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

[pupster]

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.

Wow...way to make an assumption as to my specialty. No, I'm not EM...thank you very much. I actually ran faaar away from that, FM, and IM due to this stuff. Thanks...I'm actually doing residency in a very happy place, thank you very much ).

I'd like you to read this and then discuss:

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2011/12/13/my-time-at-walmart-why-we-need-serious-welfare-reform/

Also, using your same logic, there will always be people for which access to healthcare isn't feasible. It's unavoidable.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pupster]

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.

Actually, I care about being able to practice medicine; if salary goes down, more and more people will LEAVE medicine and do something else. A lot of the older attendings in my field are leaving/retiring early, and it's made access to care even harder. Obamacare was the the straw that broke the camel's back. When you get done w/ medical school and into residency, you'll understand.

 

[startoverat40]

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

oh here we go again, the myth of the "welfare queen" coined by Saint Reagan!

 

[SpecterGT260]

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.

Do u realize the subjective nature of everything you said? Im not agreeing or disagreeing here, mind you.....

 

[Lysinee]

FACTBOX: Healthcare by the numbers

http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-healthcare-numbers-193622936.html

* 29th in Number of Practicing Doctors - The United States has 2.4 practicing doctors per 1,000 population, placing it below an OECD average of 3.1 and behind Canada and Slovenia.

* 30th in Medical Graduates - 6.5 per 100,000 population, ahead of only France, Japan and Israel. The OECD average is 9.9 percent.


I guess it's a good thing that American med schools are trying to increase the number of graduates. But, it makes the match more competitive if the residency spots don't increase. Agree?

 

[pupster]

FACTBOX: Healthcare by the numbers

http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-healthcare-numbers-193622936.html

* 29th in Number of Practicing Doctors - The United States has 2.4 practicing doctors per 1,000 population, placing it below an OECD average of 3.1 and behind Canada and Slovenia.

* 30th in Medical Graduates - 6.5 per 100,000 population, ahead of only France, Japan and Israel. The OECD average is 9.9 percent.


I guess it's a good thing that American med schools are trying to increase the number of graduates. But, it makes the match more competitive if the residency spots don't increase. Agree?

That's more a problem for FMGs and IMGs. The point of increasing graduates is to increase the % of AMGs in residencies and to flush out the FMGs and IMGs (i.e. any non-LCME-accredited school-trained physicians). If you're an AMG, don't worry...it's not your problem...!

 

[surftheiop]

FACTBOX: Healthcare by the numbers

http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-healthcare-numbers-193622936.html

* 29th in Number of Practicing Doctors - The United States has 2.4 practicing doctors per 1,000 population, placing it below an OECD average of 3.1 and behind Canada and Slovenia.

* 30th in Medical Graduates - 6.5 per 100,000 population, ahead of only France, Japan and Israel. The OECD average is 9.9 percent.


I guess it's a good thing that American med schools are trying to increase the number of graduates. But, it makes the match more competitive if the residency spots don't increase. Agree?

.

 

[Dave89]

Isn't it interesting how people who oppose the "healthcare" bill (which is really just a favor to the insurance companies) are painted as being cruel, miserly, jerks who would rather save a buck than a life?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc : Ron Paul (libertarian!) cares more about life than those compassionate liberal doctors

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html : Conservatives more charitable (NY Times, no less!)

http://www.aaplog.org/

Those "right-wingers" are, apparently, more willing to shell out the time and effort to treat patients than the oh-so-tolerant-and-benevolent guys who think Obamacare is the bees knees.

 

[scarshapedstar]

Ron Paul wouldn't support your attempted late-term abortion of this thread.

 

[Dave89]

Ron Paul wouldn't support your attempted late-term abortion of this thread.

"Abortion"? Are you SURE you picked the right word?

 

[Kevin Baker]

Ron Paul wouldn't support your attempted late-term abortion of this thread.

Personally, no, but he'd support your right to do it, which is all that matters.

 

[scarshapedstar]

Personally, no, but he'd support your right to do it, which is all that matters.

You can't be serious.

http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/ron-paul/12/abortion-and-birth-control/16/

 

[Kevin Baker]

You can't be serious.

http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/ron-paul/12/abortion-and-birth-control/16/

He is very against abortion personally but has stated many times in many places that its a states rights issue and that one cannot legislate morality.

You are correct in that he strongly opposes abortion on a federal level. But linking to a site that takes a quote out of context (sanctity of life act, as it would only apply to the feds) is a bit counterproductive.

From his website


At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.


http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

 

[SpecterGT260]

He is very against abortion personally but has stated many times in many places that its a states rights issue and that one cannot legislate morality.

You are correct in that he strongly opposes abortion on a federal level. But linking to a site that takes a quote out of context (sanctity of life act, as it would only apply to the feds) is a bit counterproductive.

From his website


At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.


http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

Ya... but in my experience the people who support him are borderline crazy w their uncompromising ideals

 

[scarshapedstar]

Probably beyond the scope of this thread, but I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of the 10th Amendment Dodge as an answer to everything.


I think an America where you gain or lose fairly important civil/human rights when you make a road trip is a screwed-up America. Furthermore, Tentherism in modern practice means you take some POS legislation (fetal personhood, gay marriage ban) that Congress would never enact, and simply try to ram it through all 50 states at once, as a deceptively worded ballot measure if all else fails. Seems like the exact opposite of the Laboratories of Democracy theory. More like the Shotgun of Democracy, or the Pot of Spaghetti Thrown At The Wall To See What Sticks... Of Democracy.

The theonomic solution to the problems of sodomy and abortion can not be achieved at the Federal level because at that level liberals outnumber conservatives 20 to 1. And theonomic Christians are almost non-existent at that level. It is only when the socialist state is dismantled and power returned back to the states and the counties that we will be able to successfully deal with the other social and moral issues. As long as sin is protected at the Federal level, our political job as Christians is to dismantle the Federal bureaucracy and return all power to the local communities. Therefore, the great battle is against the socialist state.

Given that, Ron Paul is the man with the best position to work for that goal on the national level.

-Christian Reconstructionist Bojidar Marinov

 

[Dave89]

Probably beyond the scope of this thread, but I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of the 10th Amendment Dodge as an answer to everything.

I think an America where you gain or lose fairly important civil/human rights when you make a road trip is a screwed-up America. Furthermore, Tentherism in modern practice means you take some POS legislation (fetal personhood, gay marriage ban) that Congress would never enact, and simply try to ram it through all 50 states at once, as a deceptively worded ballot measure if all else fails. Seems like the exact opposite of the Laboratories of Democracy theory. More like the Shotgun of Democracy, or the Pot of Spaghetti Thrown At The Wall To See What Sticks... Of Democracy.

Aha. So now abiding by the Tenth Amendment is "Tentherism."

This is beginning to take on all the trappings of a Youtube "debate."

 

[deleted393595]

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.

Look up the Germany healthcare model.

 

[valkener]

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/

Best post in this thread so far! Also:

 

[pntgrd]

repeal

 

[pupster]

repeal

2/3s of Americans agree w/ you...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/

 

[SteinUmStein]

2/3s of Americans agree w/ you...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/

Too bad for them that the GOP frontrunner supported what is essentially a statewide version of the ACA in Massachusetts. I'm sure they're cheering for the Supreme Court to strike down the individual mandate, because I don't think you can count on Mittens (if he were elected) to repeal it with any sort of gusto. Why waste political capital on an issue that he probably privately supports or is ambivalent toward?

 

[Dave89]

Too bad for them that the GOP frontrunner supported what is essentially a statewide version of the ACA in Massachusetts. I'm sure they're cheering for the Supreme Court to strike down the individual mandate, because I don't think you can count on Mittens (if he were elected) to repeal it with any sort of gusto. Why waste political capital on an issue that he probably privately supports or is ambivalent toward?

Any comparison between "Romneycare" and "Obamacare" is irrelevant, because one is a FEDERAL mandate and another is a STATE mandate. While one individual on this thread apparently thinks this distinction is meaningless, American law and history say it is not.

And I believe you are wrong about Romney not repealing the bill if elected, because he has pledged many, many times onstage at debates that he would repeal it. It's one thing to shift views (suspiciously or not). Entirely another to go back on your public word.

 

[JackShephard MD]

Any comparison between "Romneycare" and "Obamacare" is irrelevant, because one is a FEDERAL mandate and another is a STATE mandate.

That makes perfect sense...

 

[Dave89]

That makes perfect sense...

Yes, it does. Thanks for agreeing.:

 

[SteinUmStein]

Any comparison between "Romneycare" and "Obamacare" is irrelevant, because one is a FEDERAL mandate and another is a STATE mandate. While one individual on this thread apparently thinks this distinction is meaningless, American law and history say it is not.

I don't understand your point. Care to clarify beyond stating the obvious?

And I believe you are wrong about Romney not repealing the bill if elected, because he has pledged many, many times onstage at debates that he would repeal it. It's one thing to shift views (suspiciously or not). Entirely another to go back on your public word.

I have difficulty believing a single word he says. I believe he is entirely capable of contradicting his public word, as he has already done just that in the past. You can trust the pre-2004 Romney or the post-2004 Romney, but you can't trust both. The political philosophies of those two Romneys barely overlap.

 

[JackShephard MD]

Any comparison between "Romneycare" and "Obamacare" is irrelevant, because one is a FEDERAL mandate and another is a STATE mandate. While one individual on this thread apparently thinks this distinction is meaningless, American law and history say it is not.

Try this: "I'm pro-life in states, but I'm pro-choice nationally." "I'm for capital punishment in states but not nationally."

I have difficulty believing a single word he says. I believe he is entirely capable of contradicting his public word, as he has already done just that in the past. You can trust the pre-2004 Romney or the post-2004 Romney, but you can't trust both. The political philosophies of those two Romneys barely overlap.

In Romney's defense, all politicians do that.

 

[pupster]

Isn't it interesting how people who oppose the "healthcare" bill (which is really just a favor to the insurance companies) are painted as being cruel, miserly, jerks who would rather save a buck than a life?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc : Ron Paul (libertarian!) cares more about life than those compassionate liberal doctors

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html : Conservatives more charitable (NY Times, no less!)

http://www.aaplog.org/

Those "right-wingers" are, apparently, more willing to shell out the time and effort to treat patients than the oh-so-tolerant-and-benevolent guys who think Obamacare is the bees knees.

Agree...plus, there's always this for those that think government is the solution to their problems...:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

 

[Gut Shot]

2/3s of Americans agree w/ you...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/

You might be interested in 116 billion reasons to be for the individual mandate.

In the Kaiser poll, 30 percent of those who opposed the mandate cited government overreach as the biggest reason. Not surprisingly, twice as many Republicans (40 percent) cited that reason as did Democrats (18 percent).

But opposition to the mandate also stems from the public’s failure to understand — or, alternatively, the administration’s failure to communicate — basic facts.

For example, Kaiser found that when people were told that most Americans “would automatically satisfy the requirement because they already have coverage through their employers,” favorability toward the mandate nearly doubled, to 61 percent.

Favorable attitudes rose to nearly half when people were told that without the mandate, insurance companies would still be allowed to deny coverage to those who are sick; that without the mandate people would wait until they were sick to purchase insurance, driving up premium costs; or that those unable to afford coverage are exempt.

“People don’t understand how the mandate works at all and they don’t understand why it’s there,” Kaiser’s polling director, Mollyann Brodie, told me.

Brodie suspects that it’s too late to change minds. “This law as a whole has really become a symbolic issue to people and they really aren’t open to information,” she said.

 

[Gut Shot]

Any comparison between "Romneycare" and "Obamacare" is irrelevant, because one is a FEDERAL mandate and another is a STATE mandate. While one individual on this thread apparently thinks this distinction is meaningless, American law and history say it is not.

It's a federal law, but don't forget that it's administered at the state level, and states can opt out if they choose to pursue their own course (see Vermont's Green Mountain Care).

And I believe you are wrong about Romney not repealing the bill if elected, because he has pledged many, many times onstage at debates that he would repeal it. It's one thing to shift views (suspiciously or not). Entirely another to go back on your public word.

Repeal would require a Republican House, a filibuster-proof Republican majority in the Senate, and a Republican in the oval office. All with the stomach to return to the good old days of preexisting condition denials and rescission. Good luck with that.

 

[notbobtrustme]

2/3s of Americans agree w/ you...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/

Only when it's phrased like that. When people are asked about the individual components of the ACA, they are overwhelmingly for it. It was on a piece on NPR a few weeks ago. It was something like 60% for repeal of Obamacare when it's phased as Obamacare or the ACA, but when asked about the individual parts, there was something like 60%+ agreement with Obamacare.

It's all about framing the debate, not the actual piece of legislation.

 

[SteinUmStein]

Repeal would require a Republican House, a filibuster-proof Republican majority in the Senate, and a Republican in the oval office. All with the stomach to return to the good old days of preexisting condition denials and rescission. Good luck with that.

Exactly. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about how difficult it is to reverse legislation this big that has already been passed. There was a small group discussion at my school and a few of my classmates seemed to think repeal was inevitable. Um, no. It's going to require a huge amount of effort and complete Republican control to dismantle it, or a Supreme Court ruling against it (which would only remove the individual mandate).

Polling the 'average American' also shouldn't hold that much weight in people's minds. Changing a word or two in the question stem can swing numbers by 10 or 20%, and a framing sentence before the question can turn a small minority opinion into a majority opinion.

 

[NH14]

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....

You also didn't understand that article very well - it was highlighting how the current system doesn't provide financial incentive for quality care - which is exactly my point...

You are right about the hate speech though - I hate people who hate people- plain and simple. This is what your beloved ultraconservative Republicans have done to healthcare - http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-right-not-to-know. I'm very comfortable saying that I hate that. You should be too.

As far as employing business models to healthcare, it is no secret that the US spends a much larger percent of GDP on healthcare and paradoxically has poorer health outcomes than most other developed nations. Value-wise, the US healthcare system sucks. There are a host of reasons as to why a centralized funding mechanism administered by the government would be far superior than the current system. President Obama knows this. Anyone with a MPH knows this. As an educated medical professional, you should know this. Sure, business models work now because that is how our current system is set up. Where is the incentive for a private health insurer to provide preventive care or management of chronic disease when health insurance for most Americans is employment-based and we all change jobs (and subsequently, insurers) an average of every five years? Where is that financial incentive? Nowhere. People get sicker, chronic disease is poorly managed, and they all end up draining Medicare. That is, if they live that long. If there were one insurer (AKA THE GOVERNMENT!) from birth to death, there would be a much greater vested interest in keeping people as healthy as possible for as long as possible. This is only one of many reasons as to why government-run insurance from birth to death would be far superior than this patch-work of profit-driven, work-contingent mess we call health insurance in the US.

There are much better ways to care for all of us. Unfortunately, it has been Republicans who have blocked every attempt to better this situation. So, once again, I have no issue with telling Republicans to pound salt. Did everyone forget Obama's health reform struggle and how the public option was killed? The debt crisis which Republicans brought us to the brink of? Or the fact that the Republican leadership is hell-bent on supporting Christian conservatives in denying birth control coverage to women under the guise of religious freedom? Or that every Republican presidential candidate has run a campaign of half-truths in promising the repeal of 'Obamacare'? The Republican party today is an absolute disgrace.

 

[Daneosaurus]

You also didn't understand that article very well - it was highlighting how the current system doesn't provide financial incentive for quality care - which is exactly my point...

You are right about the hate speech though - I hate people who hate people- plain and simple. This is what your beloved ultraconservative Republicans have done to healthcare - http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-right-not-to-know. I'm very comfortable saying that I hate that. You should be too.

As far as employing business models to healthcare, it is no secret that the US spends a much larger percent of GDP on healthcare and paradoxically has poorer health outcomes than most other developed nations. Value-wise, the US healthcare system sucks. There are a host of reasons as to why a centralized funding mechanism administered by the government would be far superior than the current system. President Obama knows this. Anyone with a MPH knows this. As an educated medical professional, you should know this. Sure, business models work now because that is how our current system is set up. Where is the incentive for a private health insurer to provide preventive care or management of chronic disease when health insurance for most Americans is employment-based and we all change jobs (and subsequently, insurers) an average of every five years? Where is that financial incentive? Nowhere. People get sicker, chronic disease is poorly managed, and they all end up draining Medicare. That is, if they live that long. If there were one insurer (AKA THE GOVERNMENT!) from birth to death, there would be a much greater vested interest in keeping people as healthy as possible for as long as possible. This is only one of many reasons as to why government-run insurance from birth to death would be far superior than this patch-work of profit-driven, work-contingent mess we call health insurance in the US.

There are much better ways to care for all of us. Unfortunately, it has been Republicans who have blocked every attempt to better this situation. So, once again, I have no issue with telling Republicans to pound salt. Did everyone forget Obama's health reform struggle and how the public option was killed? The debt crisis which Republicans brought us to the brink of? Or the fact that the Republican leadership is hell-bent on supporting Christian conservatives in denying birth control coverage to women under the guise of religious freedom? Or that every Republican presidential candidate has run a campaign of half-truths in promising the repeal of 'Obamacare'? The Republican party today is an absolute disgrace.

This may be the most logical, well-informed post on this subject I have seen. The current system sucks, plain and simple.

 

[JackShephard MD]

This may be the most logical, well-informed post on this subject I have seen. The current system sucks, plain and simple.

I agree that it is a good post, other than the bipartisan attacks of the last paragraph. Anytime someone thinks the other side is the devil, I shudder.

 

[SteinUmStein]

I agree that it is a good post, other than the bipartisan attacks of the last paragraph. Anytime someone thinks the other side is the devil, I shudder.

The word you're looking for is partisan, and I agree. It's not helpful or productive to make broad, sweeping attacks on an entire party even if you strongly disagree with their policies. I agree with the rest of that post though, and I think it's a huge missed opportunity that the ACA actually turned out so weak. Hilarious that conservatives will tell you it's a radical, left-wing restructuring of our health care system. It's nothing of the sort - it's actually watered down and doesn't go nearly far enough.

 

[Dave89]

This is what your beloved ultraconservative Republicans have done to healthcare - http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-right-not-to-know. I'm very comfortable saying that I hate that. You should be too.

What have the "beloved ultraconservative Republicans" done to healthcare? Did they cause the deformities of the fetus discussed in that (touching) article? No. Was the choice the mother had to make a deeply painful one? Yes, But, that would have been the case whether or not the sonogram law was in place.

Tragedies do happen. And the story is heartbreaking. But what about those girls who get abortions because they were too lazy/stupid/cheap to use birth control? Should they not have to be aware of the consequences of abortion?

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/ : On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).

No. To have such a law in place is not "ultraconservative."

As far as employing business models to healthcare, it is no secret that the US spends a much larger percent of GDP on healthcare and paradoxically has poorer health outcomes than most other developed nations. Value-wise, the US healthcare system sucks.

With you so far.

There are a host of reasons as to why a centralized funding mechanism administered by the government would be far superior than the current system. President Obama knows this. Anyone with a MPH knows this. As an educated medical professional, you should know this. Sure, business models work now because that is how our current system is set up. Where is the incentive for a private health insurer to provide preventive care or management of chronic disease when health insurance for most Americans is employment-based and we all change jobs (and subsequently, insurers) an average of every five years? Where is that financial incentive? Nowhere. People get sicker, chronic disease is poorly managed, and they all end up draining Medicare. That is, if they live that long.

So true. Which is why Health Savings Accounts are a viable solution to the employer-provided insurance problem. But there are many in politics who feel that government is far better at controlling and managing healthcare than the markets, and so this is only being discussed by one side of the political spectrum. Alternatively, we could remove tax-free status of employer-based insurance (and lower taxes simultaneously) so people have the same amount of "benefits", except now it'd be money and not employer-based insurance.

If there were one insurer (AKA THE GOVERNMENT!) from birth to death, there would be a much greater vested interest in keeping people as healthy as possible for as long as possible. This is only one of many reasons as to why government-run insurance from birth to death would be far superior than this patch-work of profit-driven, work-contingent mess we call health insurance in the US.

Why?

There are much better ways to care for all of us. Unfortunately, it has been Republicans who have blocked every attempt to better this situation. So, once again, I have no issue with telling Republicans to pound salt. Did everyone forget Obama's health reform struggle and how the public option was killed? The debt crisis which Republicans brought us to the brink of? Or the fact that the Republican leadership is hell-bent on supporting Christian conservatives in denying birth control coverage to women under the guise of religious freedom? Or that every Republican presidential candidate has run a campaign of half-truths in promising the repeal of 'Obamacare'? The Republican party today is an absolute disgrace.

No point of even trying to argue this paragraph. Like a Rachel Maddow talking-points list.

 

[scarshapedstar]

What have the "beloved ultraconservative Republicans" done to healthcare? Did they cause the deformities of the fetus discussed in that (touching) article? No. Was the choice the mother had to make a deeply painful one? Yes, But, that would have been the case whether or not the sonogram law was in place.

Tragedies do happen. And the story is heartbreaking. But what about those girls who get abortions because they were too lazy/stupid/cheap to use birth control? Should they not have to be aware of the consequences of abortion?

Well, that sounds like some real touching concern there. You grudgingly admit that, yeah, this woman's own personal tragedy was compounded by a bunch of strangers, most of them men, decreeing that her doctor force her to suffer... but what about the lazy, stupid sluts? Isn't that the real problem here, folks? A little collateral suffering is to be expected. Some must be tortured so that sluts can be properly shamed, er, educated - besides, this lady obviously wasn't using birth control, she's likely 'stupid' herself.

Jesus wept.

 

[yappy]

To those above talking about why health insurance doesnt cover preventative health care - a more important question is why there is not a robust market for preventative health care.

IMO insurance is trying to cover way too much. In the world where $100/mo cell phone plans have become the norm across most economic quintiles (income) people are not buying it because they dont see the value in it.

I think it would be futile to try to make preventitive health care covered by insurance if patients dont care enough about their health to pay out of pocket for preventitive health care or even make efforts to exercise or eat properly (see US's BMI epidemic).

The best thing that can happen to medicine IMO is for truely out-of-reach-expesive-care to be covered by insurance and the rest be paid for out of pocket. This provides the best arrangement for the patient and the physician.

For example: GP's should be paid in full-upfront by patients.

PCP > I phone.

Some may think the opposite and value other things above medical care - that's okay - but the poor outcomes were also their chioce.

Health Care Is Not A Right

 

[Dave89]

Well, that sounds like some real touching concern there.

I'm not sure how you want me to bawl my feelings out on an internet forum. If someone says that a story was saddening and there is not a hint of sarcasm, you ought to take them at their word.

You grudgingly

Not grudging in the slightest. Confirmation bias?

admit that, yeah, this woman's own personal tragedy was compounded by a bunch of strangers, most of them men, decreeing that her doctor force her to suffer...

Sorry, but this is simply not true. If you had read the article carefully, you'd have noticed that the description of the fetus which the mother found so torturous was NOT PART OF THE LAW. Oh, and Congress, all of whom are strangers and most of whom are men, has passed many laws and bills which are distasteful to me. So that bit is completely irrelevant. But I get it. There is, after all, a War On Women™.

but what about the lazy, stupid sluts? Isn't that the real problem here, folks? A little collateral suffering is to be expected. Some must be tortured so that sluts can be properly shamed - besides, this lady obviously wasn't using birth control, she's obviously 'stupid' herself.

Jesus wep.t

This is such a cheap shot, but I'll address it anyway. I never said the word "slut." Having sex without forethought to use pills/condom/cream is not slutty, but it is careless. And when one is careless, there can be consequences.

Did I use the term "collateral suffering"? No, because that would have cheapened the woman's pain. My point is that for most decent women who are getting abortions for reasons like the one in the article, there is already so much pain involved I don't think a sonogram is the make-or-break for the sadness and tragedy of the moment. It might, however, make some difference for those who stride into Planned Parenthood to get "birth control."

It's not about "shame"; it's about understanding the consequences of abortion.

And I certainly never implied this woman was stupid for not using birth control. Frankly, your insinuations are so beyond the pale, I wonder if you're even serious. Especially with that snarky quip at the end.

 

[Dave89]

To those above talking about why health insurance doesnt cover preventative health care - a more important question is why there is not a robust market for preventative health care.

IMO insurance is trying to cover way too much. In the world where $100/mo cell phone plans have become the norm across most economic quintiles (income) people are not buying it because they dont see the value in it.

I think it would be futile to try to make preventitive health care covered by insurance if patients dont care enough about their health to pay out of pocket for preventitive health care or even make efforts to exercise or eat properly (see US's BMI epidemic).

The best thing that can happen to medicine IMO is for truely out-of-reach-expesive-care to be covered by insurance and the rest be paid for out of pocket. This provides the best arrangement for the patient and the physician.

For example: GP's should be paid in full-upfront by patients.

PCP > I phone.

Some may think the opposite and value other things above medical care - that's okay - but the poor outcomes were also their chioce.

Health Care Is Not A Right

Absolutely. I wrote something to this effect a couple weeks ago, explaining why is it we don't have grocery insurance, and why people don't use their insurance when their car gets scratched. But people replied that "healthcare is different."

 

[pupster]

Absolutely. I wrote something to this effect a couple weeks ago, explaining why is it we don't have grocery insurance, and why people don't use their insurance when their car gets scratched. But people replied that "healthcare is different."

That's what I said earlier...people can go out and buy their little Coach bags but feel that they are entitled to US paying for their healthcare....c'mon...where's the personal responsibility???

 

[Dave89]

That's what I said earlier...people can go out and buy their little Coach bags but feel that they are entitled to US paying for their healthcare....c'mon...where's the personal responsibility???

Oh, what quaint ideas you espouse.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Absolutely. I wrote something to this effect a couple weeks ago, explaining why is it we don't have grocery insurance, and why people don't use their insurance when their car gets scratched. But people replied that "healthcare is different."

We do have grocery insurance. It's called food stamps. There is significant means testing but it exists because we've decided, as a society, that allowing people to starve to death is unacceptable.

 

[notbobtrustme]

That's what I said earlier...people can go out and buy their little Coach bags but feel that they are entitled to US paying for their healthcare....c'mon...where's the personal responsibility???

You keep posting this strawman, but the myth of the welfare queen died in the mid 90s with welfare reform.

The ACA is the definition of personal responsbility anyways. It requires that all people get health insurance because it's a commodity that everyone will eventually use. The ACA, part and parcel, comes from ideas that Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney all proposed in some form over the course of two decades. That's how far right the GOP has shifted. The ACA is a conservative piece of legislation through and through. The current GOP has lurched so far right that even center-right positions look left-wing.

 

[SteinUmStein]

You keep posting this strawman, but the myth of the welfare queen died in the mid 90s with welfare reform.

The ACA is the definition of personal responsbility anyways. It requires that all people get health insurance because it's a commodity that everyone will eventually use. The ACA, part and parcel, comes from ideas that Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney all proposed in some form over the course of two decades. That's how far right the GOP has shifted. The ACA is a conservative piece of legislation through and through. The current GOP has lurched so far right that even center-right positions look left-wing.

I wouldn't say the entire ACA is a conservative piece of legislation, but the individual mandate portion which Republicans are now decrying is 100% from the right. Its entire purpose is to ensure that Americans are taking financial responsibility for the health care that they will receive at some point. The market-focused nature of the ACA is definitely bipartisan as well, if not conservative.

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/20...y-part-i-conservative-origins/comment-page-1/

 

[JackShephard MD]

That's what I said earlier...people can go out and buy their little Coach bags but feel that they are entitled to US paying for their healthcare....c'mon...where's the personal responsibility???

These posts are horrible and irresponsible. The idea that these people are buying lavish goods is unfounded. I see the reason for your beliefs, which is a perverted view of the poor.

 

[Dave89]

We do have grocery insurance. It's called food stamps. There is significant means testing but it exists because we've decided, as a society, that allowing people to starve to death is unacceptable.

You're not serious, are you? Food stamps have absolutely no relation to insurance.

Although I agree, allowing people to starve to death is unacceptable.

 

[Dave89]

You keep posting this strawman, but the myth of the welfare queen died in the mid 90s with welfare reform.

If only. I can assure you that I know firsthand of stories where the "myth" is anything but. There are people that play the system so well that, instead of working for a living, they collect up to 85,000 DOLLARS A YEAR in benefits.

 

[yappy]

Why should anyone be responsible for providing food for anyone else? I only want to be responsible for my family and myself. If you want to participate in those ventures feel free to - but I dont want to be forced to. Having said that I do volunteer and donate canned foods.

I set up no strawmen in my post. I've seen an analysis that showed that todays poor are the 1970's lower-middle class. The bar has been moved and now people wish a higher standard of living without having paying for it. This is a problem.

Health care is not a right because it requires others to get educated, provide labor, and costs money (not just in salary but also overhead and money for R&D). A majority rules agreement is not enough to decide it should be provided for everyone because there will be those that dont wish to participate via finances or labor.

 

[Gut Shot]

If only. I can assure you that I know firsthand of stories where the "myth" is anything but. There are people that play the system so well that, instead of working for a living, they collect up to 85,000 DOLLARS A YEAR in benefits.

Prove it.