So this is why Obamacare supporters don't care for people using "govt run" in references to it. I don't use it as a pejorative. Govt "runs" other entities sure. Pubic goods is the term in economics I believe.

False
False
False
False

Feel free to actually answer the question, or even make a positive contribution to this forum all on your own.

What question?

What other criteria? What is the definition of a doctor shortage, where are there shortages, and where aren't there shortages?

How does Obamacare relate to this alleged problem in any way?

I'm not sure if I 100% want to limit to that.
The shortages are largely in rural and **** urban areas.

Obamacare increases demand for doctors, exacerbating the shortage.

It's really not hard.

OK so no definition of a shortage, you know it when you see it, but whatever.

That's not the juicy part here. Here's the good part:
Bing! There will be allegedly be "too much" demand for doctors(the definition of "too much" is a closely guarded secret) after we give all the poors health insurance, ergo Obamacare is bad.

The obvious implication is that you think Obamacare should not have given the poors health insurance. So, contra your whining that Dino was being mean to you(mean to ikes! IKES' FWEELINGS ALERT!!!! ALL MODS ON DECK) when he asked if you would prefer those poors just **** off and die...

You really do think the poors should just **** off and die lest they inconvenience you by making you wait.

Sigh fly, the obvious implication is you just making **** up because you're too furious and uninformed to have a rational discussion.

A rational discussion about WHAT? FFS you have yet to articulate that:

1) A problem exists
and
2) Obamacare makes it worse

And that's before we even get into the very obvious counter that some people might be willing to sit through wait times if that is the cost of universal health care. We all know you aren't one of those people, but that's why we have elections every 4 years.

To be fair, answering 1 of 3 is pretty good.

one has already been fairly well answered, answering one answers the other. DUCY?

Ikes v Fly reaching a new level of awesome. Please guys don't ever agree on anything, please please please

Guess he picked option 4.

Or maybe Ikes would prefer legislation that encouraged more doctors and facilities by limiting regulation in medicine making it more affordable for everyone.

Considering ikes' primary complaint is that GPs don't make enough money so, uh, nope?

Mmm, where did i say that exactly fly?

Regardless, what I'd like to see is completely untenable politically. Currently, you are denying reality. There are not enough GPs. There are not enough GPs because there are not enough med schools and residencies in addition to financial incentives, created almost entirely by the government, to specialize.

This is a completely accurate description of the current state of affairs. You're just throwing a fit because I'm telling you this. You'd take DE's sweet man juice all over your face if he said the exact same thing. In fact, that's exactly how the beginning of this thread went down.

Ikeworld: too few doctors, but even if we have more MDs, paying doctors less is not an option. Gotta bring down costs by, uh...?

...death panels. And more fast food. An even poorer diet will free up more doctors.

O RLY? Where do I say that again? Paying doctors less when you have a shortage probably isn't the best idea btw, I thought you knew something about price controls.

Anyways, I've said time and time again the obvious play in our currently political climate is to increase the supply of doctors and work on fixing the specialist/gp financial incentives. This is a very basic thing that everyone should be on board with. It wouldn't fix everything, but we'd start making progress.

There are other things that could be done wrt to GPs and our medical system as a whole, but they would largely require a fundamental re-imagining of how we train health care providers. They mostly revolve around the idea of increasing specializing within large groups of HCPs to improve outcomes while increasing efficiency. Creating a larger pyramid structure that funnels complex cases to HCPs with either better or more specialized training while keeping stitches and colds to people with less training would accomplish this goal.

We're moving towards this kind of model somewhat, but progress has been slow for several reasons. People want to see doctors, not PAs or NPs. Doctors also have a strong interest in keeping various privileges monopolized, and the public generally agrees with this mistaken notion. Personally, I'd be in favor a much more radical solution that focuses specialization early on in education.

The issue gets more convoluted as you continue to go down the rabbit hole, but where we've been the past 100 or so posts is a pure denial by fly and a few other misinformed liberals who bizarrely refuse to accept we need to fix various things within or affected by Obamacare, even if you are a fan in general of it.

What does any of that **** have to do with the health insurance reforms commonly known as "Obamacare"?

Obamacare exacerbates the problems of the current doctor shortage we have fly.

This has only been gone over 40 times, will there need to be 41?

While I agree that the doctor shortage needs to (and will) be addressed, complaining about Obamacare because of it is a bit like complaining that better military body armor causes more people to need treatment for TBI.

Does Obamacare cause there to be fewer doctors?

AFAIK, you've never "gone over" what qualifies as a doctor shortage. You did post that map, tho, so good job, good effort ikes.

It will. When doctors are restricted to the amount of money they can make, there will be fewer doctors. Unless we pay for their education, something that can be done now that the gov controls student loans.

There already are not enough doctors for the number of paying patients (wait times in ER is a clear example). Now we are adding to the number of people that receive care.

Ike,

Your argument is not self-evident. First, you have not demonstrated that there is a shortage of doctors. There might be, particularly in rural areas in particular specializations, but you haven't provided evidence to this effect.

Next, you have not even presented an argument as to how or why Obamacare exacerbates the not-yet-demonstrated problem of doctor shortages. The law does not bring tons of new people into the medical treatment system. It gives more people insurance. The people without insurance are already getting care, they just aren't paying for it. Will they go to specialists more and the ER less? Probably, which will require some shifting of doctor manpower, but not necessarily more of it.

As for raradevils' argument that we're gonna have a doctor shortage because they won't make enough money to make being a doctor 'worth it,' I'll just file that one away under THIS IS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

I'm not doing this and essentially agree with you. It's quite easy to say obamacare as a whole is worth this problem. However, someone else brought up the doc shortage and someone else denied it.

Fly is still asking stupid questions like how obamacare will lower the amount of doctors we have. Blind partisanship is bad, and is a nice example of just how hard it will be to make common sense changes in DC