congress passes healthcare reform

[Lokhtar]

Tell me again who wins? Tell me again how this is anything more than a welfare entitlement program? Vote buying?

I didn't claim anyone did win . I haven't taken a side on this legislation on this forum yet, as far as I know .

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted87716]

Do you think there will be more fire breathed into the concierge/cash for service model?

Perhaps. I'm sure it's starting to look better and better to a lot of people.

 

[thedrjojo]

Only if you're in a primary care residency. Not that you'll see any of it, of course.

And if by "nice," you mean "paying the same crappy rates as Medicare," I suppose everything's relative.

I said my hospital... my GS residency won't likely generate more money from it, but the hospital will get more funding now, and since it is a public non-profit hospital any increase in funding (since the state is slashing funding to it anyway) will be helpful to the hospital as a whole. I am looking to keep the hospital funded and operational so I 1) still have a residency and 2) as a safety net hospital it is a vital function for most of northern NJ if not all of NJ.

 

[thedrjojo]

Here's a healthcare analogy from a classmate of mine:

10 third graders that want candy are in a room with 5 pieces of candy. The liberals' solution - place 5 more third graders in the room and simultaneously decrease funding to the candy supplier. Most elementary school children would argue that this is not a viable solution

I guess VPDcurt over in the surgery forum is a classmate of yours or stole it from that classmate, since the thread there is using this exact quote.

This is a stupid analogy for many reasons... if you are claiming candy is healthcare, then it should be 10 third graders and 9 pieces of candy, and the liberal answer, essentially is to split up those candies into 10 pieces while telling the candy companies they can't charge $50 for a totsie roll, charge people for a candy when they need it, but then, when they want that candy tell them had they known they had a pre-existing candy need before they signed up they wouldn't have accepted them... etc. etc. The bill doesn't address these issues adaquetely, but your analogy is stupid IMHO.

My response in the surgical forum, as well, to give an analogy to what the republican/conservative answer to the situation, which is based off a change in it to:

"...There are 10 third graders in a classroom, all of whom would really like to have a piece of candy; however, there are only 5 pieces of candy in the room. Only 2 of the children mowed lawns/babysat/etc... and actually purchased those 5 pieces of candy (i.e. the 5 pieces of candy have actual owners). "

my response, in my best republican/conservative stereotype:

"give the 2 kids the 5 pieces of candy, then go out get 5 more pieces of candy, and give them to those 2 kids again saying: "these kids are really important and if we don't give them all this candy, then candy will no longer exist. You don't want candy to disappear do you? Why do you hate candy? Real and true americans would ask how we can get those 2 kids 5 more pieces of candy"

Can we ever get any real conversation instead of hyperbole and irrational fear?

 

[JaggerPlate]

Perhaps. I'm sure it's starting to look better and better to a lot of people.

Our family PCP is retiring, and my mom randomly asked me about this model the other day. I'd never brought it up, and thought it was kind of funny she found it in her own web research (she's not anywhere in health services either).

 

[mechanictodr]

Do you think there will be more fire breathed into the concierge/cash for service model? Especially when these 'ACOs' are overrun with newly insured, and those previously insured, more used to the norm, will start looking for something different??

I think a lot of people will be going this route. There is no reason not to open up your own group or private practice and charge cash. This way no one can skim the earnings. You make what you work for and if the guy down the street can do it better for less you adjust or you're done. Before all the health care insurance companies came about physicians were on their own or in groups. Insurance is a mob style program that should be illegal because it allows those running the game to make a lot of money off of desperate people. At least if physicians were able to charge what they felt was fair they could exchange good for services or whatever and still give care instead of accepting $8 for a new patient consult that takes 30 minutes while still paying rent, employees, and malpractice.

I just don't understand this, people want things cheaper so they decide to have "Walmart" style government care. Service is going to get worse and worse along with pay. There's always industry and pharmaceuticals...

 

[deleted87716]

 

[mechanictodr]

No doubt!

 

[Drad18]

From a Dear Old Republican:


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT1dhH9x1Uo&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]

 

[thedrjojo]

From a Dear Old Republican:


[YOUTUBE]FT1dhH9x1Uo[/YOUTUBE]

People think its a good idea for him to represent them

 

[deleted87716]

People think its a good idea for him to represent them

It's Texas. I suspect they love him.

 

[thedrjojo]

It's Texas. I suspect they love him.

That is part of why when people like Chuck Norris talk about texas leaving the union, I am in full support of them

 

[badasshairday]

Can't somebody just choose to pay the $ fine annually and not buy insurance? Then when they need major medical treatment, they can just buy insurance for a few months and get treated? I mean the insurance companies can no longer deny pre-exisiting conditions.

Ultimately, the insurance companies will have to raise premiums. Seems like the ultimate goal of the plan is to run them out of business. Single-payer here we come.

 

[badasshairday]

Let's be real. It is obvious we are moving towards a single payer. The crystal ball says that the future looks like Medicare for all.

 

[clueless1]

I'm not saying single-payer is the right or wrong way to go - that can/has been debated elsewhere. But President Obama himself has said that's what he wants - although maybe not "immediately".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E&feature=player_embedded

 

[bronx43]

Can't somebody just choose to pay the $ fine annually and not buy insurance? Then when they need major medical treatment, they can just buy insurance for a few months and get treated? I mean the insurance companies can no longer deny pre-exisiting conditions.

Ultimately, the insurance companies will have to raise premiums. Seems like the ultimate goal of the plan is to run them out of business. Single-payer here we come.

In the meantime it's possible that insurance companies will start to drop their reimbursement rates. Without the high paying private insurers, physicians are REALLY gonna feel it.

 

[N-Surge]

Let's be real. It is obvious we are moving towards a single payer. The crystal ball says that the future looks like Medicare for all.

I.e., a government overtake of health care.

 

[Lokhtar]

I.e., a government overtake of health care.

Let's hope. This isn't it though. This just fellates the insurance industry by giving them, on a platter, 30 million new customers, a lot of whom are partly or wholly subsidized courtesy of Uncle Sam.

I'm not saying single-payer is the right or wrong way to go - that can/has been debated elsewhere. But President Obama himself has said that's what he wants - although maybe not "immediately".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E&feature=player_embedded

Yea definitely. I don't think there is all that much doubt that's what he'd eventually prefers. Heck, universal health care bill got like a 88 co-sponsors in the House last year. So there is certainly a large bloc of Progressives in the House who've not hidden this fact: they introduce the bill every chance they get.

 

[thedrjojo]

I.e., a government overtake of health care.

canada, a touted example of single payor, the government doesn't control health care, it controls health care finanicing. Doctors are still private entities in Canada... the NHS is a government overtake of health care. Unless doctors are controled by the financing (which, some could argue that everyone is controlled by the all mighty dollar, and to an extent, financing the doctors controls what they pay for and how much they pay for it, so doctors are limited by them, but one could also argue for doctors to be able to unite and somehow alter atleast what they get paid for if not also how much they do). And if you argue doctors are controlled by financing, then why haven't doctors began a campaign to prevent the insurance industry overtake of healthcare, cause that is exactly what has happened the past 20-30 years