This post strongly contradicts your earlier point against socialised healthcare.

I was told there would be no math.

cite?

also, some contracts offer me some multiplier of a 2001 medicare fee schedule. Docs haven't had a positive update in a very long time, so being offered what was paid over a decade ago is usually a good deal.

You want to cut physicians' fees by close to 30% on Jan 1 ? We are calling this scenario "SGRmageddon" and if it means I get to compete with robots and chimps, then its probably a good thing. Or maybe it means I can privately negotiate with a patient to determine a fee, instead of working off some AMA-owned CPT book and some Harvard-schemed RBRVS mess.

Imagine, you call a plumber, he fixes your pipes, you pay him cash. wow. bizzaroworld.

Several bone marrow transplants and chemotherapy over say 6 months, or a month in the ICU after a car wreck with massive heroic effort are always going to cost more than most people can ever pay back w/o insurance.

What is your solution to this problem - the status quo where we spread the cost around to the people who are responsible and have insurance? Or something else?

If you want to keep paying your bills with my tax dollars you could show a little bit of gratitude.

Actually they benefit the most of all, because of this:



It does though. Or do you now want to regulate what hospitals can charge for providing care, you commie?


Um yeah, that's pretty much exactly what was happening. Still happens now, in fact, to an estimated 45,000 people a year.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5318652.shtml


Um what? Did someone else write this last sentence?

(BTW, why not give them preventative care so that we can keep them healthy at far less cost?)

How is it not "stealing" to take my money to treat these people?

I honestly can't take any person seriously that feels the need to use the term "stealing" to refer to taxes. Especially not people that accept that there actually are some things the Government needs to be doing.

Dino, you can't "destribute wealth" without using force and that is wrong no matter how you look at it. Without big daddy gov stealing our cash we'd be in better position to donate money to things like charity hospitals and care for people in dire circumstances. If that's what people chose to do with their money.

And whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath?

which part? the part about taking care of the masses for free?

Please explain how it is wrong. We live in a democracy that passes laws, some of which involve taxing people. What's wrong with that?

Except no one would. Why should they? If the government taxed ME less I'd use the money on hookers and blow, not on some charity hospital.

In fact, in the real world, the bulk of people who give to charity do it because of the tax write off.

The Worm967 - how does:

jive with:

Unless you mean responsibility to mean "some moral responsibility that isn't enforced at all and that is totally meaningless to the course of this discussion".

Why is force wrong? Really? And o yea all laws are just I forgot about that.

Then it's a cop-out and you're a hypocrite to say you want the poor and needy to be taken care of but only when you're threatened with violence.

lol thats exactly what I mean, got me there

Speaking of cop-outs. I didn't ask why force was wrong, I asked why a taxation law passed by a democratically elected body was wrong.

Force doesn't enter into it unless someone chooses to not pay, and then the same amount of force applies as if they choose not pay their plumber or something. It goes to the courts and if the IRS/plumber shows they are owed the money, the court allows them to seize property to collect. As in most court proceedings, you're free to show up and present your case as to why you shouldn't pay. The judge will listen, I promise.

Please study reading. I was making the point that most people don't contribute to charity, and those that do often do it because of the tax write off.

Now, this is the real world and we are discussing possible real-world solutions to how to provide health care in the USA. A certain amount of taxation and government already exists, and the point of the discussion is how to proceed from there. I know you would rather argue whether taxation should be allowed at all, but that's a separate discussion and I think you'll find it in one of the numerous AC threads started by the other people who flunked politics 101.

Worms,

How do you jive your beliefs with the current reality? I mean, if you believe that people would take care of the poor through charitable donations why does the US have so many people that aren't being taken care of?

JJ- I think people are in no position to be charitable right now, but without bad government monetary policy and without the gov sticking it's hands in our pockets every chance it gets, the people who cared about taking care of the needy would be in better shape to do so. The free-market is better at reducing costs and improving services than government will be.

dino- I have no idea what you're talking about I answered you're question and you're still giving me ****. You're just glossing over the fact that your glorious government program involves taking more of my money.

Do you have any actual evidence to back this up or is it just your feeling?

Talk about bat**** crazy.

Republicans were not givin an ounce of respect or influence during the intire creation of the bill. The bill did not receive a single republican vote. Every time republicans would try to have any influence on the bill, Berry would say" You drove the car into the ditch, you gotta sit in the backseat now"
There isn't one sentence in that bill that came from a republican commitee member.

The democrat party has swong bat**** crazy, and HAD to write the bill as written to get the votes of historically "normal" democrats. The right wing influnce on the bill came from the non-Marxist wing of the democrat party.

Who specifically is part of the marxist wing IYO?

This make no sense to me.....

Who's to say Obama-care would not draw more opposition if it were "more liberal" as you say, consequently making the 10-15% irrelevant? You are operating under a faulty premise on how much those numbers actually impact the general public's opinion.

Newt Gingrich, Chuck Grassley, Mitt Romney, etc.

I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.

OldGloryrobotinsurance.mpg

#unintendedconsequences

Definitely an intended consequence if Sam Waterston is involved.

This thread really should've stopped immediately when 13ball and ikestoys agreed.

Actually history has shown that the free market does staggeringly worse than governments when it comes to reducing costs and improving services in health care. Hell, the current US system is an example. When compared to the government-run plans around the world, Americans are spending more and getting less than pretty much all of them.


And again, the math shows that PPACA will actually save money.