2012 Official Preallo Political Discussion Thread

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

Romney is a Mormon, 'nuff said.

Originally Posted by Gut Shot

What? I thought the right was just brimming with free market solutions that will expand health coverage while driving costs down. As per the federal gubbmint itself, here are the criteria that must be met to get a "State Innovation Waiver":



Singapore, anyone?

'Comprehensive' as defined by Obamacare means that every American has uncapped comprehensive insurance with a limited copay. The Singapore model where everyone has a healthcare savings account and the option to buy capped catastrophic insurance cannot legally exist. Heck, even the old American model of having just catastrophic insurance isn't legal. Every American has to have insurance that pays for almost all of every medical procedure and appointment or they're fined under the individual mandate.

FWIW I favor the Singapore model: extensive deregulation, mandatory healthcare savings, and capped catastrophic insurance.

Originally Posted by Temperature101

I am not about to give up my hard earned money to some low life who dont want to work...Dont get me wrong. I have no love for ROMNEY. I dont believe a thing that guy said except the tax cut since I know Grover Nortquist (American for Tax Reform) will make sure he follows up on his promise.

You're conflating issues here...
Are you worried about welfare or healthcare access or taxes?

Originally Posted by kpcrew2oo2

voting in the right congressmen is probably more important for legislation since they are the ones that will be writing the actual bill. the president can frame the conversation and provide leadership for his party but people tend to give presidents more credit for events than they deserve.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by wolfie77

You're conflating issues here...
Are you worried about welfare or healthcare access or taxes?

I DONT CARE about healthcare policies..I care about my pocket.

Originally Posted by Temperature101

I DONT CARE about healthcare policies..I care about my pocket.

Your pocket must be an exquisite organism.

Originally Posted by Temperature101

I DONT CARE about healthcare policies..I care about my pocket.

Ooooooh...this is who I'm dealing with.

Originally Posted by Temperature101

I DONT CARE about healthcare policies..I care about my pocket.

Can I have a party in your pocket?

Originally Posted by AnthonyTaylor

Romney is a Mormon, 'nuff said.

And your point? So is Democrat and former house majority leader Harry Reid. Lets keep it a little classy.

Originally Posted by Temperature101

If we gonna be physicians, voting for Obama is voting against our economic interest... As doctors, our average salary will be 250k+; therefore, we gonna have a huge tax cut with Romney. On the contrary, Obama promises tax cut for people making <250k+...I can be careless about any other issues; I care about my own pocket. VOTE FOR ROMNEY.

No, we're not going to have a huge tax cut with Romney. The most annoying thing about Romney is that nit only is he committed to tax cuts web can't afford, but he's shown himself to be the most committed to cutting taxes on unearned income. Inherit your money? No taxes. Sit on your ass while your broker earns you money with your money? No taxes. You're a corporation, or an investment banker who calls his income investment income even though its clearly a salary? No taxes. Worked 100 hours a week for all of your 20s and 30s to be a doctor? 25% tax rate if his tax cuts pass. Based on his history, I bet he would trade even that tax cut for a 'compromise' that eliminates the capital gains tax. Also keep in mind that our salaries and training are largely supported by the social programs of Medicare and Medicaid that he proposes to cut when he support the Ryan plan.
He will do us no favors.

Originally Posted by CALLR001

And your point? So is Democrat and former house majority leader Harry Reid. Lets keep it a little classy.

Not a huge deal but he was never house majority leader.

My point is that he and anyone else who does subscribe to such a monster does not deserve to by my leader. The class of the post was in the humor of it.

Originally Posted by wolfie77

Not a huge deal but he was never house majority leader.

My bad, senate majority leader.

Originally Posted by Neurosis

I'm no sociopolitical expert, but I always thought that for the most part doctors tended swing right, and were very conservative (socially).

I always figured that too but the more people I meet that are premed/involved in the medical field, the more I'm beginning to see that's not the case (except sometimes leaning right on tax issues). And I thought I'd be all alone in a corner with my left leaning views

As for social conservatism, not too many people have those views except the older (or more traditionally minded) and more religious crowds, of which I am neither lol

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

'Comprehensive' as defined by Obamacare means that every American has uncapped comprehensive insurance with a limited copay. The Singapore model where everyone has a healthcare savings account and the option to buy capped catastrophic insurance cannot legally exist. Heck, even the old American model of having just catastrophic insurance isn't legal. Every American has to have insurance that pays for almost all of every medical procedure and appointment or they're fined under the individual mandate.

Could you point me to a source that states every American will have "to have insurance that pays for almost all of every medical procedure and appointment"?

I ask because I am aware of a number of the PPACA's provisions, including:
- A lack of annual or lifetime limits
- Prohibition on rescissions
- Coverage of preventive care without copay
- Extension of dependent coverage to age 26
- Limiting the medical loss ratio to 0.80 (or 0.75 for some insurers)

I was under the rather strong impression that minimal coverage provisions were still being left to the states, as long as the insurance companies themselves abide by the above provisions.

Also, I am quite sure that Kathleen Sebelius and the gang at HHS would be delighted to issue a waiver to any state with a credible plan to effectively reform health care. It's a golden opportunity, and the fact that Vermont is the only one willing to stand up is quite interesting.

Originally Posted by Temperature101

If we gonna be physicians, voting for Obama is voting against our economic interest... As doctors, our average salary will be 250k+; therefore, we gonna have a huge tax cut with Romney. On the contrary, Obama promises tax cut for people making <250k+...I can be careless about any other issues; I care about my own pocket. VOTE FOR ROMNEY.

Do you understand what a marginal tax rate is? Here, muse over this 2008 comparison of the tax plans offered by candidate Obama a candidate McCain and get back to us.

On a side note, would you bankrupt the nation in exchange for a significant decrease in your personal tax bill? Serious question.

Originally Posted by Oo Cipher oO

So has Obama spoken about the changes he'd make to defense spending? I'm asking an honest question. I know it's selfish but I do tend to vote out of self interest. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Considering Leon Panetta is calling for a commission to evaluate the military pension system (read it's too expensive so they're going to find a way to gut it) I would say the cat is out of the bag on this one. It doesn't matter who is in the White House, nobody will be willing to foot the bill down the road.

Sorry, we were all born too late.

Originally Posted by Gut Shot

On a side note, would you bankrupt the nation in exchange for a significant decrease in your personal tax bill? Serious question.

Isn't that the way the majority of politicians vote?

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

Isn't that the way the majority of politicians vote?

Yep. And the funny (in a sad way) thing about it is that we blame politicians for it and then we re-elect them. The approval ratings are so low, we "care" about future generations, and apparently everyone is tired of "corrupt" politicians.

But someone needs to be voting for them

Originally Posted by AnthonyTaylor

Romney is a Mormon, 'nuff said.

Originally Posted by AnthonyTaylor

My point is that he and anyone else who does subscribe to such a monster does not deserve to by my leader. The class of the post was in the humor of it.

Agreed. I'm pretty tolerant of others' beliefs; BUT most people aren't running for president. If you believe in absurd historical events based on faith, that is without evidence, what credibility do you have for sound executive practices? (This idea really extends passed the obviously fake Mormonism.) If you believe the holy land to be in the middle of America, that God visited upstate NY, that Mr. Smith found God's word on tablets and conveniently lost them when asked for proof, and that heaven exists on a nearby planet - you are deluded. You may be otherwise bright with nice character, but I don't think you're fit for presidency believing things like that to be true.

Wanted: non-theist for president.

Originally Posted by Temperature101

I DONT CARE about healthcare policies..I care about my pocket.

Please state this in your PS & any interviews you get (lol).

Originally Posted by FSUseminoleEM1

Agreed. I'm pretty tolerant of others' beliefs; BUT most people aren't running for president. If you believe in absurd historical events based on faith, that is without evidence, what credibility do you have for sound executive practices? (This idea really extends passed the obviously fake Mormonism.) If you believe the holy land to be in the middle of America, that God visited upstate NY, that Mr. Smith found God's word on tablets and conveniently lost them when asked for proof, and that heaven exists on a nearby planet - you are deluded. You may be otherwise bright with nice character, but I don't think you're fit for presidency believing things like that to be true.

Wanted: non-theist for president.

Really? I'm actually impressed with Romney and religion. Santorum made him look secular. Heck, he mentions religion less than Obama does. Mormon ideas may seem a bit out there to non-believers (don't all religions?) but they overall tend to be very nice, tolerant people. I don't really worry about that.

The thing to worry about Romney is not his religion. It is the fact that he may be president with both houses having a republican majority. Romney has shown that all he is quite willing to be pushed around by the extremes in his party. This is not good for democracy no matter what your beliefs are.

This is from a post i made in the NT thread. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...=909792&page=4

The high costs of health care are often cited by health insurers to justify the high cost of insurance. But it is vital to understand why the cost of health care is so high. The answer is simple… government regulation. Hospitals, pharmacies, private practices, big pharma, and the myriad of material suppliers for all things medical are subject to federal regulation and government bureaucracy in one way or another. The medical field is a highly professional one and has the ability to self regulate and does so. Additional government requirements do little but add cost and reduce efficiency. The Cato Institute (2004) estimated that 256 billion dollars per year where lost to the government regulation of health care alone. So it appears the government is very concerned with the high cost of health care that the government itself has created. I would suggest that the agenda of our current government is only to grow and keep growing every fiscal cycle. It is not interested in actually solving problems but simply with going through the motions and making excuses.
The free market “fee-for service” model is the best one. This model requires the day to day visits to your family doctor would be paid by you directly to your doctor. The same goes with prescription drugs. Insurance is only use for catastrophic coverage, meaning an injury or inpatient illness/prolonged disease. This has a twofold benefit, first it makes sure there is no one between your family doctor and you. Second it ensures you have coverage when you need it and it greatly increases the effective risk pool for insurance companies. This plan may sound untenable today but consider that we could save 250 billion dollars a year by getting the government out of health care. Additionally we could bring down liability costs on health care providers through careful tort reform that reduces physician liability to frivolous lawsuits and allows for a contract between a doctor and patient that is a legally binding waiver of liability. We could also allow health insurance companies to operate across state lines, many companies already do but they are forced to have technically separate companies in each state they operate which are another regulatory burden and results in increased administrative cost which means higher premiums or lower coverage. If these goals could be realized I don’t think it unreasonable to one day return to a private free market solution to health care.

Reposting this in the hopes of sparking a fire in someone that we have the ability to solve our problems while enhancing personal liberty and the free society.

Originally Posted by Barcu

Really? I'm actually impressed with Romney and religion. Santorum made him look secular. Heck, he mentions religion less than Obama does. Mormon ideas may seem a bit out there to non-believers (don't all religions?) but they overall tend to be very nice, tolerant people. I don't really worry about that.

The thing to worry about Romney is not his religion. It is the fact that he may be president with both houses having a republican majority. Romney has shown that all he is quite willing to be pushed around by the extremes in his party. This is not good for democracy no matter what your beliefs are.

You're right in that Santorum was way more vocal about his beliefs. I wish they would all just let it go, Obama included.

It's 2012. I mean come on already...

Agreed. I'm pretty tolerant of others' beliefs; BUT most people aren't running for president. If you believe in absurd historical events based on faith, that is without evidence, what credibility do you have for sound executive practices? (This idea really extends passed the obviously fake Mormonism.) If you believe the holy land to be in the middle of America, that God visited upstate NY, that Mr. Smith found God's word on tablets and conveniently lost them when asked for proof, and that heaven exists on a nearby planet - you are deluded. You may be otherwise bright with nice character, but I don't think you're fit for presidency believing things like that to be true.

Wanted: non-theist for president.

There's an outstanding article by The Economist that actually discusses why Mormons are particularly successful in executive positions. Mormons disproportionately fill high power roles in the business world, and the author suggests it is the practices of the Mormon faith that breed these super effective leaders. I suggest you check it out.

Also, good luck with that not electing a theist thing.

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

Also, good luck with that not electing a theist thing.

Sadly true, but we can all pray* for things to get better.









*intentional sarcasm

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

There's an outstanding article by The Economist that actually discusses why Mormons are particularly successful in executive positions. Mormons disproportionately fill high power roles in the business world, and the author suggests it is the practices of the Mormon faith that breed these super effective leaders. I suggest you check it out.

Also, good luck with that not electing a theist thing.

Just read it. Their church is run like a business, the youth grow up in a business-like environment. It's not a surprise they learn trades of business and are good at it. Maybe a slew of future businessmen will run out and convert following that article. .

Not a single successful woman was mentioned in that article. The fact that Joseph Smith's misogynistic scam has been so persistent is as offensive as the threat of eternal torture itself. That's why I'll continue to be so critical of these beliefs and other faith-based ones as well. It's not the person behind them I wish to offend, just the tenets themselves.

Let's make a poll. lol

Originally Posted by Bacchus

I'm gonna write in Hillary Clinton.

I did that for the Oregon primary

Originally Posted by NatrixCaelicola

I did that for the Oregon primary

I owe you a beer.

Originally Posted by Bacchus

I owe you a beer.

If you live in portland I'll take you up on that

Originally Posted by FSUseminoleEM1

Agreed. I'm pretty tolerant of others' beliefs; BUT most people aren't running for president. If you believe in absurd historical events based on faith, that is without evidence, what credibility do you have for sound executive practices? (This idea really extends passed the obviously fake Mormonism.) If you believe the holy land to be in the middle of America, that God visited upstate NY, that Mr. Smith found God's word on tablets and conveniently lost them when asked for proof, and that heaven exists on a nearby planet - you are deluded. You may be otherwise bright with nice character, but I don't think you're fit for presidency believing things like that to be true.

Wanted: non-theist for president.



Please state this in your PS & any interviews you get (lol).

I totally agree with you. Republicans, in general tend yo have these anti-intellectual views based on religion when faced with scientific evidence like in evolution, global warming... Etc.

Originally Posted by Big N Tasty

I always figured that too but the more people I meet that are premed/involved in the medical field, the more I'm beginning to see that's not the case (except sometimes leaning right on tax issues). And I thought I'd be all alone in a corner with my left leaning views

Disclaimer: I have no evidence of this, except for my own observations.
It seems like more pre-meds/medical students/ect. are to the left, but more move to the right after they get into the real practicing of medicine.

I love the idealism of all those premeds who have yet to experience the disastrous effects of federal overregulation of medicine. My father is an MD and has heavily considered switching to a concierge medicine practice, since his stress level having to deal with high regulation and low government reimbursements have him completely burnt out. I know most of his colleagues feel the same way. If things continue the way they are medicine will soon diverge into 2 different models. Those providers who only accept cash payments from those willing to pay, and a government system where the common folk are forced to wait months and months to see whatever providers are left over. Trust me, Obama and gov't regulation might seem cool now, but it will only make things much worse for you as practicing physicians.

.

Originally Posted by bulldog1

I love the idealism of all those premeds who have yet to experience the disastrous effects of federal overregulation of medicine. My father is an MD and has heavily considered switching to a concierge medicine practice, since his stress level having to deal with high regulation and low government reimbursements have him completely burnt out. I know most of his colleagues feel the same way. If things continue the way they are medicine will soon diverge into 2 different models. Those providers who only accept cash payments from those willing to pay, and a government system where the common folk are forced to wait months and months to see whatever providers are left over. Trust me, Obama and gov't regulation might seem cool now, but it will only make things much worse for you as practicing physicians.

Our profession exists because of federal over regulation. If we didn't have an exclusive right to sell medicine (licensing + prescription rights) our salaries and working conditions would long since have gone the way of airline pilots. If the government did allow us to spend an essentially uncapped amount of money on every patient under 18 or over 65 three quarters of the cash flow in our profession would vanish. Real deregulation would be great for the country, but terrible for us.

Originally Posted by Gut Shot

Do you understand what a marginal tax rate is? Here, muse over this 2008 comparison of the tax plans offered by candidate Obama a candidate McCain and get back to us.

On a side note, would you bankrupt the nation in exchange for a significant decrease in your personal tax bill? Serious question.

The country is gonna get bankrupt anyway. Obama is spending on social programs and Romney is giving it to the rich. I will not get any of it when it's being spent on social programs but I might get some of it when it's given to the rich if I become a doctor.

Edit..You are right. There is virtually no difference between them two except for the ultra rich people. I voted for McCain (that loser). Had I known that, I would have never voted for that loser. Now I know that I should do my reseach before trusting these politicians saying: "He is gonna raise your taxes". If Romney tax proposal is similar, there is no way I will vote for that sucker. I only agree with that liar in tax policies. If it's tax proposal is not gonna give me a huge tax cut...He will not get my vote. I should stop listening to the politicians' slogans and do my research.

Originally Posted by Temperature101

The country is gonna get bankrupt anyway. Obama is spending on social programs and Romney is giving it to the rich. I will not get any of it when it's being spent on social programs but I might get some of it when it's given to the rich if I become a doctor.

Those social programs are keeping your student loan interest rates at less than 4%, they fund your salary during residency, and they are how the majority of patients pay for your services when you are a practicing physicians.

Besides other reasons, I will be voting for Ron Paul because of his views on and experience with healthcare in America.

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

Our profession exists because of federal over regulation. If we didn't have an exclusive right to sell medicine (licensing + prescription rights) our salaries and working conditions would long since have gone the way of airline pilots. If the government did allow us to spend an essentially uncapped amount of money on every patient under 18 or over 65 three quarters of the cash flow in our profession would vanish. Real deregulation would be great for the country, but terrible for us.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how anyone with your opinions on deregulation can vote for anyone other than Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, let alone donate money to Barack Obama's campaign.

Originally Posted by bulldog1

I love the idealism of all those premeds who have yet to experience the disastrous effects of federal overregulation of medicine. My father is an MD and has heavily considered switching to a concierge medicine practice, since his stress level having to deal with high regulation and low government reimbursements have him completely burnt out. I know most of his colleagues feel the same way. If things continue the way they are medicine will soon diverge into 2 different models. Those providers who only accept cash payments from those willing to pay, and a government system where the common folk are forced to wait months and months to see whatever providers are left over. Trust me, Obama and gov't regulation might seem cool now, but it will only make things much worse for you as practicing physicians.

I for one plan to not take any patients who want to use Medicare, Medicaid, or any other healthcare "coverage" programs the government devises.

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

Those social programs are keeping your student loan interest rates at less than 4%, they fund your salary during residency, and they are how the majority of patients pay for your services when you are a practicing physicians.

I have to laugh at the bold part. My federal loan interest rates haven't been that low in a while now.

Originally Posted by Dave89

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how anyone with your opinions on deregulation can vote for anyone other than Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, let alone donate money to Barack Obama's campaign.

I don't think that Ron Paul can win and I don't think that kind of deregulation is going to happen at the federal level even if he does. If my ideas ever get implemented it does it will be at a state level, when a few extreme tea party states start opting out of Medicaid and stop recognizing physician licenses.

On the other hand I'm in the Navy, and Obama's foreign policy is extremely competent (if somewhat Machiavellian), which is a rare skill for a President. I think his mostly monetarist fiscal policy is underrated and its the reason our banks are so much better financed than the continually collapsing system in Europe and that our private sector has been growing for over a year now. I support his attempts to re-regulate wall street (or more accurately to stop wall street from behaving as a Trust) which I think is necessary to refocus our system of investment on actually investing in companies. Finally I believe in bringing the capital gains tax in line with taxes on earned income, and thereby reducing the deficit. I think all those things can happen, and they're all Obama policies that Romney has publicly opposed.

Originally Posted by Dave89

I for one plan to not take any patients who want to use Medicare, Medicaid, or any other healthcare "coverage" programs the government devises.

Do schools a favor and let them know that that's your plan. Also, good luck with that as a medical student and resident.

(sent on my phone - forgive typos/brevity)

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

Do schools a favor and let them know that that's your plan. Also, good luck with that as a medical student and resident.

(sent on my phone - forgive typos/brevity)

Before you think this is some kind of pipe dream, you have spoken with Canadian doctors, right? Cause a bunch of them pull this kind of racket.

Originally Posted by Dave89

I for one plan to not take any patients who want to use Medicare, Medicaid, or any other healthcare "coverage" programs the government devises.

Why not? you are getting money for your services? Is it defective money they give or something?

Or do you just blatantly hate the poor?

Originally Posted by Dave89

Before you think this is some kind of pipe dream, you have spoken with Canadian doctors, right? Cause a bunch of them pull this kind of racket.

What racket is that?

(sent on my phone - forgive typos/brevity)

Originally Posted by lobo12

Why not? you are getting money for your services? Is it defective money they give or something?

Or do you just blatantly hate the poor?

I guess clarification is in order: I will take as few patients who can only "pay" with those plans as possible. I don't "hate" the poor. But a great many doctors have limits on how many patients they can see (or they just schedule appointments for three months later). And if I can only see a certain number of patients, they may as well be well-paying customers. Aside from the reimbursement aspect, paperwork is...annoying.

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

What racket is that?

(sent on my phone - forgive typos/brevity)

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...cribes_how.htm

Of course, not all specialists (or primary care doctors) can get away with this. But it's a good overall strategy.

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

Do schools a favor and let them know that that's your plan. Also, good luck with that as a medical student and resident.

(sent on my phone - forgive typos/brevity)

Why does he have to notify schools or residency programs about his plans for private practice? Medical schools and hospitals are meant to equip us with the knowledge and training to provide quality healthcare. They are not designed to form us all into cogs in a massive bureaucratic machine. As an autonomous healthcare provider, he has full right to eschew government healthcare programs if he chooses, though it could be at his detriment depending upon what field of medicine and area of the country he chooses to practice.

Avoiding Medicare or Medicaid does not make one greedy or heartless either. Read this interesting story of a pediatrician in NYC who has opted for cash-only payment model via Paypal and online financial transactions and only makes house visits. He found this as the most viable option to repay his onerous student loan obligations without maintaining the expensive overhead associated with running a office.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...tml?page=0%2C1