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

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

More opinions please.

Originally Posted by CaptainSSO

Dude, WTF? Nobody forced them to come here?! So you'd be cool with ****ting in an outhouse and not having any running water? With being so poor you eat the same ****ty meal 6 times a week? People come here for a better life. Believe it or not Taco Bell pays a lot better than some jobs in developIng countries. Nobody forces them to take certain jobs? They don't have the privilege you do to be able to go to college or med school. Why the **** did you even go into medicine?

Sheeze...I'm a supporter of less government intervention and allowing the free market to work its magic. I don't support social engineering, and I feel that income redistribution is anathema. My argument to you regarding Taco Bell is that people should then pressure Taco Bell to offer better medical care if they aren't happy (by boycotting, etc).

Hey...don't get pissed at me because I'm not drinking the Kool Aid anymore. I'm in medicine to make a difference, but I'm not going to go poor doing it! Being unable to work due to declining revenues doesn't help me OR my patients.... If reimbursements continue to be cut under Obamacare, then there will be a LOT more people leaving medicine.

Originally Posted by jdh71

Well . . . at the expense of being terribly cliche' . . . we'll have to agree to disagree for now.

You have the kind of rhetorical skills that would make this conversation too time consuming right now!

Maybe we can do this again when I've got more time. Or not.

Lol, I was about to make this same post, but instead I just decided not to turn on my computer for the fear I would get sucked into posting more arguments about a fairly pointless topic. I guess we both had the realization at the same time.

Originally Posted by neusu

Health care is an unalienable right

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainSSO

Well, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration. And I would say no healthcare = no happiness, possibly no life.

I just can't relate to these hardass lines of not wanting to see everyone get healthcare. I mean, wtf?

So people with colon cancer who can't afford chemotherapy should just crawl into a corner and die?

Here it is again. The constitution does NOT gurantee "happiness", it gurantees "the pursuit of happiness". Denying medical coverage to someone on the basis of payment is not denying them the pursuit of anything other than complimentary medical service. The individual is still free to pursue treatment, and thereby happiness, either by finding a way to get the money for payment or seeking alternative treatment plans.

The constitution was not meant to create a utopian society where everyone is equal all the time, it was designed to give everyone the OPPORTUNITY to achieve whatever they want. If you're being denied medical treatment because you're broke, it's no different than a store refusing to let you walk out without paying for that dress you want.

Originally Posted by GoodmanBrown

Histrionics much? The Supreme Court may or may not strike the individual mandate which was a Republican idea before Democrats incorporated it into the bill.

Either way, the individual mandate will not make or break the United States. While this law adds extra federal expenses in terms of subsidies to individuals and families buying health insurance, the much larger spending decisions regarding Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense will ultimately dictate the solvency of the US government.

The Affordable Care Act makes some tentative, bashful attempts at cost control for Medicare & Medicaid. However, even if the law stands as written, we'll see very real changes in government in our lifetimes.

Wrong. The mandate will break the United States, as it is an affront to the principles the country was founded upon. The fact that the Republicans supported it at one time makes not a whit of difference.

Originally Posted by BA11

Here it is again. The constitution does NOT gurantee "happiness", it gurantees "the pursuit of happiness". Denying medical coverage to someone on the basis of payment is not denying them the pursuit of anything other than complimentary medical service. The individual is still free to pursue treatment, and thereby happiness, either by finding a way to get the money for payment or seeking alternative treatment plans.

The constitution was not meant to create a utopian society where everyone is equal all the time, it was designed to give everyone the OPPORTUNITY to achieve whatever they want. If you're being denied medical treatment because you're broke, it's no different than a store refusing to let you walk out without paying for that dress you want.

I am relieved to see there are still sane people out there. Your post is most refreshing.

On another site's forum, I noticed a username which expressed the argument clearly and simply: "A DOCTOR'S LABOR IS NOT MY RIGHT."

Originally Posted by pupster

Nobody forced them to come here. Nobody forces people (immigrants or not) to take certain jobs. Just like nobody forced me to study medicine. So, it's society's job to have to care for everyone? Sorry...Not My Problem. People have to realize that decisions have consequences.

Yes, and the consequence of your decision to not cover these people will result in a public health disaster because one of them had some infectious disease (I don't know lets say TB) and could not afford to go to the doctor and their disease will spread throughout the community and then you have to spend 10000x what you would've originally spent to do one CXR and cover few pills a day to cover everyone and their mother who is sick now, thanks to your decision.

Originally Posted by bala565

Yes, and the consequence of your decision to not cover these people will result in a public health disaster because one of them had some infectious disease (I don't know lets say TB) and could not afford to go to the doctor and their disease will spread throughout the community and then you have to spend 10000x what you would've originally spent to do one CXR and cover few pills a day to cover everyone and their mother who is sick now, thanks to your decision.

This is a silly example seeing as a public health disaster is just as likely without universal coverage. Your argument is based on the premise that everyone would go to the doctor if they could, which is obviously not the case.

Originally Posted by BA11

This is a silly example seeing as a public health disaster is just as likely without universal coverage. Your argument is based on the premise that everyone would go to the doctor if they could, which is obviously not the case.

But certainly more people go if they can afford it versus when they can't afford it. It is a very real argument/possibility....

The problem is that people talk as if we currently don't have universal coverage and all of a sudden with ACA we are going to cover everyone. What we currently have is a very expensive and inefficient universal coverage. Anyone who goes to the ED gets treatment (that's universal coverage). However, it costs 10-100 times more than what it would if they just had a way to go to a PCP/out patient clinic (obviously talking about chronic conditions and non-emergencies here). Who do you think pays for the uninsured/underinsured when they go to the ED? Let me give you a hint, the taxpayers and private insurance when they are charged 10x higher for other services which results in higher premiums for the insured. Also, unfortunately ACA doesn't cover undocumented aliens which will still cause the same problem with the expensive ED care for that population; but at least it will greatly reduce the number of uninsured/underinsured.

Originally Posted by SteinUmStein

Last post about books from me, I promise -

If you want a really fun read of the grown-up Harry Potter variety, I highly highly recommend The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. Check it out.

http://www.amazon.com/Name-Wind-King.../dp/075640407X

Wow we seem to have the exact same taste in books! I just finished the Kvothe series and I agree, they are great. A mix of Guybrush Threepwood and something more masculine .

Originally Posted by Dave89

Wrong. The mandate will break the United States, as it is an affront to the principles the country was founded upon. The fact that the Republicans supported it at one time makes not a whit of difference.

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.

Originally Posted by Dave89

Wrong. The mandate will break the United States, as it is an affront to the principles the country was founded upon. The fact that the Republicans supported it at one time makes not a whit of difference.

"The mandate will break the United States" If you mean "break" the US financially, then you've got it backward. The mandate requires individuals to purchase medical insurance so that they cannot free ride on government programs (EMTALA, etc) or the insurance premiums of others. From the government's point of view, the mandate is a money saver and the penalty, while small, is a money maker. Note, once phased in the penalty ranges from $695 to (I think) 2.5% of income--in many cases, not even enough to pay for a visit to the ER.

"it is an affront to the principles the country was founded upon". I'm always impressed by those who know with certainty what the ~40 framers intended 200+ years ago, as well as what the dozens or hundreds of state legislators whose votes actually ratified the Constitution intended. Imagine trying to figure out the intent of today's Congress in wrapping up, say, the federal budget. One could even say there is no single intent, that different people approach it with different perspectives, for different purposes and with different understandings.

The most... interesting part about divining the Founders' intent is that medicine did not, in any meaningful sense, exist at the time.

Fun fact of the day: the Constitution says nothing about an 'air force'. I expect the Supreme Court to decommission all of our fixed-wing aircraft.

Originally Posted by scarshapedstar

Fun fact of the day: the Constitution says nothing about an 'air force'. I expect the Supreme Court to decommission all of our fixed-wing aircraft.

The Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, a branch of the Army. The constitution provides for the establishment of an army and all things encompassing it. It is pefectly constitutional, and would be even if it didnt start out as a branch of the Army. The constitutional term "army" is just another term for military, and thus anything would be constitutional so long as it was a branch of the military.

Next time, pick a better example to use as the foundation for your weak argument. I say "weak" because the issue at hand is not a relative one but an absolute one. There are three unalienable rights in the constitution and no more have ever been added. They have been extended to more people over the years, but no knew unalienable rights have been created. None of the three unalienable rights could in any way be logically taken to mean that healthcare is a right guranteed by any legislation.

Originally Posted by scarshapedstar

The most... interesting part about divining the Founders' intent is that medicine did not, in any meaningful sense, exist at the time.

Fun fact of the day: the Constitution says nothing about an 'air force'. I expect the Supreme Court to decommission all of our fixed-wing aircraft.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by BA11

The Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, a branch of the Army. The constitution provides for the establishment of an army and all things encompassing it. It is pefectly constitutional, and would be even if it didnt start out as a branch of the Army. The constitutional term "army" is just another term for military, and thus anything would be constitutional so long as it was a branch of the military.

Next time, pick a better example to use as the foundation for your weak argument. I say "weak" because the issue at hand is not a relative one but an absolute one. There are three unalienable rights in the constitution and no more have ever been added. They have been extended to more people over the years, but no knew unalienable rights have been created. None of the three unalienable rights could in any way be logically taken to mean that healthcare is a right guranteed by any legislation.

"The constitution provides for the establishment of an army and all things encompassing it" Really, where do you see the government get the power to draft individuals, or to require them to register for the draft, in peacetime when we have an all volunteer army, no less?

"The constitutional term "army" is just another term for military" This is wrong. Article I Section expressly refers to "Armies", "a Navy" and "the Militia" (not that I'd exclude air power on that basis).

"anything would be constitutional so long as it was a branch of the military" I hope you don't mean what this appears to say.

"There are three unalienable rights in the constitution and no more have ever been added" Really? The 9th Amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I do not see how you can read that as saying that people have only three unalienable rights (and if by that you mean life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, though, per the 9th Amendment, those rights would be among the "other" rights the people have).

"None of the three unalienable rights could in any way be logically taken to mean that healthcare is a right guranteed by any legislation" I don't follow this. Are you saying that the Constitution prohibits Congress from using its legislative powers to give individuals statutory rights beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What about the enumerated powers in Article I Section 8; can't Congress exercise those powers, which it has expressly been granted? How about fleshing out your 3 basic rights? Can Congress do that?

Originally Posted by BA11

This is a silly example seeing as a public health disaster is just as likely without universal coverage. Your argument is based on the premise that everyone would go to the doctor if they could, which is obviously not the case.

Not only that, but in many cases it's just easier to treat the emergencies than to put forth preventative care for everyone. We can't afford it!!!

Originally Posted by bala565

But certainly more people go if they can afford it versus when they can't afford it. It is a very real argument/possibility....

The problem is that people talk as if we currently don't have universal coverage and all of a sudden with ACA we are going to cover everyone. What we currently have is a very expensive and inefficient universal coverage. Anyone who goes to the ED gets treatment (that's universal coverage). However, it costs 10-100 times more than what it would if they just had a way to go to a PCP/out patient clinic (obviously talking about chronic conditions and non-emergencies here). Who do you think pays for the uninsured/underinsured when they go to the ED? Let me give you a hint, the taxpayers and private insurance when they are charged 10x higher for other services which results in higher premiums for the insured. Also, unfortunately ACA doesn't cover undocumented aliens which will still cause the same problem with the expensive ED care for that population; but at least it will greatly reduce the number of uninsured/underinsured.

Ya know what? Using your logic, let's just lock up or deport all the people that are "likely" to commit crimes. Cheaper than letting the crimes happen, right?

Originally Posted by pupster

Ya know what? Using your logic, let's just lock up or deport all the people that are "likely" to commit crimes. Cheaper than letting the crimes happen, right?

His logic is actually closer to paying for some sort of crime prevention service.... U know where we pay individuals to do things like protect the public, keep the peace... That actually doesn't sound half bad.... We should do that! People to protect peace amirite? We could call them proteace!!!!1!! No.... That's not a good name...

Originally Posted by pupster

Not only that, but in many cases it's just easier to treat the emergencies than to put forth preventative care for everyone. We can't afford it!!!

"We can't afford it!!!" Every developed country in the world other than the US has universal (or near universal) health care. How come they can afford it and we can't? The US has just about the lowest taxes, as percent of GDP, in the developed world. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...centage_of_GDP Moreover, every other developed country spends less per person on health care than does the US. See e.g., http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/28/49105858.pdf

Originally Posted by pupster

Not only that, but in many cases it's just easier to treat the emergencies than to put forth preventative care for everyone. We can't afford it!!!

Are you telling me that it is easier to treat a stroke or amputate a leg than it is to check someone's HbA1c every now and then, give them a pill or two and counsel them about their diet? Which one do you think is cheaper/easier?

Originally Posted by pupster

Ya know what? Using your logic, let's just lock up or deport all the people that are "likely" to commit crimes. Cheaper than letting the crimes happen, right?

I refer you to Specter's post below just in case you missed it...

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

His logic is actually closer to paying for some sort of crime prevention service.... U know where we pay individuals to do things like protect the public, keep the peace... That actually doesn't sound half bad.... We should do that! People to protect peace amirite? We could call them proteace!!!!1!! No.... That's not a good name...

Originally Posted by bala565

Are you telling me that it is easier to treat a stroke or amputate a leg than it is to check someone's HbA1c every now and then, give them a pill or two and counsel them about their diet? Which one do you think is cheaper/easier?



I refer you to Specter's post below just in case you missed it...

For a lot of docs it is easier to cut an unconscious person's foot off than it would be to talk to a patient and try to understand why they aren't doing X and coming up with ways to help them do X.

Originally Posted by surftheiop

For a lot of docs it is easier to cut an unconscious person's foot off than it would be to talk to a patient and try to understand why they aren't doing X and coming up with ways to help them do X.

Although unfortunately you are absolutely correct, I think we were talking about societal and financial impact of universal coverage and the term "easier" was used in that context... However, you never know on SDN....

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

His logic is actually closer to paying for some sort of crime prevention service.... U know where we pay individuals to do things like protect the public, keep the peace... That actually doesn't sound half bad.... We should do that! People to protect peace amirite? We could call them proteace!!!!1!! No.... That's not a good name...

lmfao

My argument to you regarding Taco Bell is that people should then pressure Taco Bell to offer better medical care if they aren't happy (by boycotting, etc).

In theory a good idea, but you know this would never work.

Originally Posted by bala565

Although unfortunately you are absolutely correct, I think we were talking about societal and financial impact of universal coverage and the term "easier" was used in that context... However, you never know on SDN....

ya.... Ease in terms of cost has no bearing on easier in terms of personal comfort. And even though there are some docs that may have issues with that....... most of those i've worked with spend much of their pt contact time doing counseling.

Originally Posted by bala565

Are you telling me that it is easier to treat a stroke or amputate a leg than it is to check someone's HbA1c every now and then, give them a pill or two and counsel them about their diet? Which one do you think is cheaper/easier?



I refer you to Specter's post below just in case you missed it...

Well, thanks for asking. I would say YES it it probably easier to just do that and solve the problem than constantly checking HbA1c and wasting RVUs trying to counsel noncompliant patients for the 14th time.

So, let me answer your question w/ evidence, since you so kindly asked me about my beliefs.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...prevention.pdf):

"Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness. An article published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine provides a good summary of the available evidence on how preventive care affects costs."

You can also check the following NEJM article here:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

Joshua T. Cohen, Ph.D., Peter J. Neumann, Sc.D., and Milton C. Weinstein, Ph.D. "Does Preventive Care Save Money? Health Economics and the Presidential Candidates." N Engl J Med 2008; 358:661-663February 14, 2008

Note this quote:

"Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

Originally Posted by pupster

Well, thanks for asking. I would say YES it it probably easier to just do that and solve the problem than constantly checking HbA1c and wasting RVUs trying to counsel noncompliant patients for the 14th time.

So, let me answer your question w/ evidence, since you so kindly asked me about my beliefs.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...prevention.pdf):

"Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness. An article published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine provides a good summary of the available evidence on how preventive care affects costs."

You can also check the following NEJM article here:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

Joshua T. Cohen, Ph.D., Peter J. Neumann, Sc.D., and Milton C. Weinstein, Ph.D. "Does Preventive Care Save Money? Health Economics and the Presidential Candidates." N Engl J Med 2008; 358:661-663February 14, 2008

Note this quote:

"Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

I am having trouble deciphering their Bar graph...

Should "cost-saving" and "increases cost and worsens health" have been a separate graph summarizing everything between?

If I am looking at those 2 columns correctly..... under "cost saving" a higher proportion of literature listed prevention than did acute treatment. Under "increases cost" a higher proportion of literature reviewed listed acute treatment than did prevention It also looks like the data is generalized across all current preventative measures. that said - selection of specific preventions would optimize the process and results in lower costs... Its no different than being efficient in business. You save money by doing a quality control check because you don't have to expend resources later to correct problems. But if you go overboard with QC you end up wasting time and money. It will be a per disease evaluation.... but there are many illnesses where we could save a BUNDLE preventing.

Originally Posted by CaptainSSO

lmfao


In theory a good idea, but you know this would never work.

It happened w/ Planned Parenthood funding and the Susan G. Kormen Foundation.

Originally Posted by pupster

It happened w/ Planned Parenthood funding and the Susan G. Kormen Foundation.

unless I missed something the Komen foundation wasn't boycotted, they flipped their decision to save face after several other people stepped up and filled the gap while publicly criticizing them

but in a general sense you are right.... public opinion can effect change.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

unless I missed something the Komen foundation wasn't boycotted, they flipped their decision to save face after several other people stepped up and filled the gap while publicly criticizing them

but in a general sense you are right.... public opinion can effect change.

http://tinyurl.com/8yklfmb

and thus the earth shook with the profound implications of a search... NAY! A QUEST! imparted by pupster..... result #1. A facebook group, oh heavens the gravity of it all!

because you cant talk about it on facebook if it isnt true.... that's a law



After having admitted I wasn't well educated on the subject your quip is mostly misplaced.... In addition.... I dont see anything in your link to suggest some facebook pages with a collective ~3k people (i added the primary returns) who most likely did not donate to begin with were the motivating factor to the flip over a PR motivation.

the major point being that the situation with Ko(r)men is not really a valid comparison to boycotting Tbell for health benefits

Originally Posted by pupster

According to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...prevention.pdf) ..."

That's the same CBO that said Obamacare would reduce the deficit by $314 billion over the coming decade. For some reason, the CBO study showing major deficit reduction doesn't get quoted much by opponents of Obamacare.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...egislation.pdf

Originally Posted by henge

That's the same CBO that said Obamacare would reduce the deficit by $314 billion over the coming decade. For some reason, the CBO study showing major deficit reduction doesn't get quoted much by opponents of Obamacare.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...egislation.pdf

Which is why I also quoted the NEJM review....

Good Links.

Originally Posted by pupster

Well, thanks for asking. I would say YES it it probably easier to just do that and solve the problem than constantly checking HbA1c and wasting RVUs trying to counsel noncompliant patients for the 14th time.

So, let me answer your question w/ evidence, since you so kindly asked me about my beliefs.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...prevention.pdf):

"Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness. An article published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine provides a good summary of the available evidence on how preventive care affects costs."

You can also check the following NEJM article here:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

Joshua T. Cohen, Ph.D., Peter J. Neumann, Sc.D., and Milton C. Weinstein, Ph.D. "Does Preventive Care Save Money? Health Economics and the Presidential Candidates." N Engl J Med 2008; 358:661-663February 14, 2008

Note this quote:

"Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

Assuming the NEJM article is correct, then a lot of the Obamacare savings must be coming from elsewhere. Center for Budget Priorities has a short summary of the cost savings and revenue increases (with data from before the 2011 CBO revisions). http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3178 a lot of savings come from Medicare cuts that aren't specified by the CBP, but one of the cost biggest savings comes from the elimination of Medicare Advantage, the semi-private Medicare alternative that costs about 12% more per beneficiary than does traditional Medicare.

One key question is should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?

I suspect your avatar breaks some sort of rule.....

Originally Posted by tima

One key question is should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?

NO! Health care is NOT a right, at least not as definied by the Constitution. However, eople should be free to PURSUE to have health care if they so wish (and have the resources).

Originally Posted by henge

Assuming the NEJM article is correct, then a lot of the Obamacare savings must be coming from elsewhere. Center for Budget Priorities has a short summary of the cost savings and revenue increases (with data from before the 2011 CBO revisions). http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3178 a lot of savings come from Medicare cuts that aren't specified by the CBP, but one of the cost biggest savings comes from the elimination of Medicare Advantage, the semi-private Medicare alternative that costs about 12% more per beneficiary than does traditional Medicare.

You DO realize that cutting Medicare Advantage would result in lower payouts to providers (i.e. physicians)? There's only so much more that can be cut....we're already at the bone....

Originally Posted by pupster

NO! Health care is NOT a right, at least not as definied by the Constitution. However, eople should be free to PURSUE to have health care if they so wish (and have the resources).

As opposed to what? Outlawing private practice? I think you misunderstand the other side of the debate.

Originally Posted by pupster

You DO realize that cutting Medicare Advantage would result in lower payouts to providers (i.e. physicians)? There's only so much more that can be cut....we're already at the bone....

To quote an earlier post:

Originally Posted by pupster

We can't afford it!!!

We seem to have come full circle, with you arguing for more expensive government-funding of health care.

No one here is going to convince anyone else to change their mind. It's not about the mandate--I bet 95% of the people who oppose Obamacare would still oppose it if it were no mandate--it's not about preventive care--probably 95% of the people who oppose Obamacare would still oppose it even if the savings from preventive care could fund the whole subsidy system--it's about the welfare state and government benefits. And people's minds are pretty well set on. It's been fun.

Originally Posted by henge

To quote an earlier post:


We seem to have come full circle, with you arguing for more expensive government-funding of health care.

No one here is going to convince anyone else to change their mind. It's not about the mandate--I bet 95% of the people who oppose Obamacare would still oppose it if it were no mandate--it's not about preventive care--probably 95% of the people who oppose Obamacare would still oppose it even if the savings from preventive care could fund the whole subsidy system--it's about the welfare state and government benefits. And people's minds are pretty well set on. It's been fun.

No...I'm arguing for letting the free market take care of things. BTW, y'all should get out there today and vote...every vote counts!

Government makes everything more expensive and less reliable. Everything government touches is ruined. Government also never cares about budgets so I bet the program will end up like social security "pyramid scheme".

Originally Posted by pupster

No...I'm arguing for letting the free market take care of things.

Thanks, but I enjoy having a pot in which to urinate, and a window to throw said pot from.

Originally Posted by Shakespeare37

IMHO, the belief that health is or isn't a right is irrelevant. EMTALA essentially decided that some base level of access to care was, in fact, a right. Interestingly enough, it was passed by a Democratic House, Republican Senate, and signed into law by Pres. Regan.
That said, the increasing legislation of healthcare since then has been a foregone conclusion. Once the government made the decision that something was so important that businesses have to provide it regardless of the customer's ability to pay, eventually the government (taxpayers) end up paying for it.
As the government has legislated more and more access to care, specific services, etc, via numerous medicare/medicaid acts and regulations implemented in various ways, the healthcare system has moved further and further from the free-market model. It has now become so regulated that the free-market doesn't control the costs.
I believe there are two possible outcomes.
1. The government gets out of healthcare regulation and allows the free market to control costs. This is never going to happen, as the perpetual solution of government is more regulation, not less.
2. The government enacts a single payer system after realizing that the Affordable Care Act doesn't control the rising costs of health care.

I could go on about how it doesn't control costs, but various posters above have made that point.

EMTALA is not funded for by the government.
The ED eats the cost if the bill is not paid.

Medical professionals & students trying to logically reason................

Medical professionals & students attempting to interpret the law...................

Medical students whose arguments make less sense than an 8th graders first book report..................

This sh!t is classic. Keep up the good work guys

unalienable, inalienable, mars attacks, area 51, will smith. This is just too cute.

Originally Posted by collar

Medical professionals & students trying to logically reason................

Medical professionals & students attempting to interpret the law...................

Medical students whose arguments make less sense than an 8th graders first book report..................

This sh!t is classic. Keep up the good work guys

unalienable, inalienable, mars attacks, area 51, will smith. This is just too cute.

It's just a general discussion. Many users already know that no one can predict the future.

Originally Posted by pupster

NO! Health care is NOT a right, at least not as definied by the Constitution. However, eople should be free to PURSUE to have health care if they so wish (and have the resources).

I know it's way past your post date, but it does my heart good to see kindred spirits on these forums.

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...