I am not a political person at all and know very little about Obamacare. I still think that it's OK for doctors to accept money for speaking, especially if they're educating other doctors. Many doctors do only use a certain brand of surgical equipment, pacemaker,etc. They have a preference for what works for them and gives the best results. So I guess you could say they are prejudiced. Many doctors that do paid speaking engagements also take leaves and do missionary work as well. Note:I did not say all doctors. There are greedy doctors just like there are greedy individuals in every profession. If you feel strongly about this issue, do not go to a doctor that has accepted money from any drug company. I, myself do not have a problem with it under the circumstances I have described. We all have our own beliefs and opinions and that's what makes us unique.

Scott, because the government is going to tell doctors how much they can charge. That's why many doctors don't take Medicare. If this Obamacare disaster stays in, we're going to be looking at doctor shortages. Who wants to spend all that time and money for medvschool, when you won't be able to make a good living anymore... Well... At least not unless you take payola from big pharma. :)

The below came from a doctor's advocacy website regarding Obamacare. I didn't write it.

My opinion, after working for and around the Federal Government for 42 years, is they screw up everything and shouldn't be involved with healthcare. I am actually frightened. I am more qualified than anyone on this support group site to know what goes on with the Federal Goverment and how bad it really is.

These are some of the doctors' concerns:


1. Adds more patients to Medicaid. Beginning in 2014, Obamacare dumps an additional 19.6 million Americans into Medicaid. On average, Medicaid physician payments are only 56 percent of what private insurance pays. Lower payment rates already discourage doctors from accepting Medicaid beneficiaries, which has lead to access issues and hospital emergency room overcrowding. As more patients enroll in this broken program, it will place even more financial strain on physicians who treat them. Doctors will be faced with the decision to either discontinue treating Medicaid patients or accept even more patients at the lower payment rate.
2. Leaves the flawed Medicare payment formula on the books. Every year, doctor payments face the threat of deep cuts due to the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, which governs the growth of Medicare physician payments from year to year. But its well known that such drastic provider payment cuts would harm seniors access to care, and Congress has passed a last minute doc fix each year since 2003 to avoid this. Still, an estimated payment reduction of 27 percent is scheduled to go into effect next year unless Congress passes another doc fix, which will cost an estimated $208 billion. This problem faces doctors and Congress every year, and Obamacare does nothing to solve it.
3. Creates a new board to further cut provider payments. Obamacare uses the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats, to contain cost growth in Medicare by finding ways to cut spending to meet a new budget target. The board is limited in how it can achieve its goal, but one avenue definitely available is to further ratchet down provider payments. As IPAB cuts reimbursements, seniors will experience growing access problems as doctors discontinue seeing Medicare beneficiaries. If IPAB elects to limit seniors access to certain treatments and serviceswhich is also within its abilitiespatient choice and physician autonomy will also be sacrificed.
4. Exacerbates future physician shortage. America is projected to face a shortage of 91,500 doctors in 2020. Meanwhile, many surveys have concluded that American doctors have a negative view of Obamacare and its impact on the medical field. One survey found that Obamacare is motivating 43 percent of doctors to move up their retirement within the next five years. This will intensify the already existing doctor shortage.
5. Destroys the doctor-patient relationship. Obamacares massive amount of red tape and regulations will tear apart the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors will have to focus increasingly on government rules rather than the specific needs of their patients. Heritages Bob Moffit warns that Obamacares great expansion of government coverage will make physicians increasingly dependent on unreliable government reimbursement for medical services. In addition, Obamacare links payment for providers to adherence to government measurements of care. A recent doctor survey found that 67 percent of doctors surveyed said Obamacare would not improve the doctor-patient relationship.


Don't get mad at me (or spill your cool aid :-) ! )

petey

petey

This board is about afib, not about personal political opinions and prejudices. Let's keep politics out of it!
Ecofr

In scientific meetings you are not paid to speak. I would consider my doctor a salesman if he or she receives money from a drug company to give a talk about a drug sold by that company.

I'm with you ecofr. We get enough of this political crap in the media, without having to hear it on an AFIB forum.

Jim

Anyone not interested in this subject is certainly welcome not to read it. I think it's an important thing to discuss because it will affect the quality of our medical care for afib.

Petey, those are all good points. From a patient point of view, I worry about doctor shortages, and being unable to get timely treatment. Socialized healthcare results in rationing and tremendously long waits. A friend of mine lives in England. Her mother desperately needed a knee replacement. She waited two years in agonizing pain. Because of the way she walked with her bad knee, by the time she was allowed to have it, she then needed hip replacement surgery.. Something we wonder if she would have needed had she been treated in a timely manner. How long will afib patients be made to wait to see an EP? Or to have an ablation if socialized medicine goes through here?

Political crap? This is what doctors think and it will have an impact on atrial fibrillation care, particularly if you are older and want an ablation. Choices being left up to a Government person makes a decision if you can have an ablation based on if you've taken enough toxic drugs or have a left atrium that exceeds the standard or if you are persistent or asymptomatic will be taken away from you and your doctor, unless you want to pay $50K plus for an ablation (while you are also paying a huge premium). So healthcare is germane to afib care. So much of the discussions here have dealt with cost, choices, and availability of good EPs. This is not political... this is our futures. With Government involvement, no-one will get a timely ablation or the chance for an ablation as a first line treatment. New anticoagulants and research on antidotes will stop. Innovation goes where money goes. I read another afib blog where most of the people are from England and they cannot get timely care or appropriate care approved. You will be on your 20th electrocardioversion while you are drinking your Kool Aid if people don't wake up. You can block my posts if you want. petey

Also ecofr, prejudices? Who the $#@! are you to say that? Speak for yourself about prejudices... not me. I tell it like it is. Not wimpy.

Socialized medicine would not be a miracle cure for our healthcare system, but our present course is not sustainable and will eventually bankrupt our country. At present, we spend roughly $3000 more per person per year than the other industrialized countries, for healthcare, that is in many categories, sub-par to theirs. We pay outrageous prices for medicines compared to other industrialized countries. Socialized medicine is our only hope.

Dirty, rotten, pinko, commie, here:):):):)

Good job, Island! My EP is zero.

I don't know where you got your information from Marengo. Sub par health care? hardly.

Take for example cancer....

A research study by Professor Michel Coleman, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found that the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%.

Compare that to the UK (socialized medicine) The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer.

And if our health care is so "substandard" then why did the Canadian Premier come to the USA for heart surgery?

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/02/10/canadian-premier-comes-to-us-for-heart-surgery/

Then of course.. there are the UK Death Panels. They decide who will live and who will die. Do you want the government deciding whether you can have an ablation or any other health procedure?

One example is a 22 year old woman who is being denied a lifesaving operation:

"A young woman who is starving to death after being diagnosed with a paralysed stomach has been told that NHS bosses refuse to fund an operation to save her."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2013434/Help-Im-starving-death-6st-woman-paralysed-stomach-refused-life-saving-operation.html#ixzz21b6JbioH

And then there is this about the UK's National Health Service (NHS) and accelerating death:

"Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html

I am not comfortable with the government decided whether I or my loved ones should live or die.

Petey and Islanluvr: This is what I was afraid of when this subject was brought up. This forum has now deteriorated into a another flame throwing personal attack board. Well, it was nice while it lasted. If I want to hear any more about Obamacare, I will be sure to listen to the so called experts from both political parties and their expert doctors.

Jim

Flames? Personal attacks? Where??????? Can you quote me a single flame or personal attack, please?