I don’t really know (or care) why. It is not a controlled study - there are literally hundreds of variables not controlled for when you compare country to country. As I pointed out with the Belarus to Belgium thing.
I am sure Vermont doctors will also be very happy to pay that “slight increase” (LOL, yeah, that’s the ticket) in taxes that the “single payer” will rely on.
I guess the answer is denial, then.
Based on the link by Ravenman, I have to say that many doctors will not agree with you, the item that causes the most complains for the doctors is the delays and lack of access their patients have. IOW, the current system we have.
Yup. Show me a study that asked the doctors whether they would be happy with a system that would eliminate the “delays and lack of access” in return for a 50% cut in their income. Without it, the link by Ravenman is meaningless. “Would you like a pony?”. “Yes, I would”.
A clarification: Vermont has not yet worked out how the system will be funded. An earlier iteration called for a 10% tax on businesses and a 4% tax on individuals, but that was deemed to steep even for Vermont. From the sound of it, they are largely back to the drawing board on the financing side of this reform.
There was no comparable case. As I said, moving inside a country is a lot easier than emigrating from a country.
I think it’s great for Vermont to try this experiment. I’m anxious to see how it works. And, no, I’m not being sarcastic. Frankly, the ACA is so cumbersome, complex, incomplete and costly I’m not sure I wouldn’t rather have seen implementation of a single payer system instead. For those that mentioned Hawaii, it’s just too remote and different to offer up much evidence one way or the other, so Vermont will (hopefully) provide some real-world results.
And, yes, I’m aware other countries have single payer systems, but they also have many other differences from US health care, so you can’t tally up just the positives without also considering the negatives and general social and economic factors.
Not me.
There’s 1, and I’m assuming 2 given the person you were replying to.
The Almighty Dollar has limited importance for some of us. Sorry to disappoint.
Time to return to being a “cog in the machine”. Woe is me.
As the numbers from Hawaii show, it is not really 50%, and stop with the FUD already. For sure there will be unhappy doctors, but not as much as you assume when many do care about their patients.
Of course they do. And they will care about their new patients as well, in whatever place they move to.
And what numbers from Hawaii? Can you show me what the compensation for doctors under Hawaii’s “single-payer” will be?
I still do not think this is a good point, it is an expanded kind of Medicare what we are talking about, and Doctors that are leaving medicare there just become private doctors, they are not leaving Hawaii. Remoteness is not much of a factor.
In reality many of the health care systems in Europe are not just single payer, the closest one to the mix that we are attempting to make in the USA happened in Switzerland and while it is the most expensive by GDP after the USA, it is still almost half of what the USA [del]wastes[/del] is expending.
The ACA *was written *by the special interests. That pretty much blows up this nonsense.
The numbers I mentioned came from the previous link I made, In Hawaii the progress is going towards single payer and Hawaii was ahead of other states on offering UHC.
In any case I do think that a lot of Doctors in Hawaii are in favor of single payer thanks to the endorsement by the Hawaii Medical Association:
Yes, without the need to placate the insurance industry by giving them a bunch of healthy new rate-payers, we might already *have *full single-payer.
IIRC, something like 60-70% of all doctors in the UK were educated in Third World countries because frankly they have so few native born willing to become doctors because they don’t find the compensation worth it.
In the US the average medical school graduate owes around 120,000 dollars in student loans and makes very little for the first 3-5 years as interns, so most don’t start making real money until their early 30s.
It seems foolish to me to believe a significant pay cut won’t cause many to move.
IIRC it was the Telegraph that reported that big number of 60-70%, but looking at the source where they claimed to get the info from, the numbers from the World Region of PMQ that refers to the region in which a doctor gained their initial qualification shows that 60% were trained in the UK.
The previous link you made was not about Hawaii. It was about US en toto. Did you not notice that?
They do conflate foreign-trained with foreign-born as opposed to “White British”.
And there is this: The NHS Needs More British Doctors, Senior Surgeon Warns - American Renaissance
The GMC registers 13,000 doctors a year, 6,000 or whom come from foreign countries and start work with “little or no knowledge and experience of British culture or of our health service—and this in the most people-centric occupation of all. It really does matter,” he said.
A GMC survey found that foreign-trained doctors are up to four times more likely to be suspended or struck off than their UK colleagues.
Previous does not mean last.