2009 Budget deficit to be largest ever

[busara]

Whether the government pays directly or requires employers to pay extra taxes to finance the multi-trillion dollar program is irrelevant.

but it wont be coming out of the govt's budget. so it is VERY relevant. and the only extra taxes would be on employers that dont offer healthcare.

 

[busara]

What is obvious is your hatred for freedom.

With freedom comes the ability to succeed AND the ability to fail... and with living by your own choices and under your own responsibility, there will not always be the best possible outcome...

Your numbers are cooked, much like it seems your liberal brain is....

Again... you are not ENTITLED to this.... government's job is not an insurance company or a health plan administrator for the entire nation...

You are an apologist for a socialism or marxism based system, which inherently is about control and not freedom. Since that is against what this country was set up for, it would be more likely that you are the one with a hatred of America

you keep talking about crooked numbers but cant show that they are. but you ignore them because you dont like them. then complain about me and kirk picking and choosing data.

you really are a loony

 

[sealybobo]

I might be a failure... who knows... but you with your entitlement attitude, would DEFINITELY be a failure.

Nobody owes you anything... Robin Hood is a myth, as is your socialist ideal

Oh I would be a failure too. I wasn't born with rich parents.

 

[Care4all]

My comment was not pertaining to what Bush and the Congress during Bush's terms have done w/respect to spending. As far as I am concerned, Bush is not a conservative and I do not support many of his spending policies. And I certainly do not support the ridiculous socialistic housing bill that was just approved by the legislative branch and finally signed by the President. A bill that was supported by all of the democrats in the House except three (227 in favor, 3 against), while at least the majority of republicans had some fiscal sense as 149 rejected the bill (45 in favor, 149 against). The total tally was 272-152 in favor. Meanwhile in the Senate ... not a single democrat opposed the measure while 43 were in favor. Thirteen republicans had the fiscal sense to oppose the bill while 27 approved the measure. The total tally was 72-13 in favor.

My original comment was pertaining to the lie (which I recently saw on this board) that Clinton presided over a budget surplus during his terms in his office. He did not preside over a single budget surplus when in office.

Brian

Yes, he DID have a BUDGET surplus Brian.....and yess SS surplus funds were in the budget, but this IS BY LAW and according to LAW.....

JUST AS BUSH has included SS surplus monies when he reports his deficit....

so when we hear about a $400 billion dollar record deficit as example, for 2004 we are actually speaking about a $400 billion deficit ALONG WITH AN ADDITIONAL $150 billion IOU to the SS fund....for the suplus funds that were used by LAW in the budget. so really, we had to borrow in total, $550 billion and not just the $400 billion from foreignors but the additional $150 billion borrowed from the SS account.

it does suck that SS and the federal discretionary spending are included together in one single budget....it does mask our TRUE deficits and makes our gvt appear better than they are and hides their over spending amounts, unless you are aware of how the budget really works and most people are not aware, imho.

Anyway, according to the LEGAL USA BUDGET, clinton had a surplus 3 years in a row, and 2 of those years he did not use ALL of the SS suplusses to balance this legal budget, so he had some SS suplus funds left over and not used at all....

and on another note, it has been reported that congress this year will produce a $450 billion BUDGET deficit....well, as you have been trying to note and correctly so if subnoted, there is an additional +/-$200 billion that was used of SS surplus taxes to balance this budget that will also be OWED to the SS account, bringing the total OWED for this year's spending nearing $650 billion.....

What i differ with you on Brian is that Clinton did balance the BUDGET and did have a BUDGET surplus his later years in office WITH the help of the Republican majority congress....ACCORDING to the laws in place regarding the definition of the Fiscal Budget....but duely noted, some of the SS surpluses helped that usa budgetary surplus happen....

care

 

[jreeves]

but it wont be coming out of the govt's budget. so it is VERY relevant. and the only extra taxes would be on employers that dont offer healthcare.

So like Target, Mcdonalds, Mr. small business....wonder what extra business taxes will do to the economy? Do you realize how that would kill the economy and drive inflation through the roof?

 

[jreeves]

but it wont be coming out of the govt's budget. so it is VERY relevant. and the only extra taxes would be on employers that dont offer healthcare.

Also I dare to say all of the extra taxes that are collected for universal healthcare won't be spent on healthcare....For example, see Social Security.
Great just what we need another slush fund...

 

[jreeves]

No, its do to adminstrative cost(excessive profits), unneccessry procedures(excessive profits), and the most expensive drugs in the world(more excessive profits).

Ah yes, doctors expect to be well compensated for saving people's lives, what the hell is wrong with them? I wonder what would happen to the number of people aspiring to be doctors if the government restricted the amount of pay they were compensated?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, he DID have a BUDGET surplus Brian.....and yess SS surplus funds were in the budget, but this IS BY LAW and according to LAW.....

JUST AS BUSH has included SS surplus monies when he reports his deficit....

so when we hear about a $400 billion dollar record deficit as example, for 2004 we are actually speaking about a $400 billion deficit ALONG WITH AN ADDITIONAL $150 billion IOU to the SS fund....for the suplus funds that were used by LAW in the budget. so really, we had to borrow in total, $550 billion and not just the $400 billion from foreignors but the additional $150 billion borrowed from the SS account.

it does suck that SS and the federal discretionary spending are included together in one single budget....it does mask our TRUE deficits and makes our gvt appear better than they are and hides their over spending amounts, unless you are aware of how the budget really works and most people are not aware, imho.

Anyway, according to the LEGAL USA BUDGET, clinton had a surplus 3 years in a row, and 2 of those years he did not use ALL of the SS suplusses to balance this legal budget, so he had some SS suplus funds left over and not used at all....

and on another note, it has been reported that congress this year will produce a $450 billion BUDGET deficit....well, as you have been trying to note and correctly so if subnoted, there is an additional +/-$200 billion that was used of SS surplus taxes to balance this budget that will also be OWED to the SS account, bringing the total OWED for this year's spending nearing $650 billion.....

What i differ with you on Brian is that Clinton did balance the BUDGET and did have a BUDGET surplus his later years in office WITH the help of the Republican majority congress....ACCORDING to the laws in place regarding the definition of the Fiscal Budget....but duely noted, some of the SS surpluses helped that usa budgetary surplus happen....

care

Clinton did not have a real surplus. The money owed did not go down, The Republican Congress just managed to spend less then taxes coming in.

 

[Zoomie1980]

We say it over and over again. The numbers are there for them to check.

Still they insist on repeating the lie Care.

Their motives are obvious.

They are apologists for the system that is bankrupting this nation and most of the people in it.


They hate America and what it stands for, that's fairly obvious to me.

America stands for one thing above all. The INDIVIDUAL. And more specifically, the SELF-RELIANCE of the INDIVIDUAL. In this country, you make your own bed, and you have to lie in it.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Clinton did not have a real surplus. The money owed did not go down, The Republican Congress just managed to spend less then taxes coming in.

The government body that SPENDS THE MONEY is CONGRESS. The President can submit a budget but it is ALWAYS DOA!!!

Congress spends the money and creates the budget. The largest deficit in history DOES NOT belong to Bush, it BELONGS TO CONGRESS. The balanced budgets of the .com boom years BELONGED TO CONGRESS.

That's how it works in this country. The President has virtually NO power over fiscal policy.

 

[Chris]

Ah yes, doctors expect to be well compensated for saving people's lives, what the hell is wrong with them? I wonder what would happen to the number of people aspiring to be doctors if the government restricted the amount of pay they were compensated?

From Mythbusting Canadian healthcare....


2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:

First, as noted, they don't have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.

Second, they don't have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid -- quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren't interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner.

One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs.

Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor's debt is roughly half that.

Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.

Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they're not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it. And, no matter what happens, the victim will remain insured for life. When lawsuits do occur, the awards don't have to include coverage for future medical costs, which reduces the insurance company's liability.

 

[jreeves]

From Mythbusting Canadian healthcare....


2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:

First, as noted, they don't have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.

Second, they don't have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid -- quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren't interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner.

One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs.

Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor's debt is roughly half that.

Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.

Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they're not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it. And, no matter what happens, the victim will remain insured for life. When lawsuits do occur, the awards don't have to include coverage for future medical costs, which reduces the insurance company's liability.

That's the reason...
Doctors' walkouts in British Columbia and discontent among physicians across Canada point to critical problems that will lead to a severe doctors' shortage if current trends continue, say medical officials.

"We have fewer physicians per capita in Canada than almost any other industrialized country right now," said Dr. Peter Barrett, president of the Canadian Medical Association.

Barrett said there are fewer doctors now partly because of a 10 per cent reduction in medical school enrolment that was imposed across the country in 1993.
Severe doctors' shortage predicted in Canada

With take-home pay lower than some auto plant workers, no fringe benefits and increasing overhead, many family doctors are asking themselves why anyone would want their jobs.

"I essentially make what my plumber or auto mechanic earns once I have paid my overhead," said Daniel Maher, a Glebe physician who has been practising medicine since 1991. "Why spend nine years in university for all the responsibility and risk of lawsuits to make what a beginning engineer would earn?"

Frustration over pay, many family doctors argue, is leading some physicians to leave their practices for other work and is turning students away from a profession that once promised a healthy income. The result: there are not enough family physicians to go around.

Doctor shortage | canada.com

When Jennifer realized she was pregnant last summer, she called her family doctor's office to make an appointment for a referral to an obstetrician. Having delivered her first daughter almost three years ago, she knew the drill. But when the secretary picked up and said that her physician had shut down her practice and left Toronto "to spend more time with her family," Jennifer was stunned. It was the third doctor she'd lost since moving to the city in 1999 - and every one of them was a woman who'd left for her children.
"I was pretty frustrated by the third time it happened," says Jennifer (not her real name), a 36-year-old partner at a downtown law firm. Especially since this physician didn't announce her departure, or try to find a replacement. Months went by and Jennifer phoned doctors' offices posted online as accepting patients, only to find out they weren't. She asked friends and colleagues for referrals, to no avail. Finally, in desperation, she went to the health clinic at her gym, which is only staffed with a doctor on Wednesdays. By the time she saw an obstetrician, Jennifer was in her second trimester. "Before it was important to me to have a female physician," she says. "I won't be so fussy going forward."

Jennifer's situation is becoming increasingly common as more and more women pursue medical careers. And it's the latest twist on what may be the country's most critical health care issue - the doctor shortage. Across all health care occupations, from nurses to pharmacists to dental technicians, roughly 80 per cent of the workforce is female, according to Statistics Canada. But the physician population has always been male-dominated - 67 per cent in 2007.

Canada's Doctor Shortage Worsening

Brillant....

 

[Chris]

Medical miscalculation creates doctor shortage
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Retired fisherman Billy Bodiford was diagnosed with prostate cancer in October. The doctor who found the cancer is the only urologist available in Taylor County, Fla. (pop. 19,200) — and he visits just one day a month.

Shannon Price, a student at Florida State's College of Medicine, examines patient Joyce Wilson.
Michael A. Schwarz, USA TODAY

The doctor sent Bodiford from his hometown of Perry to Tallahassee 50 miles away for surgery. "You can't get the type of operation I needed in my town," says Bodiford, 68, who was hospitalized for six days in December and is feeling better.

Bodiford experienced what many Americans may soon face: a shortage of physicians that makes it hard to find convenient, quality health care. The shortage will worsen as 79 million baby boomers reach retirement age and demand more medical care unless the nation starts producing more doctors, according to several new studies.

The country needs to train 3,000 to 10,000 more physicians a year — up from the current 25,000 — to meet the growing medical needs of an aging, wealthy nation, the studies say. Because it takes 10 years to train a doctor, the nation will have a shortage of 85,000 to 200,000 doctors in 2020 unless action is taken soon.

The predictions of a doctor shortage represent an abrupt about-face for the medical profession. For the past quarter-century, the American Medical Association and other industry groups have predicted a glut of doctors and worked to limit the number of new physicians. In 1994, the Journal of the American Medical Association predicted a surplus of 165,000 doctors by 2000.

"It didn't happen," says Harvard University medical professor David Blumenthal, author of a New England Journal of Medicinearticle on the doctor supply. "Physicians aren't driving taxis. In fact, we're all gainfully employed, earning good incomes, and new physicians are getting two, three or four job offers."

The nation now has about 800,000 active physicians, up from 500,000 20 years ago. They've been kept busy by a growing population and new procedures ranging from heart stents to liposuction.

But unless more medical students begin training soon, the supply of physicians will begin to shrink in about 10 years when doctors from the baby boom generation retire in large numbers.

"Almost everyone agrees we need more physicians," says Carl Getto, chairman of the Council on Graduate Medical Education, a panel Congress created to recommend how many doctors the nation needs. "The debate is over how many."

Getto's advocacy of more doctors is remarkable because his advisory committee and its predecessor have been instrumental since the 1980s in efforts to restrict the supply of new physicians. In a new study sent to Congress, the council reverses that policy and recommends training 3,000 more doctors a year in U.S. medical schools.

Even the American Medical Association (AMA), the influential lobbying group for physicians, has abandoned its long-standing position that an "oversupply exists or is immediately expected."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm

 

[Chris]

We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other country in the world. A lot more. Especially considering that nearly one-sixth of the population has no health insurance. And the costs keep rising. Yet everyone just seems to throw their hands in the air and blame "medical advances." But don't they get those advances in Europe? Isn't it time to look for other explanations?

Here is an example. Imitrex tablets came out 12 years ago at $8.95 a tablet. They now cost more than twice as much. An estimated 28 million people in this country suffer from migraines. How many of them take Imitrex? With relentless advertisement, how many don't? What could have possibly justified price hikes as the drug became more popular?

Other examples: A friend of mine was charged $13,000 a day at the cardiac ICU of the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center. My mom went to an outpatient clinic there and was billed $800 for having a doctor look at her injured finger and conclude, "The finger is dead." An ear, nose and throat specialist billed my insurance $1,100 for one office visit. The fundamental flaw of our healthcare system is that everyone is trying to make money. Care is a means to an end. It makes no business sense for drug makers, for example, to look for cures for chronic conditions. Whether it's migraines or AIDS, the money is in treating symptoms -- for years. Maybe doctors write so many prescriptions because looking for alternatives takes more time, for which they're not paid. Healthcare providers would rather we keep coming back, buying drugs, having expensive procedures done. And we as consumers are powerless.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-myturn4-2008aug04,0,7402234.story

 

[jreeves]

Medical miscalculation creates doctor shortage
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Retired fisherman Billy Bodiford was diagnosed with prostate cancer in October. The doctor who found the cancer is the only urologist available in Taylor County, Fla. (pop. 19,200) — and he visits just one day a month.

Shannon Price, a student at Florida State's College of Medicine, examines patient Joyce Wilson.
Michael A. Schwarz, USA TODAY

The doctor sent Bodiford from his hometown of Perry to Tallahassee 50 miles away for surgery. "You can't get the type of operation I needed in my town," says Bodiford, 68, who was hospitalized for six days in December and is feeling better.

Bodiford experienced what many Americans may soon face: a shortage of physicians that makes it hard to find convenient, quality health care. The shortage will worsen as 79 million baby boomers reach retirement age and demand more medical care unless the nation starts producing more doctors, according to several new studies.

The country needs to train 3,000 to 10,000 more physicians a year — up from the current 25,000 — to meet the growing medical needs of an aging, wealthy nation, the studies say. Because it takes 10 years to train a doctor, the nation will have a shortage of 85,000 to 200,000 doctors in 2020 unless action is taken soon.

The predictions of a doctor shortage represent an abrupt about-face for the medical profession. For the past quarter-century, the American Medical Association and other industry groups have predicted a glut of doctors and worked to limit the number of new physicians. In 1994, the Journal of the American Medical Association predicted a surplus of 165,000 doctors by 2000.

"It didn't happen," says Harvard University medical professor David Blumenthal, author of a New England Journal of Medicinearticle on the doctor supply. "Physicians aren't driving taxis. In fact, we're all gainfully employed, earning good incomes, and new physicians are getting two, three or four job offers."

The nation now has about 800,000 active physicians, up from 500,000 20 years ago. They've been kept busy by a growing population and new procedures ranging from heart stents to liposuction.

But unless more medical students begin training soon, the supply of physicians will begin to shrink in about 10 years when doctors from the baby boom generation retire in large numbers.

"Almost everyone agrees we need more physicians," says Carl Getto, chairman of the Council on Graduate Medical Education, a panel Congress created to recommend how many doctors the nation needs. "The debate is over how many."

Getto's advocacy of more doctors is remarkable because his advisory committee and its predecessor have been instrumental since the 1980s in efforts to restrict the supply of new physicians. In a new study sent to Congress, the council reverses that policy and recommends training 3,000 more doctors a year in U.S. medical schools.

Even the American Medical Association (AMA), the influential lobbying group for physicians, has abandoned its long-standing position that an "oversupply exists or is immediately expected."

Could you post the link?

 

[Chris]

Could you post the link?

I did.

 

[jreeves]

We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other country in the world. A lot more. Especially considering that nearly one-sixth of the population has no health insurance. And the costs keep rising. Yet everyone just seems to throw their hands in the air and blame "medical advances." But don't they get those advances in Europe? Isn't it time to look for other explanations?

Here is an example. Imitrex tablets came out 12 years ago at $8.95 a tablet. They now cost more than twice as much. An estimated 28 million people in this country suffer from migraines. How many of them take Imitrex? With relentless advertisement, how many don't? What could have possibly justified price hikes as the drug became more popular?

Other examples: A friend of mine was charged $13,000 a day at the cardiac ICU of the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center. My mom went to an outpatient clinic there and was billed $800 for having a doctor look at her injured finger and conclude, "The finger is dead." An ear, nose and throat specialist billed my insurance $1,100 for one office visit. The fundamental flaw of our healthcare system is that everyone is trying to make money. Care is a means to an end. It makes no business sense for drug makers, for example, to look for cures for chronic conditions. Whether it's migraines or AIDS, the money is in treating symptoms -- for years. Maybe doctors write so many prescriptions because looking for alternatives takes more time, for which they're not paid. Healthcare providers would rather we keep coming back, buying drugs, having expensive procedures done. And we as consumers are powerless.

If only healthcare weren't all about money - Los Angeles Times

Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.
When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in Aucoin’s favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab.

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

 

[jreeves]

Medical miscalculation creates doctor shortage
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Retired fisherman Billy Bodiford was diagnosed with prostate cancer in October. The doctor who found the cancer is the only urologist available in Taylor County, Fla. (pop. 19,200) — and he visits just one day a month.

Shannon Price, a student at Florida State's College of Medicine, examines patient Joyce Wilson.
Michael A. Schwarz, USA TODAY

The doctor sent Bodiford from his hometown of Perry to Tallahassee 50 miles away for surgery. "You can't get the type of operation I needed in my town," says Bodiford, 68, who was hospitalized for six days in December and is feeling better.

Bodiford experienced what many Americans may soon face: a shortage of physicians that makes it hard to find convenient, quality health care. The shortage will worsen as 79 million baby boomers reach retirement age and demand more medical care unless the nation starts producing more doctors, according to several new studies.

The country needs to train 3,000 to 10,000 more physicians a year — up from the current 25,000 — to meet the growing medical needs of an aging, wealthy nation, the studies say. Because it takes 10 years to train a doctor, the nation will have a shortage of 85,000 to 200,000 doctors in 2020 unless action is taken soon.

The predictions of a doctor shortage represent an abrupt about-face for the medical profession. For the past quarter-century, the American Medical Association and other industry groups have predicted a glut of doctors and worked to limit the number of new physicians. In 1994, the Journal of the American Medical Association predicted a surplus of 165,000 doctors by 2000.

"It didn't happen," says Harvard University medical professor David Blumenthal, author of a New England Journal of Medicinearticle on the doctor supply. "Physicians aren't driving taxis. In fact, we're all gainfully employed, earning good incomes, and new physicians are getting two, three or four job offers."

The nation now has about 800,000 active physicians, up from 500,000 20 years ago. They've been kept busy by a growing population and new procedures ranging from heart stents to liposuction.

But unless more medical students begin training soon, the supply of physicians will begin to shrink in about 10 years when doctors from the baby boom generation retire in large numbers.

"Almost everyone agrees we need more physicians," says Carl Getto, chairman of the Council on Graduate Medical Education, a panel Congress created to recommend how many doctors the nation needs. "The debate is over how many."

Getto's advocacy of more doctors is remarkable because his advisory committee and its predecessor have been instrumental since the 1980s in efforts to restrict the supply of new physicians. In a new study sent to Congress, the council reverses that policy and recommends training 3,000 more doctors a year in U.S. medical schools.

Even the American Medical Association (AMA), the influential lobbying group for physicians, has abandoned its long-standing position that an "oversupply exists or is immediately expected."

Off of your post....
"The truth is, we don't know if there's a shortage of physicians," says AMA President John Nelson, a Salt Lake City obstetrician. "It looks like there are enough physicians for the short term, but maybe we need more because of the aging population."
An aging population....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The government body that SPENDS THE MONEY is CONGRESS. The President can submit a budget but it is ALWAYS DOA!!!

Congress spends the money and creates the budget. The largest deficit in history DOES NOT belong to Bush, it BELONGS TO CONGRESS. The balanced budgets of the .com boom years BELONGED TO CONGRESS.

That's how it works in this country. The President has virtually NO power over fiscal policy.

You are arguing with the wrong person, I suggest you reread what I wrote, I stated Congress not Clinton created what was claimed to be a surplus.

 

[jreeves]

From Mythbusting Canadian healthcare....


2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:

First, as noted, they don't have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.

Second, they don't have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid -- quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren't interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner.

One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs.

Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor's debt is roughly half that.

Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.

Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they're not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it. And, no matter what happens, the victim will remain insured for life. When lawsuits do occur, the awards don't have to include coverage for future medical costs, which reduces the insurance company's liability.

BalancedPolitics.org - Universal Health Care (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in a long line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system?


"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?


Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.


Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.


Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.


Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.


Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.


Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?


A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.


Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.


Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?


Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or healthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free.


Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramactically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.