Here's what I posted about it earlier:

Essentially, it would make a LOT more sense for the government to do something about the hundreds of med school graduates who can't be doctors before overhauling the system entirely.

Not really. If more people can afford it, more people will go to hospitals. Since there is a low supply of doctors, there won't be enough to take care of each patient. Leading to congestion in hospitals, which is bad because people in serious need won't get treated as fast.

The policy doesn't allow for more doctors anywhere. I don't have the numbers, but it would be a low ratio of doctors to patients.

Very interesting posts, GaGaFan!

But I don't understand this part. If Obamacare will increase the amount of patients in hospitals, then wouldn't that give hospitals an incentive to open more residency spots? They're going to need the extra staff to cover the extra patients, and what better than fresh out of Med school students who will work long hours for only 20k?

The problem is overpopulation. People need to stop pushing out babies like they're at a slot machine collecting a jackpot.

Your logic would be sound if residents were able to perform surgeries. They can't, though. The life of a resident until about their third year is being on rotation and doing very basic, routine checkups and small procedures. The big jobs still need to go to the people who know them best, the veteran doctors.

And the trend for the past twenty years has been a stagnation of residencies in the most urban areas, the places that would be most impacted by these laws, so I am afraid the answer to your question is "not really."

That's the thing with socialism, you have to somehow make the wealthy pay for the poor. If the wealthy are happy with their health care, why would they want to invest in it? Now that they too will be confronted by the major flaws in the system, society as a whole will be more driven to work towards overall improvement, because the need for more (trained) doctors/facilities/etc. will be urgent, rather than a simple nuisance. A first major step like Obamacare is needed as a catalyst for change.

Actually, it was proven that the world will depopulate in the next few decades. More women are getting jobs, more people are being educated, more people are starting families later in life. Meaning, the more educated a person is, and if a woman has a job, she'll be less likely to have a child. Its going on in the first world, especially in Western Europe.

So overpopulation is not really the problem, it's lack of supply. The US isn't use to this many people coming in for help at a high capacity. I remember being stuck in an emergency room because of too little doctors, more people will make the issue like hell.

Did my post sound serious?

Cool story though.

Thank you Gagafan and CoolestPerson.

Doc, I was going to respond with the same thing. You'd think the increase in patients would be enough of an incentive to increase the number of doctors, but I guess it'll take an actual law for these hospitals to start granting more residencies. That's what you're saying right gagafan? That hospitals won't grant recidencies unless they're forced to by law?

And that's why America isn't a socialist society....yet. It just can't work in a large, diverse population such as ours. :shrugs: I volunteer as a medication room technician in our city's free health care clinic that operates completely independent of any government funding at all, and we are able to service thousands of our population (roughly 300k) from the donations of, ironically, large corporations and the wealthy people in our area. 5 million dollars last year in free medication from drug companies, and I dispense it directly to patients. Millions donated by rich people in our town and free surgeries donated by physicians. I mean, I guess I find the whole idea of "making" someone pay for someone else so hard-to-swallow because I've seen how unnecessary it is first-hand.

I'm going to bed, though, because I just got done with a week of midterms. Have nice conversations, girls!

Let me clarify: hospitals offer a lot of residencies right now, but it is not enough even at the current moment to make sure we have as many doctors as we need in our system. I am speaking extremely macroscopically here, but on the whole hospitals need to be incentivized to provide these residencies because they're essentially paying 20k more than they would when they already hire healthcare professionals to do similar jobs (a nurse, for example, is a more practical long-term investment for a hospital in the long-run, pretty complicate though).

But yeah--this problem needs to be tackled first in order to make headway.

What do you mean exactly by the health care supply?

This topic excites me

Alright thanks Gagafan. Go to sleep uglee

Capacity is probably a better word for it.

But surgery isn't the only reason why people come to hospitals, nor is the only healthcare procedure that people these days can't pay for.

And regardless, the more graduates in residencies = the more doctors in three years = the more doctors available to take care of the increasing amounts of patients over time.

And this is slightly off topic, but if we as a country could focus more on preventative work, such as for example, checking T3 levels during routine checkups, to catch potential health problems before they worsen, the amount of people in hospitals demanding immediate care would decrease.