From a doctor's perspective, is it better to repeal or keep healthcare reform

[pupster]

Keep it! If you're a doctor, you're suppose to be upholding what is best for your patients. As such, it is best for all to expand health care coverage.

Yes, your salary may take a hit.

But we are not self-interested. We are here to serve. Expanded coverage is the best.

Frankly, I'm ashamed that the US is so backwards when it comes to health policy. I mean, most of the Western world has already gotten on board with universal health coverage. Why are we so far behind?

God damn Republicans -that's why. So-called 'Christians' who forget the teachings of Christ. What a bunch of close-minded D-bags - Santorum, Romney, and Ron/Rand Paul comes to mind...

What you fail to understand is that medicine (like any other discipline) is a business...and if you're unable to make money at it, then you won't be able to practice medicine, and that basically decreases the care available for people.

See this article here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204603004577271340816194320.html

If anything, the hate speech in your post above is indicative of who the real D-bags are....

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Kevin Baker]

Keep it! If you're a doctor, you're suppose to be upholding what is best for your patients. As such, it is best for all to expand health care coverage.

How do you jump from what is best for your patient to universal coverage? There are those of us out there who believe free market planning distributes limited goods MUCH better than central planning distributes them. One can be very against universal coverage and still very pro patient. One can be very anti patient and very pro public health.

I personally don't know where I stand on the issue but demonizing either side without understanding the ideology is inane.

 

[pupster]

How do you jump from what is best for your patient to universal coverage? There are those of us out there who believe free market planning distributes limited goods MUCH better than central planning distributes them. One can be very against universal coverage and still very pro patient. One can be very anti patient and very pro public health.

I personally don't know where I stand on the issue but demonizing either side without understanding the ideology is inane.

Funny how most liberals aren't really tolerant of other viewpoints, compared to independents and conservatives....

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/13/pew-liberals-most-intolerant-on-line/

 

[Veritas86]

Late to the game, it seems, but...

Free market med all the way. Competition increases innovation. And innovation in health care is better in the long term than a short term lowering in the price of care.

 

[Gut Shot]

Late to the game, it seems, but...

Free market med all the way.

Please explain how you would apply free market principles to health care. Spare no detail.

 

[csmittyB]

You're wrong. The constitution has had items added to before and it's made the US better. Mandatory health care insurance will break the US just as much as mandatory car insurance has.

Auto insurance isn't a part of the constitution. Auto insurance is mandated by a state not the federal government. If you don't drive you don't have to pay auto insurance. Driving is not a right it is a privillage.

 

[dr zaius]

This is just factually incorrect. You may think it should be an unalienable right but that doesnt make it so.

I'm consistently amazed at the things people manage to fit into their idea of the U.S. Constitution and law.

I understand that it's the internet, and with that comes a fair degree of being unable to detect sarcasm, hyperbole, facetiousness, etc...

But what he was getting at is that even if you can't afford healthcare you will still be treated if you come into the emergency room with a GSW, MI, or whatever. It's not an inalienable right spelled out somewhere, but for all intents and purposes you could consider it that based on our current system.

So many people see the words "healthcare" and "right" within enough proximity of each other and knee-jerk responses just pour out.

There's also some very amusing boot-strapping going on in here.

They have a right...to make money for themselves and buy their own healthcare.

 

[Dave89]

Keep it! If you're a doctor, you're suppose to be upholding what is best for your patients. As such, it is best for all to expand health care coverage.

Yes, your salary may take a hit.

But we are not self-interested. We are here to serve. Expanded coverage is the best.

Frankly, I'm ashamed that the US is so backwards when it comes to health policy. I mean, most of the Western world has already gotten on board with universal health coverage. Why are we so far behind?

God damn Republicans -that's why. So-called 'Christians' who forget the teachings of Christ. What a bunch of close-minded D-bags - Santorum, Romney, and Ron/Rand Paul comes to mind...

Nonsense. "Obamacare" does not expand health care coverage. According to the CBO, the bill could cause as many as 20 million Americans to lose their employer coverage.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...-americans-could-lose-their-employer-coverage
While I think the system of employer-based coverage is nothing close to ideal, to say that the healthcare bill expands coverage is a joke.

"But we are not self-interested. We are here to serve." Um, what? Every single person is self-interested to some degree. Even those medical students who are out to save the world are, to some degree, doing that for self-interest. And "we" are NOT here "to serve." I for one am pursuing a medical career because it is fascinating, and offers a unique opportunity to help people. I'm not serving anyone. Some of us would rather not be pawns in politicians' games.

"Frankly, I'm ashamed that the US is so backwards when it comes to health policy. I mean, most of the Western world has already gotten on board with universal health coverage. Why are we so far behind?" Maybe we're so far "behind" because universal health coverage does not provide service nearly as good as more free-market medicine. There's a reason people go to Sloan-Kettering from all over the world, etc. We are not "far behind", but resisting the tide of nanny-statism that has bankrupted so many countries, including our own. Buckley was right when he said, "A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." No, Progressives do not always get it right.

"God damn Republicans -that's why. So-called 'Christians' who forget the teachings of Christ. What a bunch of close-minded D-bags - Santorum, Romney, and Ron/Rand Paul comes to mind..." Again, I'm reminded of William F. Buckley Jr.'s witticism: "Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view."

 

[Dave89]

How do you jump from what is best for your patient to universal coverage? There are those of us out there who believe free market planning distributes limited goods MUCH better than central planning distributes them. One can be very against universal coverage and still very pro patient. One can be very anti patient and very pro public health.

I personally don't know where I stand on the issue but demonizing either side without understanding the ideology is inane.

Larry O'Donnell said so.

 

[scarshapedstar]

Nonsense. "Obamacare" does not expand health care coverage. According to the CBO, the bill could cause as many as 20 million Americans to lose their employer coverage.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...-americans-could-lose-their-employer-coverage
While I think the system of employer-based coverage is nothing close to ideal, to say that the healthcare bill expands coverage is a joke.

Maybe I'm just really dense, but I can't find any mention in this entire article of how, exactly, Obama took everyone's employee healthcare away. Seems like they left out the most relevant part of the story. I suspect the net gain in coverage is positive (isn't that also, uh, what matters?) but am open to persuasion on this.

For the record, I think the original proposals like Medicare-for-All would have covered more people, but they were shot down and suckified, mostly by the same people who now complain that the final product sucks.

Never quite understood what they were expecting the suckification process to produce...

 

[MT Headed]

Under CBO's best estimate, 11 million mostly low-wage workers would lose their employer coverage. About 3 million would choose to drop their coverage to go into the new subsidized health exchanges or on Medicaid, while another 9 million would gain employer-sponsored coverage, for a net total of 5 million people losing employer coverage in 2019.

11 million people have bosses that will simply drop health employee coverage and pay the fine because it's cheaper
3 million people will voluntarily drop employee coverage because the state sponsored programs are better
9 million people will gain coverage from their employer

So the net change according to this paragraph is 9 million people gaining health coverage, and another 14 million people shuffling around their health insurance providers.

Employee provided health coverage is a stupid idea that doesn't exist anywhere else and only appeared in the US as an artifact during world war 2 because of federally imposed wage controls. I mean seriously, why is a personal need tied to where/if you are employed? Why does my employer (should I choose to have one) need to be concerned with my health insurance needs now or in the future? Thank goodness car insurance and home insurance isn't tied to employment too.

One of the biggest and most helpful heath insurance reforms would be to make employer provided heath insurance illegal.

 

[Gut Shot]

Auto insurance isn't a part of the constitution. Auto insurance is mandated by a state not the federal government. If you don't drive you don't have to pay auto insurance. Driving is not a right it is a privillage.

"But this is, as lawyers say, a distinction without a difference. The core logic in each case is identical: If you create risk and costs to other individuals and society at large by your activity, and yet you refuse to pay for those costs and risks, so that others are being forced to cover your free-riding, then it is fair to require you to share part of the burden."

-from Individual Mandate Hypocrisy

 

[csmittyB]

"But this is, as lawyers say, a distinction without a difference. The core logic in each case is identical: If you create risk and costs to other individuals and society at large by your activity, and yet you refuse to pay for those costs and risks, so that others are being forced to cover your free-riding, then it is fair to require you to share part of the burden."

-from Individual Mandate Hypocrisy

The main problem with your quote is that people don't have to own a car. If the South Carolina resident doesn't own a car, they don't have to pay the $550 dollars.

"a car owner in the state must either have liability insurance or obtain an “uninsured motorist registration.” The fee for the uninsured registration is $550 and is deposited into the “uninsured drivers fund.”

 

[scarshapedstar]

The main problem with your quote is that people don't have to own a car. If the South Carolina resident doesn't own a car, they don't have to pay the $550 dollars.

"a car owner in the state must either have liability insurance or obtain an "uninsured motorist registration." The fee for the uninsured registration is $550 and is deposited into the "uninsured drivers fund."

Oh lawd. Can we just agree that Scalia endorses the mandate and move on? He's your man, he's made up his mind, game over.

Here's what's really ironic to me. Everyone agrees that taxing people to pay for healthcare is perfectly constitutional - except it's communism! That's why the GOP proposed the mandate in the first place. Now that it's been adopted, they say it's unconstitutional, which means they must prefer the communist option... except if we do that they'll start pining for the mandate again. Right? Am I missing something here?

 

[Dave89]

The interesting thing (in my mind) about this whole debate is that by chasing the mandate issue, conservatives are just trying to find a legal argument to shoot down Obamacare. The real reason so many Americans do not want it is that it will lead to government-run healthcare, which is both inefficient and against the very fiber of our country.

I am puzzled by liberals and Progressives who constantly whine about our country being so "behind the curve" on socialized healthcare, and declare that all those wonderfully progressive nations in Europe (and Canada) should serve as our models. If almost every "civilized country" has universal healthcare, why not just move there? Methinks this is a giant ego trip for some...

 

[scarshapedstar]

The interesting thing (in my mind) about this whole debate is that by chasing the mandate issue, conservatives are just trying to find a legal argument to shoot down Obamacare. The real reason so many Americans do not want it is that it will lead to government-run healthcare, which is both inefficient and against the very fiber of our country.

I am puzzled by liberals and Progressives who constantly whine about our country being so "behind the curve" on socialized healthcare, and declare that all those wonderfully progressive nations in Europe (and Canada) should serve as our models. If almost every "civilized country" has universal healthcare, why not just move there? Methinks this is a giant ego trip for some...

Some roll their eyes and suggest that if you want a tax-and government-free libertarian utopia, you should move to Somalia. I'll move to France first, if anyone wants to do a mutual expatriation exchange.

Now you want to talk about ego-tripping, what about the blue-hairs dressed up as Paul Revere while they rolled around in their socialized Rascal scooters shouting about how the Kenyan Marxist Muslim had better keep his government hands off their Medicare? I don't begrudge them their fun, but geez, liberals mostly yell at NPR in the privacy of our own Priuses.

 

[Dave89]

Some roll their eyes and suggest that if you want a tax-and government-free libertarian utopia, you should move to Somalia. I'll move to France first, if anyone wants to do a mutual expatriation exchange.

To say that the government's role is not to control healthcare access is not to suggest a "tax- and government-free libertarian utopia."

Now you want to talk about ego-tripping, what about the blue-hairs dressed up as Paul Revere while they rolled around in their socialized Rascal scooters shouting about how the Kenyan Marxist Muslim had better keep his government hands off their Medicare? Whatever happened to that grassroots tidal wave, anyhow?

Yes, there are fools and tools on every side of the political spectrum. But what's that about "blue hairs"? I realize the Democratic Party is hip and suave and cool and rebellious blah blah blah, but there's no need to be so blatantly ageist.

 

[scarshapedstar]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a movement that skews old, but when they talk about 'taking their country back' from the younger generation, it's fair to rib then a bit about how they're, ah, probably going to lose that tug-of-war sooner or later.

 

[Dave89]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a movement that skews old, but when they talk about 'taking their country back' from the younger generation, it's fair to rib then a bit about how they're, ah, probably going to lose that tug-of-war sooner or later.

You may be surprised by your sympathy to their concerns once you've begun to work as a doctor. Let's just say I haven't yet met a doctor who has a positive opinion about this healthcare reform bill.

 

[SteinUmStein]

You may be surprised by your sympathy to their concerns once you've begun to work as a doctor. Let's just say I haven't yet met a doctor who has a positive opinion about this healthcare reform bill.

Where do you people live that there are no physicians in support of health care reform? I'm not saying it's all good for physicians, I'm not even saying I completely support it, I'm just shocked that there aren't at least a few primary care docs who are for it. Tons of physicians at my university talk the Dem party line for health care reform, while others oppose it, but it's far from a clear cut issue.

 

[startoverat40]

What you fail to understand is that medicine (like any other discipline) is a business.......

I think that's exactly where the problem is. Medicine should not be a business, it should be a public service. People's lives are not comodities! The scienfic knowledge applied in medicine was developed over many many years, and a lot of it through public funding. So why should anybody have the privilege to treat it as an exclusive property and tool for doing business at the expense of other people's lives?

The other point is the myth and almost religious/super-natural belief in the superiority of "the free market". even applied in economics it is questionable if it is a completely viable theory, let alone applying it to medicine and the health, welfare, and lives of human beings!

and yes, may doctors DO support universal single-payer healthcare: http://www.pnhp.org/

More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/31/us-healthcare-usa-doctors-idUSN3143203520080331

 

[startoverat40]

I am puzzled by liberals and Progressives who constantly whine about our country being so "behind the curve" on socialized healthcare, and declare that all those wonderfully progressive nations in Europe (and Canada) should serve as our models. If almost every "civilized country" has universal healthcare, why not just move there? Methinks this is a giant ego trip for some...

I have news for you: Many people do just that!

Varying reports containing medical tourism statistics put the number of American patients seeking healthcare abroad between 500,000 to 750,000 in 2007.
http://www.health-tourism.com/medical-tourism/statistics/

 

[Gut Shot]

The main problem with your quote is that people don't have to own a car. If the South Carolina resident doesn't own a car, they don't have to pay the $550 dollars.

Correct, not everyone does own a car, and therefore the car insurance market is limited to participants. Practically speaking, however, everyone requires healthcare at some point, and therefore everyone participates in the healthcare market. Hence, everyone should pay some part of the burden.

"Skin in the game", right?

Perhaps you'll change your tune when, like me, you get tired of having your services stolen by uninsured people who won't pay their bill.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

People's biggest complaint (from my understanding) is that they don't want to pay more "taxes" to help subsidize the health care of others (this taxes issue is the whole reason for the lawsuit regarding the AHA in the first place, and also the likely reason it will get thrown out in June in the Supreme Court hearings). Besides ignoring people's selfishness of not wanting to help others less fortunate, what the people who are against the AHA don't seem to realize is that they areally pay more for the uninsured in their insurance premiums. If a person with no insurance needs coronary bypass, you better believe they are going to get a coronary bypass. But who is going to pay for it. Not the person with no money. The hospital is the one that pays. But who is going to pay the hospital. The insurance company is by overcharging on the people who have insurance who are in the hospital. But the insurance company has to overcharge their insurers, because the hospital billed the insurance company at 10 times the cost to offset the financial hit they took from taking care of the uninsured. It's a vicious cycle where both the insured and un-insured lose. The AHA is trying to remedy that (as best it can).

Also, on a side note, if you actually understand the AHA, you will see that it benefits millions of un-insured children. If you are against providing healthcare to children, you have to question your own reason for being in healthcare.

 

[pupster]

People's biggest complaint (from my understanding) is that they don't want to pay more "taxes" to help subsidize the health care of others (this taxes issue is the whole reason for the lawsuit regarding the AHA in the first place, and also the likely reason it will get thrown out in June in the Supreme Court hearings). Besides ignoring people's selfishness of not wanting to help others less fortunate, what the people who are against the AHA don't seem to realize is that they areally pay more for the uninsured in their insurance premiums. If a person with no insurance needs coronary bypass, you better believe they are going to get a coronary bypass. But who is going to pay for it. Not the person with no money. The hospital is the one that pays. But who is going to pay the hospital. The insurance company is by overcharging on the people who have insurance who are in the hospital. But the insurance company has to overcharge their insurers, because the hospital billed the insurance company at 10 times the cost to offset the financial hit they took from taking care of the uninsured. It's a vicious cycle where both the insured and un-insured lose. The AHA is trying to remedy that (as best it can).

Also, on a side note, if you actually understand the AHA, you will see that it benefits millions of un-insured children. If you are against providing healthcare to children, you have to question your own reason for being in healthcare.

Oh puuuhhlleeezeee...

I already posted above some studies that show that it is MORE expensive to do care for everyone/preventative care than it is for the pre-Obamare system.

Also, so there are millions of uninsured children. And your point is...? Why should I have to take care of someone else's children? I don't see anywhere in the Constituton where it's my job take care of someone else's child.

 

[scarshapedstar]

Oh puuuhhlleeezeee...

I already posted above some studies that show that it is MORE expensive to do care for everyone/preventative care than it is for the pre-Obamare system.

Also, so there are millions of uninsured children. And your point is...? Why should I have to take care of someone else's children? I don't see anywhere in the Constituton where it's my job take care of someone else's child.

Just so we're clear, if an infant has a potentially fatal yet entirely curable condition, and the parents can't afford to treat it, that baby should die as a human sacrifice to the Free Market Fairy?

I don't think Thomas Jefferson himself would claim to have had the last word on the morality of such a system, and with good reason.

 

[pupster]

I think that's exactly where the problem is. Medicine should not be a business, it should be a public service. People's lives are not comodities! The scienfic knowledge applied in medicine was developed over many many years, and a lot of it through public funding. So why should anybody have the privilege to treat it as an exclusive property and tool for doing business at the expense of other people's lives?

The other point is the myth and almost religious/super-natural belief in the superiority of "the free market". even applied in economics it is questionable if it is a completely viable theory, let alone applying it to medicine and the health, welfare, and lives of human beings!

and yes, may doctors DO support universal single-payer healthcare: http://www.pnhp.org/

Explain to me why people's lives are "not commodities"? Remember that the next time you buy that nice pair of jeans or a nice new shirt (instead of donating to the starving children's fund....).

I'll grant you that much of the scientific knowledge was generated through public funding. So isn't aren't a lot of other types of knowledge (arts, music, etc.). Anyway,


industry is doing quite a good job of stepping in to create academic-industry partnerships in the current NIH grant climate. But, I digress..my point is...so what? The country needs more doctors, anyway...sure...so if people want to fund to facilitate more healthcare practicioners, because in general, that will help the country (don't forget that the country gets something out of this), then that is their prerogative. Don't pretend that you aren't getting something out of it already. I don't see why we need to be obligated to be slaves of the state.

Regardless of your thoughts, medicine IS a business (whether it should or should not be has been addressed above).

The role of AMA in supporting Obamacare is exactly why I quit and joined AAPS: http://www.aapsonline.org/

 

[scarshapedstar]

Explain to me why people's lives are "not commodities"?

I feel like there was a war fought to settle this question, but maybe I'm mistaken.

 

[pupster]

Just so we're clear, if an infant has a potentially fatal yet entirely curable condition, and the parents can't afford to treat it, that baby should die as a human sacrifice to the Free Market Fairy?

I don't think Thomas Jefferson himself would claim to have had the last word on the morality of such a system, and with good reason.

It's not my problem (nor is it anyone else's). Sorry...maybe you should go to Africa and start dedicating your life to saving all the starving babies there first if you feel so strongly about saving everyone. The parents shouldn't have had the baby if they couldn't afford to take personal responsibility for it.

I feel there is too much of a sense of entitlement that people have about "rights" that they are owed by society.

 

[scarshapedstar]

So the helpless baby is put to death to... punish its parents? Or because it cravenly and irresponsibly chose the wrong womb?

 

[SurfingDoctor]

It's not my problem (nor is it anyone else's). Sorry...maybe you should go to Africa and start dedicating your life to saving all the starving babies there first if you feel so strongly about saving everyone. The parents shouldn't have had the baby if they couldn't afford to take personal responsibility for it.

This speaks for itself. Yikes.

 

[startoverat40]

personally i find the live-and-let-die, i-don't-care-it-was-his-own-fault mentality quite inhumane and revolting, and especially unbecoming for a physician!

if we had the means to save all the dieing children in Africa we would. but more often than not, our politicians are more interested in filling their own pockets and those of their donors, so our resources are spent in multi-trillion dollar wars, than on saving the children.

 

[notbobtrustme]

It's not my problem (nor is it anyone else's). Sorry...maybe you should go to Africa and start dedicating your life to saving all the starving babies there first if you feel so strongly about saving everyone. The parents shouldn't have had the baby if they couldn't afford to take personal responsibility for it.

I feel there is too much of a sense of entitlement that people have about "rights" that they are owed by society.

says the guy who's entirely salary is drawn from the government.

 

[JackShephard MD]

Sometimes I'm shocked at how self-centered and pretentious some of our colleagues are. Physicians should care for the sick, especially the have-nots.

Intelligence, success, and status reveal your character. For better or worse.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Sometimes I'm shocked at how self-centered and pretentious some of our colleagues are. Physicians should care for the sick, especially the have-nots.

Intelligence, success, and status reveal your character. For better or worse.

Just to play devils advocate... why? How is healthcare different than any commodity to be bought and sold by those with the ability to do so?

 

[pupster]

says the guy who's entirely salary is drawn from the government.

And your point is...? I'm fine not getting paid a stipend for residency. I'd just pay my own way through residency or take out loans. I already said, however, that if gov't wants to fund residency slots, that's the prerogative of the people YOU elected.

 

[pupster]

Just to play devils advocate... why? How is healthcare different than any commodity to be bought and sold by those with the ability to do so?

It isn't.

See the following link for some enlightment:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...a-precious-commodity-that-must-be-used-wisely

 

[JackShephard MD]

Just to play devils advocate... why? How is healthcare different than any commodity to be bought and sold by those with the ability to do so?

It's fundamentally different because lives are at risk. This isn't an iPad or a flat screen TV, it's a human being's life. We're talking about a baby dying of a curable disease and a physician says, "not my problem."

It's shameful that some physicians can flippantly talk about rationing care and denying basic healthcare at the expense of a life, only to talk about profit motives and free market philosophy in the same breath.

It's sad.

As a wealthy nation we have a duty to set up a safety net for the have-nots, as opposed to scoffing at their inability to buy what we all take for granted.

 

[Paulymath]

pupster is right. A human life is a commodity, and its not anyone's job to take care of anyone else. But neither of those points is relevant to the question at hand.

By choosing to live in America, a person enters into a binding social contract. At one level, this contract demands that we abide by the will of the majority (as realized by elected officials). The fact is pupster et al, you may not give a whit for the poor and unfortunate, but many Americans do. Most opposition to the ACA is not motivated by a real grievance about helping protect the poor, but by partisan anger and an (un)healthy dose of racism ('obamacare'). I for one, want to live in a country (and a world) where being born poor isn't a death sentence. Now, there are obviously multiple ways to create that reality (what we had before being one), but the fairest (and most efficient) seems to be to distribute the costs of care over as many people as possible (i.e. universal government sponsored health insurance).

Basically, I'm saying neener neener, too bad your party is run by *****s, might makes right and all that. Phrased more maturely; the majority of Americans disagree with you about whats important and we live in democracy.

 

[pupster]

pupster is right. A human life is a commodity, and its not anyone's job to take care of anyone else. But neither of those points is relevant to the question at hand.

By choosing to live in America, a person enters into a binding social contract. At one level, this contract demands that we abide by the will of the majority (as realized by elected officials). The fact is pupster et al, you may not give a whit for the poor and unfortunate, but many Americans do. Most opposition to the ACA is not motivated by a real grievance about helping protect the poor, but by partisan anger and an (un)healthy dose of racism ('obamacare'). I for one, want to live in a country (and a world) where being born poor isn't a death sentence. Now, there are obviously multiple ways to create that reality (what we had before being one), but the fairest (and most efficient) seems to be to distribute the costs of care over as many people as possible (i.e. universal government sponsored health insurance).

Basically, I'm saying neener neener, too bad your party is run by *****s, might makes right and all that. Phrased more maturely; the majority of Americans disagree with you about whats important and we live in democracy.

Explain to me why "fairest" == income redistribution? Or rather...why people who work hard should have to subsidize others who didn't? Hey, I worked hard in high school, college, and med. school. It's not my problem others didn't work hard and are now doing something else.... Sure, luck plays a role...but hey, if we were all lucky, we'd all be in the NFL....

I will agree w/ you on the last part that we live in a democracy. I think it's a travesty what's happened under the current administration. I'm not going to name call, but I'll just note that we'll see what happens in November. And actually, the majority of American's WANT a repeal of Obamacare.

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

So, that's all fine..I'll wait until 2012. Until then, enjoy the Kool-Aid.

 

[pupster]

It's fundamentally different because lives are at risk. This isn't an iPad or a flat screen TV, it's a human being's life. We're talking about a baby dying of a curable disease and a physician says, "not my problem."

It's shameful that some physicians can flippantly talk about rationing care and denying basic healthcare at the expense of a life, only to talk about profit motives and free market philosophy in the same breath.

It's sad.

As a wealthy nation we have a duty to set up a safety net for the have-nots, as opposed to scoffing at their inability to buy what we all take for granted.

Dude...did you even read the link that I linked?? It's all about being able to PROVIDE healthcare....

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment. Do you tell your patients' that? Something along the lines of "I'm sorry, I would treat you but given the fact the that you grew up poor and can't pay for insurance, I can't treat your appendicitis. Good luck."

 

[pupster]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment. Do you tell your patients' that? Something along the lines of "I'm sorry, I would treat you but given the fact the that you grew up poor and can't pay for insurance, I can't treat your appendicitis. Good luck."

I don't, and I actually do donate some free time to helping underserved communties. The difference is that I VOLUNTEER my time, as opposed to have it forcibly taken from me. FWIW, one of my attendings told a patient that he didn't take a certain insurance because he felt that the insurance company in question didn't compensate him enough for his time and experience...which I think is fair.

Also, I DO outline the costs of certain treatments. If a patient can't afford a certain treatment, I recommend a cheaper alternative. I let them make the decision.

 

[Paulymath]

According to that poll 53% favor repeal with a +/- 3% margin of error. For all intents and purposes, that's an even split. And you ignored what I said about the real motivation for opposition to the ACA.

As for your main point; first, it is your problem if health care costs keep skyrocketing as the uninsured receive free emergency care and the fabric of society disintegrates.

Second, and perhaps more important, its ludicrous to say "these people didn't work hard and now they're getting their comeuppance." even if you begrudgingly admit that "sure luck plays a roll". You, like many on the right appear to live in some sort of Randian dream world where anyone can have anything they want by willing it and people can fly around by lifting up their own bootstraps. You honestly think that the fact that you 'worked hard in high school' is some sort of virtue of yours? You were brought up that way by parents who were themselves programmed by their upbringing. Luck doesn't play a role - luck who is we are.

Even if in some cases a person's current state of uninsured illness was a result of their actions, it might be still in our best interest, saying nothing of human compassion, to help them. Again, its not intrinsically your job to do so, but the rest of your fellow citizens have made it so by virtue of you're remaining an American.

And the thought that Obama might lose in 2012 is laughable. Mitt Romney can't even beat Rick Santorum in the Republican primary. Rick Santorum! I mean, the guy is a half-wit maniac (Rick, not Mitt, who I actually like a little). How is he supposed to contend with Obama, one of the most successful (in terms of policy and fundraising) presidents of the last half century? 2012 will be even more of a blowout then 2008. Just check intrade.

 

[scarshapedstar]

I don't remember a single poll, ever, that asked people if they opposed PPACA because it didn't go far enough. It was simply assumed that the only possible objection anyone could have to a ridiculously insurance-friendly implementation of Bob Dole's health plan was that it was somehow too liberal.

Why is that?

 

[pupster]

According to that poll 53% favor repeal with a +/- 3% margin of error. For all intents and purposes, that's an even split. And you ignored what I said about the real motivation for opposition to the ACA.

As for your main point; first, it is your problem if health care costs keep skyrocketing as the uninsured receive free emergency care and the fabric of society disintegrates.

Second, and perhaps more important, its ludicrous to say "these people didn't work hard and now they're getting their comeuppance." even if you begrudgingly admit that "sure luck plays a roll". You, like many on the right appear to live in some sort of Randian dream world where anyone can have anything they want by willing it and people can fly around by lifting up their own bootstraps. You honestly think that the fact that you 'worked hard in high school' is some sort of virtue of yours? You were brought up that way by parents who were themselves programmed by their upbringing. Luck doesn't play a role - luck who is we are.

Even if in some cases a person's current state of uninsured illness was a result of their actions, it might be still in our best interest, saying nothing of human compassion, to help them. Again, its not intrinsically your job to do so, but the rest of your fellow citizens have made it so by virtue of you're remaining an American.

And the thought that Obama might lose in 2012 is laughable. Mitt Romney can't even beat Rick Santorum in the Republican primary. Rick Santorum! I mean, the guy is a half-wit maniac (Rick, not Mitt, who I actually like a little). How is he supposed to contend with Obama, one of the most successful (in terms of policy and fundraising) presidents of the last half century? 2012 will be even more of a blowout then 2008. Just check intrade.

Look at all the past polls. It's not just one. That +/- 3% goes away when you look at the whole trend.

And before you criticize Republicans about Obamacare, look here:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=163606BD-07A1-434B-B5CD-EF6825A7DA32

As for the Santorum voters/wingnuts, they don't matter once Romney secures the nomination....where else are they going to go?

Obama's approval is at 51%. Probably will go down as gas prices go up...did I mention that he squandered $500 million in a "green energy" company that went belly up? Huuum. Wonder how many starving babies that would have saved....

As to Romney being a weak front runner, it's due to the party nominating rules which changed in 2012 to favor a longer season. See this article:

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/03/16/the-calendar-is-hurting-romney/

 

[startoverat40]

wow to realize that people actually believe that we can and should put a monetary value on human life!

when exactly did you make the transition to fascism? what's next, eugenics and back to extermination of "volk" who are not good enough? now you call it "not responsible" and "poor therefore lazy", tomorrow you will call it genetically unfit and unworthy and better just let them die off. elimination and extermination is only a half step away.


binding social contract means that the guy who works to pave the roads, and the guy who bakes bread, and lady who teaches, and the lady who flies planes, and the guy who makes music, ..... they all play a part in YOUR life, and you have a reciprocal obligation to them (and they to you, whatever your job is) to make sure they are treated humanely, and not as a commodity with monetary value!

when did they switch the civics books in schools to this Aynd Randian rubbish? the insurance companies and their political allies have managed to brain wash a whole generation with these antisocial and inhumane memes!

 

[pupster]

wow to realize that people actually believe that we can and should put a monetary value on human life!

when exactly did you make the transition to fascism? what's next, eugenics and back to extermination of "volk" who are not good enough? now you call it "not responsible" and "poor therefore lazy", tomorrow you will call it genetically unfit and unworthy and better just let them die off. elimination and extermination is only a half step away.


binding social contract means that the guy who works to pave the roads, and the guy who bakes bread, and lady who teaches, and the lady who flies planes, and the guy who makes music, ..... they all play a part in YOUR life, and you have a reciprocal obligation to them (and they to you, whatever your job is) to make sure they are treated humanely, and not as a commodity with monetary value!

when did they switch the civics books in schools to this Aynd Randian rubbish? the insurance companies and their political allies have managed to brain wash a whole generation with these antisocial and inhumane memes!

Yes...there's a social contract...which is why I pay taxes for people that do a SERVICE for me. So what about the mom next door who has 8 children because she doesn't feel like taking personal responsibility for the outcome of unprotected sex (and who DOESN'T provide a service for me, aside from sucking up my tax dollars)? It's suddenly my problem? Um...sorry...I don't want to reward/enable such behavior.

I'm just a realist. At least I back up what I state w/ actual facts.

 

[NH14]

This is a loaded question. IMO, if you actually care about patients, then its a good thing. If you care about your wallet, you may want to repeal it.

 

[NH14]

Yes...there's a social contract...which is why I pay taxes for people that do a SERVICE for me. So what about the mom next door who has 8 children because she doesn't feel like taking personal responsibility for the outcome of unprotected sex (and who DOESN'T provide a service for me, aside from sucking up my tax dollars)? It's suddenly my problem? Um...sorry...I don't want to reward/enable such behavior.

I'm just a realist. At least I back up what I state w/ actual facts.

My guess is you're a EM resident?

There will always be people who abuse the system. It's unavoidable. Yet, I would argue that the majority of these people that you claim to be 'sucking off the system' are actually suffering from drug abuse and/or mental illness or have low educational attainment. There are very few emotionally stable, drug-free, educated healthy adults who are abusing the welfare system.

Furthermore, let's all just review that there are really no lifetime users of federal 'welfare'. Five year lifetime limits for cash assistance were implemented in the mid-90s and unemployment also has a 99-mth limit.

If you want someone or something to blame for our growing budget deficit - blame corporations who don't pay any taxes.