AARP has it wrong and NARP-National Association of Retired People has it right. Why does AARP think a government dominate of health care could possibly be best for seniors? The system is going to be over loaded with patients producing a shortage of doctors.
Based on the governments' numbers (which I do not believe) over 45 million people will likely be added to the medical system. That will imply that the present variety of doctors and hospitals will immediately be overloaded with patients. I ask the question to AARP'how will that be best for seniors? That appears like someone including seniors must have a cut inside medical services and wait longer to acquire care.
If we don't immediately develop another 200,000, doctors there will be shortages in medical providers. To make things worse 45% of most doctors say they are going to retire or perhaps quit if it legislation passes. If the federal government can figure out a way to produce more doctors, they will need to come from foreign countries with lower education standards than we've got here in the USA. Many patients could end up buying a much lower quality of medical care. Ask AARP how could that get better because of seniors?
AARP makes huge amounts of money by selling medical health insurance. I ask the question'could AARP be thinking that somehow if your government starts healthcare they will benefit by selling more medical health insurance? So far, I have not heard the government explain one advantage to seniors for the federal government to perform medical care. So again, I ask'why is AARP for government entities plan specially when we do not know precisely what the plan is going to be?
The government is discussing cutting the total amount doctors and hospitals will likely be paid. Politicians say they need to give the doctors not for that service they perform but also for patient health results. This form of statement comes from politicians who have never experienced business or ever run a business of their entire life. Obviously, someone making that sort of statement whatever her or his position in government could possibly be just does not comprehend the situation.
When you place a rebuilt engine or transmission in a vehicle, it could workout all right and occasionally it will not. When you do open heart surgical procedures or remove a cancer sometimes, it functions out perfectly and quite often it will not. Every case is unique with each patient'very seldom are typical things the identical. Some times the physician has to own many test on the patient to be aware of wrong. I know a man that had to have four of the same test run to find that he needed bypass surgery.
My own wife had several scans for my child back that found nothing yet my lady had lower back pain so bad she would not walk. After several long discussions with your physician, he sent us to an alternative hospital that had a more elaborate scanning machine that found the nerve overuse injury in her back. The neurosurgeon operated and now she walks okay. With a government run healthcare system she may possibly not have had the oppertunity to run enough tests to receive the correct treatment.
Doctors and hospitals have a very certain amount of business operating overhead it doesn't matter what government entities thinks. Right now about 8% of the total price of treatment for Medicare and Medicaid patients happens with the pocket in the doctors and hospitals. The politicians wish to squeeze entire system about this kind of pricing. Some hospitals and doctors will have to go away from business and will not best for seniors.
My wife's doctor said she would stop practicing medicine whenever they cut allowable charges back excessive. I have heard that possibly one-fifth of most doctors feel the same way. As a result of politicians making pricing decisions instead with the free market setting pricing organic beef use a giant shortage of doctors inside the near future. Changing just how doctors are paid is not the reply to cutting health care costs and achieving government bureaucrats make decisions is even worse.
Many seniors (around 22%) have what is called Medicare Advantage supplemental insurance. The President has indicated he intends to cut $180 billion away from that program to economize. Lets' ask AARP'how is the fact that going to be good for seniors. If those cuts go into effect, your physician will probably be paid less rather than wish to see seniors or seniors get less care. Possibly that program could eventually be dropped as a whole. Either way it's not at all beneficial to seniors. The bottom line to all or any of this government involvement in medical will result in less care for seniors. Why is AARP and not on your side? NARP is just not associated with any union or political party and truly understands why seniors come to mind.