There is strong evidence that long-term oversight by primary care doctors increases the quality of care and decreases costs.
I agree completely, Stalker--though I know it sounds a bit selfish for me to say so. And I don't think it's to any large degree about paying primary care docs more but of changing how primary care is regarded and organized. Too many people, including some specialists, look upon GPs as docs who weren't smart enough or ambitious enough to become specialists. And I would say the worst offenders are some hospitals who promote their specialists as if they were demi-gods.
We have a system here that in almost all cases allows patients to get an appointment on the same day (75% of the time if they call before 10:00 am) or the next day (20% of the time). What people have realized is that if patients have to wait more than three days to see a GP, they'll go to an urgent care center (where they may get very good care but where they usually don't see a doc they've seen before--not ideal) or the problem will be much worse with potentially very bad consequences, or the problem will have gone away or subsided to the point where the visit is unnecessary.
It sure is a changed world Tulla. I can get to a doctor asap (UC Ctr + xrays), shots/BP at CVS and online literature for reference if you can avoid the trap of self diagnosis. Quite a change from peniclilin shots on the couch as a kid for earaches!
As one borderline insane female Congresswoman from northern California once said, "we need to pass it so you can see what's in it." That is not an exact quote, but it captures what ole Nancy meant. So, there is precedent here, after all!
In the Senate alone there were 36 days of hearings and 25 days of debate about the ACA. As I understand it now, the Republican leadership is planning not to have any hearings about whatever it is the group of 13 proposes.
That's a good point Tulla. And it's also a good counterpoint to say that Obama(highcost)care was passed on reconciliation when major legislation like it was normally not passed in this fashion. Bottom line is that you do what you can/want when you are in power. Not saying it's right or wrong, but, again, for the second time today, the point is that there is precedent, and, in this case, recent democrat precedent.
With all the issues this country is facing my only concern is qualifications, not their color. You’re still hung up on color?! I don’t care if they are all black or all white. What's next, sexual preferences and positions?
Well, we know the "health care" choice many women make about their unborn don't we? So then, why can't men make choices about women's lives ? At least it won't involve loss of life.
Tell us why each of those three individuals have no idea what they are doing. On DeVos, you might or might not have a point, but I'd like to hear you articulate it. I suspect that MSNBC or NPR told you to think this. Ben Carson could do almost any job and he would understand it better on day one than you ever would.
