Texas Doctors Abandoning Medicare
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in NewsThe Houston Chronicle looks at a worrisome trend for the American healthcare industry as it pertains to Texas. New data reveals that only 58% of Texas doctors now accept Medicare, down from 90% in 1990. Only 38% of Texas primary care doctors accept the government insurance. As Medicare payments are expected to get worse, more and more doctors are expected to leave the program.
This is the problem with government healthcare insurance. The programs tend to save costs by cutting payments. The result, of course, is that doctors cut the programs. Now, I’m sure there are those out there who think doctors make too much as it is. But until my job requires me to attend over 10 years of schooling and then take people’s lives into my hands on a daily basis, I’m not going to complain about the compensation of doctors.
I will, however, complain about a government program that through cost-cutting is creating a situation in which fewer and fewer choices are available to needy older Americans. This is no way to provide quality healthcare and reveals the inherent problems in government healthcare systems. I’m by no means arguing that government doesn’t have a role to play, simply that government programs are fraught with problems and any future solutions must recognize the limitations of government insurance.
This entry was posted on Friday, July 4th, 2008 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:47 am
So what’s the logic in supporting a candidate/Party that promises Single Payer (aka Universal) healthcare?
July 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Single-payer and universal health care are NOT synonyms, gljunket.
Many or most European countries have universal coverage without having government/single-payer insurance structures. In particular the Swiss and the Danes and the Germans have universal coverage without having single-payer, and all four have both better health-care outcome ratings and higher patient satisfaction ratings than the United States. The French have more of a blended system, but also have higher outcome and satisfaction ratings than we do.
Interestingly, Italy has single-payer and some of the highest outcome ratings–with some of the LOWEST patient satisfaction ratings. IOW it works pretty well for them, but they hate it. :-)
July 4th, 2008 at 11:21 am
If anyone cares to do just a bit of research NPR had a really good piece on the German system just yesterday. Basically there is a system of non-profits that get their money by 8% withholding from employees checks and an equal amount from the employers. The self-employed or people who make good money and want to opt out of the basic system can pay for-profits for their care. All of the companies are strictly regulated in terms of price increases, etc. What it didn’t address (At least that I heard.) was how the unemployed fit into this system. Actually I’ve been of the opinion for a while that what we needed was a non-profit similar to the USPS or Freddie Mac that employers, no matter how large or small, could use just as they use for-profits when they can afford it today. But there would be no small business that couldn’t afford it at all, everything would be pay what you can based on income whether working at a regular job whether full time or part time, self-employed or unemployed.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
The “previously employed” unemployed are covered by their previous fund, with the state benefits agency paying their contribution. The “never employed” unemployed are covered by the state benefits agency contracting directly with providers and the regional funds.
Coverage in Germany is not nearly “whole dollar,” there are signficant co-pays.
The Swiss have a mandatory-purchase setup whereby private regional insurers compete to provide policies with the state-standardized “basic” benefits. The hospital system is state run and supported, but is paid for somewhat by their treatment billings to insurance. I believe the basic policies are pretty much a flat 20% co-pay, and people can buy additional (non-mandatory) and upgraded coverages if they like, but everyone is required to have a “basic” standardized-benefits policy. You can choose any provider, but providers can set their own rates and insurance pays only the standardized fee. There is a healthy amount of competition both among insurors and providers. They pay about a third less overall (%GDP) for healthcare than we do, and are quite happy with it.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
[...] Donklephant » Blog Archive » Texas Doctors Abandoning Medicare. [...]
July 4th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Yet another invidious comparison of a one-payer system versus the laissez-faire, dog-eat dog system we have now.
One thing is for sure. The system as it currently stands is only benefiting one subgroup of people; the rich! We’ve tried the hands-off approach. A “free-market/capitalistic” system. It’s not working. Too many Americans are being denied what should be an essential right. The right to be a healthy human being. Under the current system as it stands and has stood for more than two centuries, it’s a remarkable failure.
as the age old trope goes, “we have the best healthcare is the world, the best money can buy.” Well, I hate to burst your bubble peeps, but healthcare isn’t a Porsche. It’s not a Plasma television. It’s a matter of life and death for millions. Healthcare has no place being commodified. When it is, as our system is you get rampant, flagrant abuse and people being neglected viable, quality healthcare based not on their apparent needs but instead their income bracket.
No, western Europe isn’t some backwater hick nether-region that hasn’t the first clue about running a healthcare system. No, it’s just quite the opposite. They’ve managed to remove as much as possible the greed factor from what they view to be a critical and important facet of their lives. The right to live a dignified life. The right to be healthy. And yes! Oh my goodness, it’s a “Socialistic” approach to healthcare (gasp!) Yes, that’s right, the Stalin kind. And guess what? at least their healthcare system works. As much as one can expect it to work in any case. By “work” I mean people aren’t going broke and destitute simply because they have to seek medical help. Something all too pervasive in this bastion of “Free” Market capitalism we got here in wonderland.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Another example of unbridled government regulation and intervention ruining what was a perfectly good healthcare system in the US. We’re taxing ourselves to prosperity! How long do you suppose it will be before docs are made to accept medicare as a requirement of licensure?