't matter how big the population is, so long as it's randomly sampled, right? 14,000 responses gives you a margin of error of less than 1% whether the population is 60,000 6,000,000 or 6,000,000,000.


14,000 self-selected respondents out of 600,000 people who got the survey is not a valid farking sample
2012-10-03 04:35:35 PM
1 votes:

xria: Rent Party: DamnYankees: (The survey was sent to over 600,000 doctors and over 14,000 responded).

Is it just me, or is this a horrifically bad response rate? This poll seems farked up.

It's just you. 14,000 responses provides a very slim margin of error.

Selection bias may be at play here, but all other things being equal, it wouldn't matter if it was 14,000 out of a brazillion doctors. Population sizes don't really factor much into error margins.

Nope. If you randomly asked 14000 (or even 1400) out of however many doctors (or whatevers) and the vast majority responded, that would have a slim margin of error.


You do know that it doesn't matter how big the population is, so long as it's randomly sampled, right? 14,000 responses gives you a margin of error of less than 1% whether the population is 60,000 6,000,000 or 6,000,000,000.

So I think what you meant to say was "Yep."


If you ask 600,000 and 14,000 respond then unless you have good historical evidence to prove that the very low level of response wouldn't affect the results, or would have well known biases that you can account for statistically, then the result of your survey tells you nothing that can help you predict the other 586,000 non-respondents, it only should be treated as representing the views of the respondents.


You know how I know you don't know shiat about statistics? It's because you say stupid shiat like this.

The problem with this survey isn't the sample size. It is way more than adequate. It's the fact that the responders are self selected, and therefore already biased. They respond because they have an axe to grind.
2012-10-03 04:30:34 PM
1 votes:

Rent Party: DamnYankees: (The survey was sent to over 600,000 doctors and over 14,000 responded).

Is it just me, or is this a horrifically bad response rate? This poll seems farked up.

It's just you. 14,000 responses provides a very slim margin of error.

Selection bias may be at play here, but all other things being equal, it wouldn't matter if it was 14,000 out of a brazillion doctors. Population sizes don't really factor much into error margins.


Nope. If you randomly asked 14000 (or even 1400) out of however many doctors (or whatevers) and the vast majority responded, that would have a slim margin of error. If you ask 600,000 and 14,000 respond then unless you have good historical evidence to prove that the very low level of response wouldn't affect the results, or would have well known biases that you can account for statistically, then the result of your survey tells you nothing that can help you predict the other 586,000 non-respondents, it only should be treated as representing the views of the respondents.
2012-10-03 04:18:06 PM
1 votes:
Turns out there are still doctors in Massachusetts. True story. In Canada, too. Heck, there are at least 25 countries with universal health care that have both more GPs and more doctors overall per capita than the USA. Weird..
2012-10-03 04:15:43 PM
1 votes:

2 grams: A massive peice of legislation that was forced down our throats


what is it with you "guys" and teh cawk?
2012-10-03 04:15:28 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Some doctors actually have the nerve to advocate for universal health care. Sadly those doctors get assassinated.

[www.biography.com image 402x402]


As even Liberals have admitted in this thread, just because you are a doctor does not make you smart
2012-10-03 04:13:57 PM
1 votes:
Some doctors actually have the nerve to advocate for universal health care. Sadly those doctors get assassinated.

www.biography.com
2012-10-03 04:13:13 PM
1 votes:
CSB time: my family doctor is a hardcore republican (because Israel, in case you were wondering), but he even thinks that Obamacare was a great idea and is planning to expand his practice to handle the expected increase in patients.
2012-10-03 04:12:17 PM
1 votes:

croesius: But he said doctors are underpaid!


graphics8.nytimes.com

Those poor underpaid GPs!
2012-10-03 04:10:05 PM
1 votes:
Any self selecting survey like this is going to be skewed to butt-hurt individuals.
2012-10-03 04:09:39 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: (The survey was sent to over 600,000 doctors and over 14,000 responded).

Is it just me, or is this a horrifically bad response rate? This poll seems farked up.


Not farked up, just statistically worthless in every way.
2012-10-03 03:49:36 PM
1 votes:
(The survey was sent to over 600,000 doctors and over 14,000 responded).

Is it just me, or is this a horrifically bad response rate? This poll seems farked up.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report