Shortage of Doctors Proves Obstacle to Obama Goals
By ROBERT PEAR 27 April 2007 the New York Times
One proposal — to increase Medicare payments to general practitioners, at the expense of high-paid specialists — has touched off a lobbying fight.
I wonder if Congress should instead focus on improving the income of doctors, reduce the fear of Mal-practive and insisting on deepening their education. So that people will once again see it as a worthy profession and thus there will be enough doctors to serve our growing population, not simply here, but all over the world.
As the Grandson, son and brother of doctors, I am driven to suggest to our Congress and the people that we must consider the investment someone must make to becoming a care practitioner and realize that we must encourage people to want to dedicate the time it takes to become proficient. These dedicated individuals, unlike CEO’s and Wall Street millionaire, must excel in their studies and invest four years at university, four years at medical school and then finally before having the skills to serve us, invest an additional three to six years as a journey man (i.e. their their internship and residency). Hundreds of thousand of dollars later and so much time and study does desire a fair reward.
I also believe that we should begin to think about training our internist better, so they can be more effective and not simply pass the patient on to a specialist. they as the gatekeep should have the education and practical training so unlike today thare are able to properly diagnosis the problem we the sick are facing.
Simply look at the TV series House. his dedication and effectiveness of his team is what we need. People who truly think and only turn to specialists when they fibnally accept that the specialists skills are required. Just to put a value to House. my father a retired Park Avenue and renowned diagnostician finds this one medical program stimulates his thinking.
The other key issue that Obama and Congress must address is that medicine should be a cottage industry. Instead corporations and insurance companies now run our health care system, Hillary Clinton’s efforts, although altruistic, probably drove corporations to seek profits at the expense of the real care-takers and unltimately you and I. These new “medical?” tycoons are more worried about shareholder returns and annual bonuses than the health of the people who should be their focus and are in their care.
Is it a national health system that we need simply to “FIX” the problem. Or is it a return to a system run by doctors who are properly trained and rewarded. We should think first of investing our taxes on helping the gatekeepers (family practitioners, gynecologist and internists) to be the front line, capable of dealing with most medical issues. We should encourage their selfless commitment and drive for education and practical training so they can effectively serve, thus drive down costs by being better at what they do.
Finally thought. Risk is endemic in any system. Lawyers drive risk out of the system by pursuing law suits because someone took at risk or was just like the rest of us a made an error. The net result,t doctors have become overly cautious, dependent on too many tests and unwilling to say this is what I think is wrong and if we don’t do something (however risky) now MY patient will die.