It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by redhead57
reply to post by Strictsum
There is a shortage of Family doctors now because these specialists are making so much money.
Originally posted by Strictsum
reply to post by TheAssociate
There will be no specialist. Why spend the extra time learning a specialty if you make the same thing as a family doctor. It makes no sense.
Unless they force them. What if medical students were forced to specialize in certain areas depending on the amount currently available. I could actually see them trying something like this.
Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by desertdreamer
Doctors are gonna get the shaft as well....
- Sec. 1121, Pg. 241, Lines 6-8 - Doctors, it does not matter what specialty you have; you’ll all be paid the same. “Service categories established under this paragraph shall apply without regard to the specialty of the physician furnishing the service.”
That's going to cause a massive decrease in the number of doctors, especially specialists.
Originally posted by Uniceft17
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. Barely True: Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. One of the goals is to include features that "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation" between payment and billing. The legislative summary says the intent in the section is "to adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health care providers. The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges.
Could they be anymore vague about this section? Can someone describe what this means in laymans terms. It says no special acces priveleges? But they still have access? Does this make any sense?
[edit on 8/22/2009 by Uniceft17]
.GOV has access to your checking... Right? You are in emergency room with, say, kidney stones... You have outstanding checks yet you show a balance to pay for shattering said kidney stones... They debit... Your checks bounce because you have to pay for .GOV healthcare on the spot. Rather than be billed.
I foresee in the future a fat added on tax...
I mean, think about it... IF they have access to transaction records, what's to prevent someone from checking to see how much you spent at McDonalds, how many cigarettes you bought, how much alcohol, etc., etc., etc.
I just myself turned down signing a form at work that actually gave my company access to that kind of records. What's scary is, most people signed it!
I would have to know what the "service categories established under this paragraph" are. That has been selectively deleted from this quote. For all I know the service category could be putting on a bandaid, for which all physicians would be paid equally.
This thread is rife with people's INTERPRETATIONS of what a paragraph says.
This is just one example of how misleading that could be.
I prefer to read it myself. I don't trust many of the interpretations presented in this thread or in similar ones.