Do any of the healthcare bills contain anything about incentives for...

[Rick31]

...educating more doctors? It seems to me that if at least 12 million more Americans are put into the health care system, we will need more doctors and other health care professionals. I have heard nothing from either side about offering incentives for students to enter medical or nursing schools. The only thing is I have heard some older doctors say they may get out of the profession because government intervention is sure to bring along more and more red tape. Has no one looked into this or have I just not heard about it?

[Angela Q]

No, they don't, though I have heard some politicians express the idea that more doctors will be needed eventually.

Right now there is no evidence that changes made to the system will result in health care becoming more affordable or available to the uninsured. In fact, changes that have been proposed will probably result in many more people self-treating, because after they pay a large amount of their income for health insurance, they will not be able to pay a huge deductible that is required before the insurance pays a dime. âˆ*°)

[Tyler W]

No but, they are increasing the Medicare payment rules for primary care phicisians and lowering the payment rules for specialists (surgeons, etc.) Me thinks this as a bone thrown to the primary care doctors to help compensate them for seeing medicare parients despite the fact that 20% more peopele will now have government-paid or mandatory insurance that lets them go see a primary care physician.

What you are getting at, though, is right on. The unintended consequances of this thing are being ignored completely by those pushing it. They say they want to cut costs. Well you can do that in a number of ways, but rationing and possibly tort reform are probably the only meaningful ways to do it. Pereventitive care is probably a life saver, but not a cost cutter, it may actually increase costs. For example, undetected cancer that kills its victum costs nothing before it is found and less after it is discovered than sucessfully treating a stage-1 cancer patient (not that I prefer poeple to die, but we are talking about expected cost savings not life savings). End-of-life counselling will not cut costs in a meaningful way unless it actually does ammount to intimidation or rationing. Since they aren't doing any other meaningfull thing to cut costs in this bill, it is likely to increase costs and spending on healthcare. Creating artificial demand for something by subsidizing it, will increase both the market price and the quantity produced and consumed. At least that is the way it worked when I took economics. Maybe now that Barak Obama is president, increased magically reduces prices and production/consumption. More directly to your point, if they don't allow prices to rise, then there will be a shortage in the long run, and even if they do, there will be more people per doctor, and possibly a real shortage, in the short run.