Are the Majority of Americans Closet Socialists?

[BLADEMDA]

My hunch is that by 2020 private health insurance will only be for the wealthy and the exchange will have a government option in it. Then, cost control and rationing becomes the norm for the govt. plan. This also means significant pay cuts for Physicians except primary care; plus, Operations (elective) are drastically reduced in the USA. I expect Anesthesia will be severely hurt by this govt. system and primary care physicians' incomes will surpass those of Anesthesiologists in areas where the govt. option is the primary payer.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

My hunch is that by 2020 private health insurance will only be for the wealthy and the exchange will have a government option in it. Then, cost control and rationing becomes the norm for the govt. plan. This also means significant pay cuts for Physicians except primary care; plus, Operations (elective) are drastically reduced in the USA. I expect Anesthesia will be severely hurt by this govt. system and primary care physicians' incomes will surpass those of Anesthesiologists in areas where the govt. option is the primary payer.

Propaganda picture machine for children.

 

[yappy]

I've talked to many people who share Blades POV. I don't think they're trying to spread propaganda; I think it's their honest view of things. No ulterior motive.

Having said that I don't agree with the notion of predicting the future based on strongly held assumptions that lack empirical evidence [conservative economic canon]. I think the reason so many conservatives are doom and gloom these days is; because, of long held assumptions. If what they predict doesn't come to pass it will completely turn their world view upside down - even challenge their religious beliefs as their political and religious beliefs are often conflated. The next 4 years is huge for the conservative movement...

If the US economy doesn't collapse in the next 4 years the conservative movement will be dead forever and the "christian" in the christian-right will be no more.

Propaganda picture machine for children.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Propaganda picture machine for children.

The facts show otherwise. The Single payer system only happens once a Public Option is added to the exchange. This public option will only get added after private insurance rates skyrocket and businesss start dumping previously insured people onto the govt. roles.

The liberals agreed to ObamaCare as a stepping stone to a single payer system. Massively expensively private insurance and businesses deciding to pay a fine rather than ensure employees is part of the necessary evil to get to the goal.

Once the public option is added to the exchange private insurance will be for the rich as the middle class along with the other 53% will be in a govt. plan.

By 2017-2018 Public Support for a public option will be overwhelming due to the cost of private insurance and politicians saying the best way to save the system is by putting more people in it.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The real underlying issue with Obamacare is that it is an expansion in an area in the budget that is already completely unsustainable: entitlement programs. Entitlement programs are generally understood to mean Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — though they also include veteran's benefits, unemployment insurance and generally any government program that guarantees benefits to specific segments of the population. We can now add Obamacare to the list.
"If you're sick, you'll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable health care as everyone else. And if you can't afford the premiums, you'll receive a credit that helps pay for it," Obama said the day the Supreme Court decision was announced.
If you can't afford the premiums, you'll receive a credit. So, the question is, who will pay for it? In that way, Obamacare is much more like an entitlement or welfare program than a tax. Yet, no one seems to be articulating this argument. Rather, those opposed to Obamacare are concentrating on labeling the program as a tax.
The penalty, or tax, comes into play only for those people who do not have insurance and who are not exempted somehow. According to the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center, over 33 million uninsured people will be able to get coverage they can't afford, 16.3 million through government subsidies and 17 million through an expanded Medicaid program. That doesn't leave very many people that will pay the tax, aside from those who might find it more financially viable to do so (small business owners, wealthier Americans). So, if we're to be intellectually honest, marketing Obamacare as a tax on the middle class is either ignorant, manipulative or both.
Entitlement programs have been eyed by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, at least behind closed doors, as the real place deficit and debt reduction can be accomplished.
"Medicare and Medicaid are the single biggest drivers of the federal deficit and the federal debt by a huge margin," Obama said in 2009.
What's a president to do about the biggest drivers of the deficit and debt? Drive them further into the red, apparently. Obamacare is set to expand Medicaid and launch a new entitlement program.
Over half of our federal budget goes to some form of an entitlement program. Of course, you can discuss the merits of each program individually, but the numbers still remain. As a country, we have over $15 trillion in debt. Donkey or elephant, we have to find a way to reduce that.
With Obamacare being hurled back into the conversation, we should look at it for the true problem it creates: an increase in an already maxed out expenditure. It is through the welfare/entitlement program lens that we should view Obamacare through rather than a lame "tax hike" scare. The truth is scary enough.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The Medicare chief actuary has previously warned that, under Obamacare, "providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries). Simulations by the Office of the Actuary suggest that roughly 15 percent of Part A [Medicare's hospital insurance program] providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection period as a result...."
If this weren't enough, President Obama has since called for further Medicare cuts to be made by the largely unchecked and clearly unconstitutional Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). In fact, IPAB-imposed Medicare cuts are a centerpiece of Obama's new budgetary "framework." The IPAB's dictates would have the force of law and would not be able to be overruled even with a majority vote in both houses of Congress and the president's signature, despite the fact that that's the lawmaking process plainly outlined in the Constitution.
In sum, President Obama has offered no serious plan to curb entitlement spending, which is one reason why the CBO says that the national debt, which has risen from $9.9 trillion when Obama was elected to $14 trillion today, would rise to $28 trillion by the end of his decade long budget. Meanwhile, his signature legislation would expand Medicaid enrollment by 35 percent in 2014, would launch a massive new entitlement program in that same year, and would raid Medicare to pay the tab — thereby lowering Medicare's quality of care while putting the program on even worse financial footing. As much as the Democrats would prefer to change the subject, Obamacare is an entitlement disaster.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Former CBO Director Doug Holtz-Eakin has estimated that employers will have strong incentives to move as many as 35 million workers who will be eligible for premium assistance out of employer plans and into subsidized coverage provided through the exchanges because both the employers and the workers will be better off if they are able to access the large new federal subsidies available to exchange enrollees. Holtz-Eakin estimates that adding this many additional subsidized workers in the exchanges would add about $1 trillion over the next ten years to the cost projections provided by CBO.
Marriage Penalties
The new premium assistance program penalizes married couples. For instance, if two people each earn $30,000 annually, on their own, they would be judged to have incomes at about 300 percent of the FPL. But if that couple were to marry, their combined income would total $60,000, or about 500 percent of the FPL for a household with two people.
Work Incentives
The new premium assistance program provides powerful disincentives to work by imposing high implicit marginal tax rates on additional earned income. This occurs because large amounts of federal premium assistance is withdrawn at various points on the income scale. For example, a family of four earning just below $88,000, or 400 percent of the poverty level, will receive about $5,000 in annual subsidies to purchase insurance in 2016. Once that threshold is crossed, the subsidy immediately drops to zero. So for a family of four in that income range, a raise in wages would actually result in a significant reduction in take-home pay. The same disincentive applies at other points in the income scale, as premium assistance drops abruptly with small amounts of additional earned income. In fact, combined with explicit federal taxes (income and payroll taxes), the implicit tax associated with the withdrawal of premium assistance can push the effective marginal tax rates on earned income for many low and middle income households to well above 60 percent.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Medicare To Start Fining Hospitals With Too Many Readmitted Patients


As of Monday, Medicare will start fining hospitals that have too many patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge due to complications. The penalties are part of a broader push under President Barack Obama's health care law to improve quality while also trying to save taxpayers money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/medicare-hospitals_n_1926444.html

 

[BLADEMDA]

America now has a larger welfare state than most countries, effectively doling out more welfare than Canada, Denmark, Austria, and Italy. As the New York Times' David Brooks notes today, "When you include both direct spending and tax expenditures, the U.S. has one of the biggest welfare states in the world. We rank behind Sweden and ahead of Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland and Canada. Social spending in the U.S. is far above the organization's average." Eventually, this welfare state is likely to be a major drag on economic growth (America's per capita debt is already worse than Greece).

But for the time being, America is still richer than most other Western countries, despite the disincentives to work resulting from its welfare spending, which has increased enormously over the last few years. (Work disincentives in Obamacare alone may wipe out 800,000 jobs). It takes time for a huge welfare state to shrink a country's economy.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The government is placing this cloak of death and despair over us so gradually that we’ll supposedly never know what hit us.


by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.

In all the fuss over Obamacare, we hear about patients, insurance companies and businesses. All valid, to be sure. But we never hear word one about the people most affected of all by socialized medicine: Doctors.
Ayn Rand said it best in her novel Atlas Shrugged:
“I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything—except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the ‘welfare’ of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, but ‘to serve.’”
Payment methods for doctors will dramatically change, starting in about two years. This is important. More people will be on government insurance than ever before. Most if not all physician payments will come from the government.
You might think, “This doesn’t matter to me. I don’t care how my doctors are paid.” But your doctors are paid for by the government, who gets to determine how YOUR care is delivered. It’s not just about payment; it’s about control.
As it is, a lot of people object to the intervention of private insurers into medical treatment of patients. For a long time, HMOs were all the rage. Bean counters who worked for private insurance companies told doctors when it was, or wasn’t, appropriate to provide certain medical services.
People were understandably upset. Who wants an insurance company employee with a bachelor’s degree in sociology to decide whether or not you need a mammogram, surgery, or any kind of medical test or procedure?
Eventually, private insurance companies backed away from HMOs and “managed care.” They had to, in order to please enough customers to stay in business.
The government will have no such problem. Government will be the primary provider of insurance. If your doctor thinks you need a medical procedure, and the federal government says no—then that’s the end of it. Sure, you can probably appeal, but through the government that will take years.
You will have no choice because your doctor is being paid for, and now essentially works for, the government. Your doctor will have no choice, either.
The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” popularly known as Obamacare, states that starting in 2015 physicians’ payments from federally funded programs such as Medicare will be modified to be based on the quality of care, not the volume.
What does this mean, exactly? We don’t yet know, for sure. Most likely this means what’s called “capitation.” Capitation refers to paying health care providers a set amount, each month or year, for all medical care provided. In other words, doctors will no longer bill fee-for-service for each patient and procedure done. Instead, doctors will be given a flat, lump sum – essentially a salary, each year, paid for by the government. The government will tell doctors, “Treat everyone we send you, based on what we consider medically necessary.”
Imagine any other professional or business being paid this way. Imagine grocery stores being paid a lump sum by the government to provide food—based on what the government considered appropriate food for citizens to eat. What kind of incentive would grocery stores have to please customers? None. What kind of variety and diversity would you see on grocery store shelves? About as much as they found in Soviet Russia, or today in North Korea or Cuba.
Americans are not ready for Communism applied to medical care.
The tragic thing about socialized medicine is that it came to America by default. Most are not paying attention. Those who do are thinking, “I really don’t understand what this is about. We’ll just have to wait and see.” That’s why there’s no outrage in the streets over any of it. The government is placing this cloak of death and despair over us so gradually that we’ll supposedly never know what hit us.
It’s amazing. Can you imagine capitation being imposed on other professional fields—such as lawyers? Lawyers make a lot of money. Nobody is calling them “greedy, rich and selfish” and demanding that the government take over the payment of lawyers and the provision of legal services. I’m not suggesting such a thing should happen. I’m just pointing out the incredible double standard. It’s probably no accident. Most politicians are lawyers, not doctors.
Doctors and lawyers are two of the most esteemed and well-paid professionals in our society. And with good reason. Yet lawyers remain part of the private, for-profit sector. Doctors, on the other hand, are being handed over almost entirely to the public sector. Why the discrepancy?
When HMOs started to move towards capitation back in the 1990s, there were howls and cries from health professionals. I’m a practicing mental health professional, so I know. The for-profit HMOs eventually backed down, because they needed to keep satisfied providers and policyholders.
Government is a monopoly. Under socialized medicine, it will face less competition than ever before; almost no competition. There’s nothing to force government to please its customers. We already know that government cannot run a postal system, an air traffic control system, and can only go through the motions of operating a public school system. Government can barely even run a war. Everything government touches becomes worse under its control. And the government is completely in the red for attempting it.
Now, thanks to our President, Congress and even Supreme Court—who was supposed to protect us—we’re about to turn over the practice of medical care to the least capable, and least morally qualified, to handle anything.

 

[bigkahunaburger]

read it and weep


http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

 

[bigkahunaburger]

rebublicans are sailing a sinking ship, no way this election is even close

 

[badasshairday]

Medicare To Start Fining Hospitals With Too Many Readmitted Patients


As of Monday, Medicare will start fining hospitals that have too many patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge due to complications. The penalties are part of a broader push under President Barack Obama's health care law to improve quality while also trying to save taxpayers money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/medicare-hospitals_n_1926444.html

lmao. I'm doing my internship and this is just jacked. Some patients really just don't care. You can make PCP appointments, f/u lab/imaging tests as an outpatient, give them scripts and they will still get readmitted. They don't show up to PCP appointment, don't get the prescribed lab/imaging, don't take meds, and then come back in the hospital.....

Obamacare.

 

[BLADEMDA]

read it and weep


http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Your career will be forever changed by your Socialist Leader Obama. You have NO IDEA what obamaCare really means in terms of patient care, patient access, physician compensation, Doctor-Patient relationship, etc. yet you blindly support this President's re-election campaign.

In additon, ObamaCare will create another Trillion dollar (probably more like 3 trillion) entitlement this nation can not afford.

 

[BLADEMDA]

rebublicans are sailing a sinking ship, no way this election is even close

People like free stuff and no President except FDR has given out or promised more free stuff/entitlements than Obama.

 

[BLADEMDA]

rebublicans are sailing a sinking ship, no way this election is even close

France on Friday unveiled action to plug a 37-billion-euro hole in its public finances with the toughest package of tax rises and spending cuts the country has known in an economic downturn.
The 2013 budget adopted by President Francois Hollande's cabinet commits the ruling Socialists to an austerity programme at a time when the economy is teetering on the brink of recession.
Ministers defended measures that included a 75 percent top tax rate as unavoidable if France is to get its finances under control and meet European Union deficit targets deemed essential to avoid the collapse of the euro single currency.
But opposition critics derided a budget that will take billions out of the economy at a time when unemployment is close to record highs and contested government claims that the richest ten percent would bear the brunt of the pain.
"France is headed into the wall," warned Bruno Le Maire of the main opposition UMP party. Former budget minister Valerie Pecresse claimed: "This budget means 100 percent of French workers will be paying higher taxes."

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Eventually even the Socialists/Liberals will be forced to deal with the debt. Can they really just tax their way out of it while maintaining all promised and future entitlements?
In addition, Obama wants more Federal spending, more free stuff for the poor and more money for just about every social program.

In the end, the middle class is going to feel a tax hike as a direct result of re-electing Obama.

 

[BLADEMDA]

rebublicans are sailing a sinking ship, no way this election is even close

Once Obama wins re-election the USA is on a sinking ship and I doubt any future GOP President can save it.

American Health care as seniors have known it is finished as they will be forced into a MEDICAID type system with far less access to elective, on demand procedures. They will get the health care their President said they deserve.

 

[countingdays]

Once Obama wins re-election the USA is on a sinking ship and I doubt any future GOP President can save it.

American Health care as seniors have known it is finished as they will be forced into a MEDICAID type system with far less access to elective, on demand procedures. They will get the health care their President said they deserve.

Restricting access to free care for free-loading seniors is the GOOD part about obamacare.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Restricting access to free care for free-loading seniors is the GOOD part about obamacare.

But they have no idea what Obamacare means to them. By the time they realize Obama screwed them over he will be out of office.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Sergio Perez / Reuters
Protestors shout slogans as they fill up Neptuno Square during a demonstration against government austerity

Obama, like FDR, knows that once people start receiving an Entitlement (free health care, free phones, disability checks, welfare without work requirements, etc) they won't tolerate any politician who trys to take it away.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[pgg]

Didn't we already see this chart somewhere?

Remind me again why a 200+ day wait for a free knee replacement, to treat the very definition of a non-urgent self-inflicted condition, is a bad thing?

141 days for cataract surgery? So what? A very gradually debilitating condition and a free cure 4-5 months into a multi-year degenerative process?

CT scan for what? Surely you (they) aren't implying that a person with a suspected intracranial bleed needs to wait 73 days in the ER waiting room for a CT?

CABG for what? You know very well there are CABG-right-now patients and CABG-when-we-get-around-to-it patients.

What exactly are you attempting to prove here?

read it and weep

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Yeah, that's impartial.

Many of those "accomplishments" are pure fluff. Many more are not accomplishments at all, but part of the problem.

Let's just look at the ones evenly divided by 20 to save time, or this would take all day:

20. Created business.gov, which allows for online collaboration between small businesses and experts re managing a business. (The program has since merged with SBA.gov.) http://www.business.gov

Oh golly, that's something for the resume.

40. Through Dodd-Frank, the Executive Branch fashioned rules that reduce the influence of speculators in the oil market. http://bit.ly/MDnA1t

Well, that solved that problem.

60. Under his guidance, National Labor Relations Board issued final rules that require all employers to prominently post employees' rights where all employees or prospective employees can see it, including websites and intranets, beginning November 2011. http://1.usa.gov/qu2EhQ

Seriously. Really?

80. Ordered all secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere to be closed. http://bbc.in/h6N9ax

And yet Gitmo is still open. Seems to me I recall some kind of promise to close that about four years ago.

100. Funded Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with an extra $1.4 billion to improve veterans’ services. http://1.usa.gov/huhqfo

I have no real gripe with this, except to point out that this was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. You throw an $800+ billion stimulus package at a wall, some of it will stick and some of that might even go to a good cause.

120. Took major new steps to protec students from ineffective for-profit colleges through "gainful employment" measures, whereby schools have to demonstrate that its students actually find work to get federal aid. http://1.usa.gov/jkzQe2

Fluff, but sounds good. We've still got a student loan bubble ready to pop, but OK. Pretty low threshold for "accomplishment to brag about" but OK.

140. Eliminated the Bush-era practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug companies on price. http://bit.ly/fOkG5b

Fluff. I'm not quite so eager to jump on the pharma-company hate bandwagon, but this is probably an improvement (albeit incremental).

160. Fast-tracked increased fuel economy standards for vehicles beginning with the 2011 model year. It was the first time such standards had been increased in a decade. http://politi.co/hiaPKM

This is of dubious value and wisdom, but I'll concede that it's not Cash-For-Clunkers grade stupidity.

Oh wait. How come Cash For Clunkers isn't listed as an accomplishment?

180. Through his EPA, he asserted federal legal supremacy, and barred Texas from authorizing new refinery permits on its own. http://bit.ly/ww8eMd

This is a complicated issue. I don't know enough about it to argue if it was good or bad.

200. Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office. Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%. http://n.pr/i3d7cY

I thought the reason Obama hasn't led us to a new era of prosperity was because Congress wouldn't let him do anything? And here he's getting what he wants 96.7% of the time?


And I know it's not evenly divisible by 20, but accomplishment #191 is all the reason I need to not vote for him.

 

[BLADEMDA]

PGG,

The chart about waiting for elective surgery in Canada is simply to make a point that seniors won't be getting the same "on demand" service as today where they wait an average of only 4 weeks or less.

If you believe seniors and medicaid patients should be rationed then there are good points behind
ObamaCare; but, remember, the IPAB will be deciding who gets what type of surgery, when they get it and how much hospitals/doctors get paid for it.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Gallup finds that 1 in 4 U.S. adults, including at least 1 in 10 American adults across all age groups, benefit from one of these programs or military/veterans' benefits. Seniors and young adults are the most likely to report having government-based health insurance.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Americans with the highest education and income levels are the least likely to have healthcare from a government-run program.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Let's discuss this graph:

1. These figures do not include the 43 million new Medicaid enrollees from ObamaCare; the Fedral govt. is pickup up the cost for these new 43 million people completely for the first few years.

2. In order to generate savings from medicare the govt must try do 3 things:
A) reduce reimbursement across the board to hospitals and physicians
B) reduce total costs of the program by limiting or capping procedures
C) reduce the number of enrollees


The govt can not reduce the number of Medicare beneficiaries because that is actually growing at a rapid rate. It can increase the age of eligibility but ObamaCare doesn't do that. Instead, ObamacAre will use IPAB to reduce eligibility for procedures, encourage shorter ICU stays (tun off that vent early) and reduce reimbursement to physicians (except primary care). In addition, IPAB will decide what type of treatment is authorized for each medical condition.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[bigkahunaburger]

And I'm sure you're a fundamentalist christian that probably agrees with the war on women's rights that conservatives seem to never want to let go. Can't wait for these debates, Romney is going to get slammed on his abnormally large head.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

.

 

[BLADEMDA]

And I'm sure you're a fundamentalist christian that probably agrees with the war on women's rights that conservatives seem to never want to let go. Can't wait for these debates, Romney is going to get slammed on his abnormally large head.

There is no war on Women's rights. There is only disagreement on what rights (if any) a Fetus has to life.

Even Libertarians who advocate for legalized heroin, cocaine, marijuana etc. understand the concept of "right to life."

This supposed War is a creation of the Chicago Political machine and the liberal media in order to divert attention from the real issues which are posted here on this very thread.

 

[countingdays]

And I'm sure you're a fundamentalist christian that probably agrees with the war on women's rights that conservatives seem to never want to let go. Can't wait for these debates, Romney is going to get slammed on his abnormally large head.

just to be clear, you are talking about the right to kill babies, right?
other than baby killing, which is hardly a woman's right, I think conservatives are pro women's rights.

 

[bigkahunaburger]

wait a second, did you just use the term "baby killer" lol, yeah you're right repub's are pro women/minority/poor rights, I've had it backwards this whole time thank you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-sive/why-would-any-woman-vote-_b_1820490.html

TOUCHDOWN!!!!

 

[BLADEMDA]

wait a second, did you just use the term "baby killer" lol, yeah you're right repub's are pro women/minority/poor rights, I've had it backwards this whole time thank you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-sive/why-would-any-woman-vote-_b_1820490.html

TOUCHDOWN!!!!

I read the article. Pure propaganda. There is no GOP war on women or their rights. There is pro-life stance on the fetus. That is the issue the GOP and Christians have with Pro-Abortion Liberals. I'm not aware of any other issues or disagreements.

The fact you have allowed the Liberal media to take the decades old disagreement on Abortion vs Pro-Life and change it into a "War on Women" is pure nonsense. Political fiction to divert attention from the real issues facing this nation.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[yappy]

+1. I don't understand peoples obsession with killing babies. It's disgusting. Think about that for a second - they actually sign off on killing their own babies. Could you imagine that? Effectively a guy sitting there with a gun to your kids head and you say "pull the trigger" and shut your eyes. That's what we call women's rights - welcome to 2012.

just to be clear, you are talking about the right to kill babies, right?
other than baby killing, which is hardly a woman's right, I think conservatives are pro women's rights.

 

[bigkahunaburger]

yappy you have officially lost your mind, congrats. Because a collection of cells can actually be equated to a child that is already in existence.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJcebIEOkhY

TOUCHDOWN!!!

 

[BLADEMDA]

Examine the facts:

1. ObamaCare takes 700 Billion from Medicare and puts it into Medicaid in order to fund health care for 43 million new people. In addition, the ObamaCare tax helps redistribute wealth from those earning over 250K to those needing health care subsidies. Even with these moves ObaMacare does not bend the cost curve enough.

Obamacare results in worse insurance for most Americans 53%. This means govt, restricted access to elective care and expensive technologies.

2. Private Health Insurance also goes way up as a result of this Law. This means more Americans are dumped onto govt. subsidized care as businesses pay a small penalty.

3. The inevitable result is a single payer system as the uninformed electorate demands a public option on the exchange.

_______

The Romney -Ryan Plan is less govt and more free market. This means the govt. provides a portion of the cost of health insurance in the form of a voucher. Ryan says the plan kicks into gear circa 2022 so current seniors are exempt. These seniors retain the unbelievable, on demand health care system they currently have in place. Future seniors must pony up some dough if they want unlimited health care like current seniors as the voucher won't cover everything.

In addition, Romney-Ryan does away with the ObamaCare tax and defunds the law. This keeps costs in check and when the vouchers kick into gear the system begins to finally slow its growth. The Romney-Ryan Plan is free market based and preserves unlimited access and unlimited procedures for all. Physicians do not end up as govt. employees under this plan.

____

So, which plan is better? It depends on your view point:

1. Current seniors- They are misinformed as Romney-Ryan is much better for them.
2. Future seniors- Much harder to tell. I prefer the voucher system but those on the low income scale would much rather have free, rationed, limited care and force the rest to join them.
3. USA- As a nation we are better off with Romney-Ryan than ObamaCare as that law is a piece of crap. That said, a Single Payer Canadian system vs Romney-Ryan is real debate unlike ObamaCare (which doesn't work long term).

 

[BLADEMDA]

the "now-cast" estimates would happen in an election held today.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Closing prices chart

 

[pgg]

PGG,

The chart about waiting for elective surgery in Canada is simply to make a point that seniors won't be getting the same "on demand" service as today where they wait an average of only 4 weeks or less.

If you believe seniors and medicaid patients should be rationed then there are good points behind ObamaCare; but, remember, the IPAB will be deciding who gets what type of surgery, when they get it and how much hospitals/doctors get paid for it.

I think it's inevitable ... and not morally or ethically inappropriate.

I also think that pointing to Canada's health care system (which seems to be pretty popular with Canadians on the whole) is not a strategically wise way to argue against Obamacare. At this point I think getting a Canadian-esque system in the United States is about the best we can hope for. And maybe not such a bad thing after all. (How often do we read posts in this forum about anesthesiologists thinking about moving to Canada? It ain't for the weather!)



I also think that the fact that even this thread can't go 10 or 15 posts without the GOP-suicidal topic of abortion being brought up is just further evidence that Obama's on his way to an easy victory.

Because Republicans would rather lose on abortion, than win on the economy.

 

[bigkahunaburger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

It really is unbelievable that a bunch of DOCTORS think that our healthcare system should remain the way it is. Change is never easy, but often necessary for progress to occur.

 

[bigkahunaburger]

"Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential."--Barack Obama

 

[pgg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

It really is unbelievable that a bunch of DOCTORS think that our healthcare system should remain the way it is. Change is never easy, but often necessary for progress to occur.

Are you paying union wages to that horde of strawmen you've got moving goalposts?

No one's arguing that it should remain the way it is. Criticism of a lousy reform plan is not the same as endorsement of the status quo.