A Doctors veiw on Obamacare

[OntheRail]

vdnY8r7_fLw

Well now they say laughter is the best medicine... if this was only a joke I'd be :lol: .

[pandy]

LOL

[wisconsin]

Wow, Romney should use this as an ad!

[jognlope]

The common sense idea that health coverage for all, shared cost by all is somehow a buffoon of an idea is fine: if you justify complete lack of empathy or concern for your fellow citizens dying of cancer because chemotherapy won't be paid for, or a person with von Willebrand's disease suffering because of preexisting conditions. Or sky high premium health care for the rich only, the rest having to depending on walk ins to the ERs. I mean, what part of the ACA do you dislike the most, your reduced premium? Expansion of jobs in health care? Or maybe you want to throw out the student loan bill that will allow med. students to opt for primary care in underserved areas without bankruptcing themselves?

AMA came out in support of the bill.

[badcompany]

The common sense idea that health coverage for all, shared cost by all is somehow a buffoon of an idea is fine.

It would be a great idea if we lived in a world where there is no scarcity or economic laws, BUT WE DON'T.

[Tom]

The trouble is, the cost is not shared by all but born by some.
The work load is something pretty much the same.

[johnhannibalsmith]

It would be a great idea if we lived in a world where there is no scarcity or economic laws, BUT WE DON'T.

Yeah, a common sense idea that ignores the probability that as more people elect to pay the penalty, the cost of premiums will certainly rise, which will cause more people to pay the penalty, which will cause premiums to rise, which will cause people to pay the penalty.................

...which will cause the penalty to rise, probably beyond civil sanctions.

[OntheRail]

The common sense idea that health coverage for all, shared cost by all is somehow a buffoon of an idea is fine: if you justify complete lack of empathy or concern for your fellow citizens dying of cancer because chemotherapy won't be paid for, or a person with von Willebrand's disease suffering because of preexisting conditions. Or sky high premium health care for the rich only, the rest having to depending on walk ins to the ERs. I mean, what part of the ACA do you dislike the most, your reduced premium? Expansion of jobs in health care? Or maybe you want to throw out the student loan bill that will allow med. students to opt for primary care in underserved areas without bankruptcing themselves?

AMA came out in support of the bill.

Well first off they have put the cart before the horse...
Rein in the out of control cost... and maybe look into tort reform.
How bout offering low Malpractice insurance to Doctors as they claim that to be the number one reason for high cost. The Insurance Industry again.

As for lower cost... You mean like when States rolled out the liability requirements on drives. Claiming cost would go down for all because more people pay into it. All that happen was rates went up as THEY (the auto insurance industry) had a captive client pool. Repair cost went up as well... hell insurance is paying for it right. Bounces For All... :jump: as it's the LAW. I don't see anything good happening as a result of this forced junk law that will do nothing but add to the rising cost of both healthcare and everyday living as a whole. Cause the cost will show up in your milk as Farmer Brown is forced into buying a non competitive product or pay a tax.. :rolleyes: that's not a tax cause Obama said it's not a tax really it's more like a stick that Mother Gov has to use to smack Joe and Jane on the head to bring them into lock step. Bring down cost.. yeah right. Hell bring back a true community hospital where that Med Student can work off his Gov. Loans.

It's just a bad law that had no real thought put into what the RAMIFICATION would be other then the POTUS like the ring of his own name. OBamacare... said with the same reverence that Hank Hill murmurs Propane in. Brought to you by the fine Lobbyist of the Insurance Industry.

[highnote]

The trouble is, the cost is not shared by all but born by some.


Kind of like national security. Some troops are over in Afghanistan fighting. Some of us sit on our computers and write posts on the internet.

[Tom]

Stupid point. Not unexpected, though.
All of them over there volunteered.
SOME of us here here at home pay for them to be there.
SOME of us here at home just sit around on the computers posting on the internet that SOME others of us pay for also.

We really have a pool of anchors here who leech everything and contribute nothing, wouldncha say?

[highnote]

Stupid point. Not unexpected, though.

That's debateable. :D

All of them over there volunteered.

Just because they volunteered does not mean their cost is less. That they are willing to incur the cost should be respected, not diminished.


SOME of us here here at home pay for them to be there.

It is a much lower cost than a soldier risking his or her life.

SOME of us here at home just sit around on the computers posting on the internet that SOME others of us pay for also.

There are probably a few of those.

We really have a pool of anchors here who leech everything and contribute nothing, wouldncha say?

I would say so. In fact, I probably resemble part of that remark. Not the leech part -- the contribute nothing part.

[Tom]

Comparing health care costs and the military is stupid.
We form governments to take care of things we cannot do as individuals, such as national defense. Health care is NOT one of those things.
Things like feeding ourselves, finding shelter, clothing, all things we do on our own, or at least should do on our own.

The cost of the national defense is not fairly shared by all who benefit from it.

[highnote]

Comparing health care costs and the military is stupid.

It would be if that was what was being compared.

You said: "The trouble is, the cost is not shared by all but born by some"

I gave an example of that: There are some people in this country who benefit from our national security who do not share the cost. That is a fact.


We form governments to take care of things we cannot do as individuals, such as national defense.

It is debateable that we need a government for national defense.




Health care is NOT one of those things.

Agreed.


Things like feeding ourselves, finding shelter, clothing, all things we do on our own, or at least should do on our own.

An argument could be made that we should provide our own defense.

The cost of the national defense is not fairly shared by all who benefit from it.

This is what I said in the first place. :D

[Tom]

You said: "The trouble is, the cost is not shared by all but born by some"

I gave an example of that: There are some people in this country who benefit from our national security who do not share the cost. That is a fact.

Your example of that was flawed - I fixed it for you. No one gets to use more national defense than others.

An argument could be made that we should provide our own defense.

A weak one, sure.
We should all take on Al Qeda in our own way. Uh huh.

[highnote]

Your example of that was flawed - I fixed it for you. No one gets to use more national defense than others.

True, but the cost for the use of national defense is different to everyone. And some people pay nothing.

The cost of defense is $700 million per year. It is funded by people or corporations who pay taxes. Some people who pay 15% taxes might pay $2 million per year in taxes. Some people who pay 35% in taxes might pay $10,000 per year. Yet, both payers get equal national security benefits. Then there are those who don't work and get government assistance. They get the same national security benefits.




We should all take on Al Qeda in our own way. Uh huh.

If we did take care of our own defense individually there might not be an al qaida.

The problem is, the national defense genie has been out of the bottle for a long time.

[Tom]

If we did take care of our own defense individually there might not be an al qaida.

You just entered the mostie zone.
Good bye.

[highnote]

We should all take on Al Qeda in our own way. Uh huh.

Yamamoto said that Japan could never successfully invade the United States because behind every rock would be an American with a rifle.

We don't need to be over in the middle east fighting with a government sponsored standing army in order to have security in the U.S.

What if 20 members of the Italian mafia would have blown up the Twin Towers -- do you think the U.S. would have invaded Italy?

Actually, a better example is do you think if 20 Italians blew up the Twin Towers the U.S. would invade a country other than Italy, like Spain?

The men who blew up the Trade Towers were of Saudi origin and were trained in Afghanistan. The U.S. attacked Iraq which had nothing to do with the bombing of the Twin Towers. What would it have mattered if Iraq would have had a nuclear weapon -- which every one knows they didn't. Pakistan, India, England, France, Russia, China, etc. have nuclear weapons. The U.S. doesn't attack them. An invading Russia or China is not going to drop a bomb on a major U.S. city. The city would then be useless. The whole point of invasion is to capture something of value. NYC would be a valuable target, but if it was nuked it would be useless. Does anyone believe for a moment that Iran or Iraq is going to drop a nuke on Israel? What would be the value if Israel was uninhabitable? What about the nuclear fallout on other middle eastern countries. The idea is ridiculous, in my opinion.

The Twin Tower bombings were an attack by 20 thugs that should have been prosecuted domestically, not by launching an 11 year war at a cost of trillions of dollars. A bombing like that will never happen again because no group of U.S. citizens on a jet plane would ever let it happen.

The only way it happens is if a commercial airliner from the Middle East is filled with al qaida sympathizers. Who is going to stop the plane if every person on the plane wants to crash into a NY City skyscraper?

What do you think would happen if an Islamic country tried to occupy the U.S.? Every citizen would take up arms to defend the country.

The only reason to have a standing army is to attack someone. You don't need it for defense. And once you have a standing army then some power hungry politician is going to want to use it.

The U.S. has got standing psuedo-armies who have actually harrassed and spied on U.S. citizens. TSA and NSA come to mind. Is this the kind of security that U.S. citizens want?

You know what Ben Franklin (???) said, "Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither."

Well, this is too long of a post, but there is a lot more that can be said about providing national security without the need for a government sponsored standing army.

[jognlope]

Yeah I did my own CABG after online training.

[delayjf]

What if 20 members of the Italian mafia would have blown up the Twin Towers -- do you think the U.S. would have invaded Italy?

If the harbored, sponsored and gave safe haven to the Mafia then yes we would. We had no problem invading Italy in WWII.

The only reason to have a standing army is to attack someone. You don't need it for defense. And once you have a standing army then some power hungry politician is going to want to use it.

Wrong, the US military a major deterant to oppressive dictators all over the world. How long would Korea last without our support. The Soviet Union unopposed would have dominated the world a long time ago.