I agree with the individual mandate, but taxing the providers and hospitals will simply deter physicians from practicing in California. As with any radical proposal, there are large obstacles ahead.
Update:
Here’s the reality of what will happen once physicians’ revenues are taxed:
“The idea that taxing physicians’ revenue to cause them to provide more care of higher quality defies understanding,” said John R. Graham, director of Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. “Instead they’ll spend more time with accountants figuring out how to hide their incomes, or prospecting for new practices next door in Nevada or Arizona.”
Related posts:
- John Edwards, Nataline, and CIGNA: Matthew Holt is Spot-On
- California’s universal health plan proposal
- Matthew Holt forecasts health care in 2007
- Matthew Holt test drives Google Health
- Free-marketers vs Matthew Holt
- Matthew Holt reviews Sicko
- Matthew Holt on Sermo-Medgadget
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 5 comments }
For years I have been seeing physicians and physician groups supporting socialist policies that result in fleecing of the tax payer and lining of the provider pockets. The new proposals in the People’s Republic are finally starting to bring home to the providers the fiscal pain associated with this socialism. The reception that I have seen thus far for this proposal has been positive with a straggling provider or two complaining about the costs and suddenly becoming very quiet when asked about how much after expense income they are taking home. It would appear that some journalists are at least asking the easy, but until recently tough question.
Because of the large number of dominant HMOs in Cali reimbursements in that state are low compared to the national average. In fact, Medicare is one of the better payers! We’ll have to see how this all pans out, but throw in the 2% doctor tax and you may finally see a physician exodus. The only thing keeping them there now is the California lifestyle, weather, and beaches. I sure do miss San Diego, but will never go back…
It will be interesting to see if there is a clinician exodus. If there is, one can certainly see the tag of “greedy physicians” being applied regardless of justification, appropriateness or correctness. What I would really like to see is the state taking a lead in creating or allowing the equivalent of non-ABA accredited law schools in regards to clinical training while offsetting some of the costs associated with clinical training and creating new residency positions. Opening the supply side and flooding the market with providers who would only be allowed to practice legally in the state (no comity agreements) would be an interesting fix to the problem of “fleeing” clinicians.
Criminal,
We already have what you want. There are acupuncturists, herbalists, chiropractors, all promoting practice and cures to some degree.
I belong on a medical school screening committee. As far as qualifications go we are already scraping the barrel much lower than I want to go.
Just go to Tijuana if you want a cheap, non-English speaking allopath.
While it would appear that your comment is made in jest or perhaps derision – the use of Tijuana does bring up a good point. It shows the lack of necessity of coupling clinical medicine programs to large research institutions. I would not be surprised if I have more published scientific papers on my own than the “Tijuana Tech” medical school. While the name is in jest it does point to schools of equivalent academic repute from which students come to the US, pass the medical boards and perform a residency prior to practicing (like the barebacking Florida neurosurgeon). Why not keep these students in the country and get rid of the supply side clog? Doing the equivalent of what I am suggesting did not put the existing lawyers in California out of business.
Comments on this entry are closed.