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

[Dave89]

Prove it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/amanda-clayton-michigan-lottery-winner_n_1327156.html

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/fraud/pg270.htm

Alas, I cannot *prove* examples I've witnessed, since there is no documentation. But the above links should demonstrate that welfare/food stamps and other entitlements are in any way foolproof.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Gut Shot]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/amanda-clayton-michigan-lottery-winner_n_1327156.html

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/fraud/pg270.htm

Alas, I cannot *prove* examples I've witnessed, since there is no documentation.

Original claim: "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."

You will have to forgive me, with such a specific dollar amount I thought you could produce something of substance.

Cited evidence #1: Amanda Clayton, who had her public assistance revoked following the news story (although interestingly, lottery winnings were not reportable to Michigan public assistance programs, although that will no doubt be changing soon).

Cited evidence #2: A bunch of criminals.

To follow this logic I would have to conclude that you support ending every aspect of our society that is susceptible to criminal subversion. I believe that would result in the termination of our civilization. Seems a little over the top, but perhaps that's just me.

But the above links should demonstrate that welfare/food stamps and other entitlements are in any way foolproof.

Absolutely nobody would claim otherwise, hence your straw man. There isn't a system yet devised by man that is foolproof. When it comes to social programs like TANF the real question is whether it's better to deny benefits to those with legitimate need in order to prevent any of the funds from ever being misappropriated.

 

[Dave89]

Original claim: "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."

You will have to forgive me, with such a specific dollar amount I thought you could produce something of substance.

Cited evidence #1: Amanda Clayton, who had her public assistance revoked following the news story (although interestingly, lottery winnings were not reportable to Michigan public assistance programs, although that will no doubt be changing soon).

Cited evidence #2: A bunch of criminals.

To follow this logic I would have to conclude that you support ending every aspect of our society that is susceptible to criminal subversion. I believe that would result in the termination of our civilization. Seems a little over the top, but perhaps that's just me.



Absolutely nobody would claim otherwise, hence your straw man. There isn't a system yet devised by man that is foolproof. When it comes to social programs like TANF the real question is whether it's better to deny benefits to those with legitimate need in order to prevent any of the funds from ever being misappropriated.

The purpose of my response to nobobtrustme was to explain that welfare abuse is not a myth. (S)he can claim that is is, but I can just as easily claim it is not. While my 85,000 figure is true but unverifiable, there are statistics showing that the system can be and is being played. Yes, we as a society pretty much agree that it's worth having assistance programs for those in need (though the different sides of the political spectrum disagree whether this should be taken care of federally, by state, or locally). But that does not mean the idea of welfare queens is merely a "myth."

 

[Gut Shot]

But that does not mean the idea of welfare queens is merely a "myth."

The idea is a myth in the sense that it was concocted and expounded under false pretenses in order to stir some very vile human emotions (which you seem to be buying into with barely restrained glee). We have all had that experience where some dude at the grocery store is buying lobster with his food stamps. It's upsetting. But it also makes the mind prey to the availability heuristic, which will significantly distort attempts to properly contextualize the experience.

Let me put this in some more perspective:
Total TANF and MOE expenditure (aka "welfare") in 2009: $33.5 billion
Total bonuses given out by five largest Wall St firms in 2007: $39 billion

You may recall some financial events happening in or around 2007. Strange, isn't it? We sit passively while guys in suits line their pockets with inconceivable sums of ill-gotten money, but the lady buying Smarties with her WIC card sends some of us into hysterics. Why is that?

 

[Dave89]

Let me put this in some more perspective:
Total TANF and MOE expenditure (aka "welfare") in 2009: $33.5 billion
Total bonuses given out by five largest Wall St firms in 2007: $39 billion

You may recall some financial events happening in or around 2007. Strange, isn't it? We sit passively while guys in suits line their pockets with inconceivable sums of ill-gotten money, but the lady buying Smarties with her WIC card sends some of us into hysterics. Why is that?

No idea. It was a dirty deal, and there's a reason many public figures are scrambled at that time/are now scrambling to distance themselves from the bailouts. Corporate welfare is an absolute disgrace. Just like unscrupulous practices of many in the finance sector.

Let me assure you, I feel no "glee" when I consider the plight of people on welfare (in general).

 

[SteinUmStein]

The idea is a myth in the sense that it was concocted and expounded under false pretenses in order to stir some very vile human emotions (which you seem to be buying into with barely restrained glee). We have all had that experience where some dude at the grocery store is buying lobster with his food stamps. It's upsetting. But it also makes the mind prey to the availability heuristic, which will significantly distort attempts to properly contextualize the experience.

Let me put this in some more perspective:
Total TANF and MOE expenditure (aka "welfare") in 2009: $33.5 billion
Total bonuses given out by five largest Wall St firms in 2007: $39 billion

You may recall some financial events happening in or around 2007. Strange, isn't it? We sit passively while guys in suits line their pockets with inconceivable sums of ill-gotten money, but the lady buying Smarties with her WIC card sends some of us into hysterics. Why is that?

Because they "earned it." Just like the top execs at failing banks get golden parachutes worth enough to retire 50 times over "earned" their bonuses.

 

[Gut Shot]

The purpose of my response to nobobtrustme was to explain that welfare abuse is not a myth. (S)he can claim that is is, but I can just as easily claim it is not. While my 85,000 figure is true but unverifiable, there are statistics showing that the system can be and is being played. Yes, we as a society pretty much agree that it's worth having assistance programs for those in need (though the different sides of the political spectrum disagree whether this should be taken care of federally, by state, or locally). But that does not mean the idea of welfare queens is merely a "myth."

P.S. You should check out some of the actual monthly benefits from TANF for a hypothetical single mother of two. As of 2010 the maximum monthly benefit in Mississippi was a whopping $170. That's what, barely eight Coach purses a year?

 

[Dave89]

P.S. You should check out some of the actual monthly benefits from TANF for a hypothetical single mother of two. As of 2010 the maximum monthly benefit in Mississippi was a whopping $170. That's what, barely eight Coach purses a year?

I really don't think Pupster's post was targeted at welfare recipients. I understood it to be referring to people in positions such as Sandra Fluke's, who are perfectly capable of buying their own contraception, but truly believe that it should be covered by insurance (which is of course nonsensical, because contraception coverage is not "insurance").

Again, I'm not against the idea of welfare. I would just prefer that it not be on a federal level.

 

[SteinUmStein]

I really don't think Pupster's post was targeted at welfare recipients. I understood it to be referring to people in positions such as Sandra Fluke's, who are perfectly capable of buying their own contraception, but truly believe that it should be covered by insurance (which is of course nonsensical, because contraception coverage is not "insurance").

Again, I'm not against the idea of welfare. I would just prefer that it not be on a federal level.

The problem with moving everything to the state or local level is that it leaves some of the lowest SES Americans in the poorest states in the dust. Do you really think Mississippi and the rest of the South are going to budget enough to cover their poorest residents? State and local budgets are tight as it is, many poorer states are having trouble even keeping their public schools open. Heck, states like Texas brag about how much they've cut from their welfare and public school budgets, they'll cut to the bone until income disparities are at the level of a developing country. Is that the country we want to live in? Would we rather emulate Germany and Sweden, or India?

Edit: Quick message to the conservatives reading this if this applies to you - stop arguing for increased defense spending. You're tipping your hand that fiscal responsibility is not really your goal, and it's painful to see young Republican politicians like Paul Ryan make it very obvious that they're already in the pocket of big defense contractors.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/22/paul-ryan’s-weak-case-for-a-strong-defense/

 

[Dave89]

The problem with moving everything to the state or local level is that it leaves some of the lowest SES Americans in the poorest states in the dust. Do you really think Mississippi and the rest of the South are going to budget enough to cover their poorest residents? State and local budgets are tight as it is, many poorer states are having trouble even keeping their public schools open. Heck, states like Texas brag about how much they've cut from their welfare and public school budgets, they'll cut to the bone until income disparities are at the level of a developing country. Is that the country we want to live in? Would we rather emulate Germany and Sweden, or India?

True, but it's important to realize that the reason these states remain poor is in part because they have little incentive to be more successful, since they're getting their benefits no matter what. If pressure were eased onto them in a transition period, they'd have to make adjustments which could ultimately make them more financially-sound. E.g. by becoming more business-friendly.

 

[SteinUmStein]

True, but it's important to realize that the reason these states remain poor is in part because they have little incentive to be more successful, since they're getting their benefits no matter what. If pressure were eased onto them in a transition period, they'd have to make adjustments which could ultimately make them more financially-sound. E.g. by becoming more business-friendly.

Really? Now we're applying the welfare queen concept to entire states? That's why they're poor. Interesting. I thought it might have been a bit more complex than that, but your way is easier to understand so I'll go with it. Someone should drop by the dirt poor families in rural Alabama and tell them they can stop working their 3 minimum wage jobs because they're in a welfare state that will get "benefits no matter what". No need to keep trying, there's no incentive!

By the way, more business-friendly does not mean more financially sound or more successful or wealthier. A cursory glance at lists like this will show you that there is far from a direct correlation between being "business friendly" and being a wealthy, successful, fiscally responsible state.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/14/10-states-with-the-largest-budget-shortfalls

 

[Dave89]

Really? Now we're applying the welfare queen concept to entire states? That's why they're poor. Interesting. I thought it might have been a bit more complex than that, but your way is easier to understand so I'll go with it. Someone should drop by the dirt poor families in rural Alabama and tell them they can stop working their 3 minimum wage jobs because they're in a welfare state that will get "benefits no matter what". No need to keep trying, there's no incentive!

It really gets irritating when people put words in one's mouth.

By the way, more business-friendly does not mean more financially sound or more successful or wealthier. A cursory glance at lists like this will show you that there is far from a direct correlation between being "business friendly" and being a wealthy, successful, fiscally responsible state.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/14/10-states-with-the-largest-budget-shortfalls

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. There does in fact seem to be a significant correlation. If you follow lists in those links, of the top 32 friendliest states for business, only 3 make the top ten list for projected 2012 budget shortfall.

 

[SteinUmStein]

It really gets irritating when people put words in one's mouth.

Ok, then what exactly did you mean by "the reason these states remain poor is in part because they have little incentive to be more successful".

 

[Dave89]

Ok, then what exactly did you mean by "the reason these states remain poor is in part because they have little incentive to be more successful".

The term "Welfare queen" generally refers to people who defraud or play the system to get much more money from entitlements than they ought to. Whereas states which continuously receive more federal aid than the average are not defrauding the system; they are playing by the rules, so-to-speak, but they are being protected from market forces which would ordinarily cause them to evolve into more competitive and productive entities.

I apply this to large collectives such as states; obviously, this is more difficult to apply to individuals, as you will always have a significant number who are elderly, disabled, etc.

 

[SteinUmStein]

A quick look at actual data doesn't really support either side - all I learned is that Alaska is a huge money sink.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

This would be great if I could get it to work.

http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/presidents-budget-fy2012/federal-aid/

Edit: What on earth are we building in Delaware?? Haha, must be some kind of superbridge with killer red white & blue LED lights or something.

 

[pupster]

Original claim: "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."

You will have to forgive me, with such a specific dollar amount I thought you could produce something of substance.

http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2432552.shtml


"Prosecutors are asking a federal judge to sentence a former grocery store owner profiled in the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Welfare Waste investigation to four years in prison for running a "brazen" scheme to defraud taxpayers of more than $3 million in welfare benefits.

Khaffak Ansari pleaded guilty in September to allowing food stamp benefits to be exchanged for cash, in violation of federal law, at his Stryker Avenue Food Market in St. Paul.

Prosecutors estimate that Ansari scammed taxpayers of a total of $3,037,651 during a period of nearly four years, beginning in 2006. Ansari disputes the total amount lost."



Gotta love how people can exchange food stamps for money to buy drugs, etc....I guess that works out to ~ $750,000/year...?


Also, gotta love how people use their EBT cards to buy liquor...

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=https:%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fuc%3Fid%3D0B8lbDiPP83uXZmMyNTgxZjQtMTcyZC00Mzc4LWE4OGUtOTYzOGEyNGI4ZDll%26export%3Ddownload%26authkey%3DCK-VtJMD%26hl%3Den&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.094886,56.162109&ie=UTF8&ll=38.959409,-102.65625&spn=35.241861,56.162109&z=4

Woohoo...
A AND G LIQUORS, INC.
9 Transactions
Total: $1298.54

 

[Gut Shot]

http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2432552.shtml


"Prosecutors are asking a federal judge to sentence a former grocery store owner profiled in the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Welfare Waste investigation to four years in prison for running a "brazen" scheme to defraud taxpayers of more than $3 million in welfare benefits.

Khaffak Ansari pleaded guilty in September to allowing food stamp benefits to be exchanged for cash, in violation of federal law, at his Stryker Avenue Food Market in St. Paul.

Prosecutors estimate that Ansari scammed taxpayers of a total of $3,037,651 during a period of nearly four years, beginning in 2006. Ansari disputes the total amount lost."



Gotta love how people can exchange food stamps for money to buy drugs, etc....I guess that works out to ~ $750,000/year...?


Also, gotta love how people use their EBT cards to buy liquor...

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=https:%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fuc%3Fid%3D0B8lbDiPP83uXZmMyNTgxZjQtMTcyZC00Mzc4LWE4OGUtOTYzOGEyNGI4ZDll%26export%3Ddownload%26authkey%3DCK-VtJMD%26hl%3Den&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.094886,56.162109&ie=UTF8&ll=38.959409,-102.65625&spn=35.241861,56.162109&z=4

Woohoo...
A AND G LIQUORS, INC.
9 Transactions
Total: $1298.54

Meh, I was really looking for something detailed and systematic, a how-to for those willing to "work the system" and take home up to $85,000. It sounded like an infomercial. These are just random fraud schemes.

 

[SteinUmStein]

Back to something slightly more on-topic, this is a great article for those of us not fluent in legalese about why the (5-4 conservative leaning) Supreme Court may uphold healthcare reform.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-usa-healthcare-court-analysis-idUSBRE82M0IJ20120323

 

[auburnO5]

Repeal.

 

[SteinUmStein]

Repeal.

Again, people can say that until they're blue in the face, but until you show me a Supreme Court decision or an overwhelming Republican takeover of the House, Senate, and Oval Office, it's not happening. It's not really productive to just say "repeal the entire bill" because the system without the ACA is completely broken.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

As people already in, on the path to, or currently considering a career in the medical profession, we have to concede that the way the much needed health care reform has been characterized is the most unsettling thing.

I am not going to get into the argument because as one poster observed above, what needs to happen, will eventually happen and is inevitable. I am especially wary of those who cry foul with the constitution in hand. I will remind this cohort that the constitution explicitly proclaimed the equality of men but that did not stop anyone for over 200 years from decrying the unconstitutionality of slavery, and the lack of freedoms for women. In fact, a war had to be fought to quasi-end the former...so spare us all the outrage.

What is most disconcerting is the fact that the PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT has been unfairly baptized 'Obamacare' to distract from the serious deliberation we should all have on the issue. I have no particular sympathies for Obama on this subject but I have chosen to hang my hat on the future of medicine and the medical profession - far more ubiquitous concepts compared to a single presidency. That some of the smartest minds in this country have been reduced to squabbling talking heads - so much so that all moderates on the subject have been drowned out and obviated - is to me the most perverse ignominy of these serious times.

To pretend that our grave problems in the healthcare system will be fixed by FREE MARKET forces is as sincere as transplanting a dialysis patient with his/her own failed kidney! We are more sophisticated than this as a society!! We have the capacity to do something more to address the shortfalls irrespective of present reform efforts. The poison that is political bickering on the substance of this argument is defeating the entire spirit of necessary discourse. I particularly do not care for anyone calling for a 'repeal' without so much as tabling actual solutions in lieu of their stated or assumed aggravating circumstances. I am even more skeptical of anyone who cannot acknowledge the good in the act, and how to preserve that (pre-existing condition bias in coverage, etc). Killing the baby (healthcare reform) because you are disgruntled with its parentage (PPACA) is laughable - but that is exactly where this argument is going if the rhetoric does not offer clear solutions shortly after the vehemently polarized criticism.

 

[Dave89]

Edit: Quick message to the conservatives reading this if this applies to you - stop arguing for increased defense spending. You're tipping your hand that fiscal responsibility is not really your goal, and it's painful to see young Republican politicians like Paul Ryan make it very obvious that they're already in the pocket of big defense contractors.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/22/paul-ryan’s-weak-case-for-a-strong-defense/

I agree with you on that point. I am a political conservative, and I am certainly of the opinion that we need to make significant cuts in defense as well as everything else.

 

[Dave89]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2kGPdxkofo

 

[SteinUmStein]

I agree with you on that point. I am a political conservative, and I am certainly of the opinion that we need to make significant cuts in defense as well as everything else.

It's good to hear from true fiscal conservatives who apply their principles to all areas of government, not just the ones they don't like. I'd have a lot fewer problems with the Republican Party if they were that consistent. My favorite part of the Republican debates was watching the crowds self-immolate by booing Ron Paul as he spoke common sense about our incredibly wasteful (in lives and dollars) misadventures in the Middle East.

 

[dr zaius]

True, but it's important to realize that the reason these states remain poor is in part because they have little incentive to be more successful, since they're getting their benefits no matter what. If pressure were eased onto them in a transition period, they'd have to make adjustments which could ultimately make them more financially-sound. E.g. by becoming more business-friendly.

Being raised in a very poor city in a very poor state this irritates the **** out of me. Anyone on welfare wants to be off. They work everywhere they can- odd jobs, any random construction that they can find, ANYTHING.

Christ, STFU. You're chock full of "bootstraps" nonsense, and I hope one day you open up your eyes and finally see the real goddamn world. **** you.

 

[Marcus Brody]

As people already in, on the path to, or currently considering a career in the medical profession, we have to concede that the way the much needed health care reform has been characterized is the most unsettling thing.

I am not going to get into the argument because as one poster observed above, what needs to happen, will eventually happen and is inevitable. I am especially wary of those who cry foul with the constitution in hand. I will remind this cohort that the constitution explicitly proclaimed the equality of men but that did not stop anyone for over 200 years from decrying the unconstitutionality of slavery, and the lack of freedoms for women. In fact, a war had to be fought to quasi-end the former...so spare us all the outrage.

What is most disconcerting is the fact that the PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT has been unfairly baptized 'Obamacare' to distract from the serious deliberation we should all have on the issue. I have no particular sympathies for Obama on this subject but I have chosen to hang my hat on the future of medicine and the medical profession - far more ubiquitous concepts compared to a single presidency. That some of the smartest minds in this country have been reduced to squabbling talking heads - so much so that all moderates on the subject have been drowned out and obviated - is to me the most perverse ignominy of these serious times.

To pretend that our grave problems in the healthcare system will be fixed by FREE MARKET forces is as sincere as transplanting a dialysis patient with his/her own failed kidney! We are more sophisticated than this as a society!! We have the capacity to do something more to address the shortfalls irrespective of present reform efforts. The poison that is political bickering on the substance of this argument is defeating the entire spirit of necessary discourse. I particularly do not care for anyone calling for a 'repeal' without so much as tabling actual solutions in lieu of their stated or assumed aggravating circumstances. I am even more skeptical of anyone who cannot acknowledge the good in the act, and how to preserve that (pre-existing condition bias in coverage, etc). Killing the baby (healthcare reform) because you are disgruntled with its parentage (PPACA) is laughable - but that is exactly where this argument is going if the rhetoric does not offer clear solutions shortly after the vehemently polarized criticism.

Amazing post- "a cent's worth of information wrapped in a bale of polysyllables."

 

[Gut Shot]

I really don't think Pupster's post was targeted at welfare recipients. I understood it to be referring to people in positions such as Sandra Fluke's, who are perfectly capable of buying their own contraception, but truly believe that it should be covered by insurance (which is of course nonsensical, because contraception coverage is not "insurance").

For one, I wasn't responding to Pupster.

For two, what do know about Sandra Fluke's finances? Perhaps you should read her actual testimony.

For three, health insurance companies have a vested interest in not letting small, easily fixable problems turn into big, expensive ones. They cover contraception because it's a lot cheaper than covering deliveries and neonatal care. Your assertion boils down to semantics, which isn't very useful.

Again, I'm not against the idea of welfare. I would just prefer that it not be on a federal level.

TANF is run as block grants to the states, with additional state dollars sprinkled on top. Hence there are 50 welfare programs in the country, each operated at the state level.

Again, a distinction without a difference.

 

[Gut Shot]

If pressure were eased onto them in a transition period, they'd have to make adjustments which could ultimately make them more financially-sound. E.g. by becoming more business-friendly.

More business-friendly, eh? That brought this to mind:

[YOUTUBE]DuhUDkmFD_4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[scarshapedstar]

Amazing post- "a cent's worth of information wrapped in a bale of polysyllables."

Brilliant non-response.

"I have nothing to declare but my genius."

 

[Lysinee]

.Health care law: A storybook explainer.
.
..CNN's Lizzie O'Leary explains the winners and losers in the new health care law, with a storybook style..

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/03/23/exp-erin-health-care-law.cnn.html

Opinions please.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

Amazing post- "a cent's worth of information wrapped in a bale of polysyllables."

Thanks, Marcus Brody! Yours is definitely brain power that warrants contemplation - not too sure yet if it can be conscripted for the cause...

 

[Dave89]

Being raised in a very poor city in a very poor state this irritates the **** out of me. Anyone on welfare wants to be off. They work everywhere they can- odd jobs, any random construction that they can find, ANYTHING.

Christ, STFU. You're chock full of "bootstraps" nonsense, and I hope one day you open up your eyes and finally see the real goddamn world. **** you.

Wow. You completely misunderstood my thrust, and it's hard for me to believe you even achieved above a 3 on Verbal on the MCAT.

I was talking about STATES. S-T-A-T-E-S. Not individuals.

Try reading posts instead of zooming through them superficially.

 

[Dave89]

For two, what do know about Sandra Fluke's finances?

I don't. That's why I bolded the words "such as".

TANF is run as block grants to the states, with additional state dollars sprinkled on top. Hence there are 50 welfare programs in the country, each operated at the state level

I don't believe I challenged that fact. I was just making an aside, to stress the fact that I'm not a heartless jerk.

 

[Dave89]

.Health care law: A storybook explainer.
.
..CNN's Lizzie O'Leary explains the winners and losers in the new health care law, with a storybook style..

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/03/23/exp-erin-health-care-law.cnn.html

Opinions please.

Gotta do some analysis on their figures, but I'll say this right off the bat: this is the most saddening use of appeal to the lower emotions I have ever seen on a "news" network.

Hansel and Gretel? vs. Prince Charming?

But somehow FoxNews is the only partisan one?

 

[dr zaius]

Wow. You completely misunderstood my thrust, and it's hard for me to believe you even achieved above a 3 on Verbal on the MCAT.

I was talking about STATES. S-T-A-T-E-S. Not individuals.

Try reading posts instead of zooming through them superficially.

I still stand by my last 2 sentences.

 

[Gut Shot]

I don't. That's why I bolded the words "such as".

Jesus H. Christ. "Such as" indicates you were holding up Sandra Fluke as an example of your point. To use something as an example you imply specific, relevant knowledge of it.

I only stab Pomeranian-holding men with goatees, such as Steve and Carl.

I don't believe I challenged that fact. I was just making an aside, to stress the fact that I'm not a heartless jerk.

Yeah.

 

[scarshapedstar]

Jesus H. Christ. "Such as" indicates you were holding up Sandra Fluke as an example of your point. To use something as an example you imply specific, relevant knowledge of it.

He also indicated that Sandra Fluke was testifying about her own needs. That's worth, like, a -5 verbal on the MCAT. In fact, if Dave has trouble identifying the subject of spoken sentences, he probably ought to have a stat cranial CT.

 

[dyeguy21]

Major issue when it comes to healthcare economics is that your demand for life is infinite, it's perfect and inelastic. Any treatment that gives you more of it you want, regardless of the cost. The cost-effectiveness part is also an issue because you are never told, "well we have a treatment that could prolong your life by 2 months but it costs $50,000/mo." All you hear is you get 2 more months to live.

This is why the "free" national healthcare idea fails, because costs will always increase as long as we keep improving our treatments. A new treatment costs billions of dollars to develop and the company that spent all that sunk cost on R&D wants to make it back and turn a profit. That's why new vaccines and antibiotics are so slow to come to market, once you make them they are "expected" to be cheap otherwise a lot of organizations are on you to do so. Hence the orphan drug act.

Also, it requires the use of a primary care gatekeeper. A lot of us aren't going into primary care (definitely not enough to be the first doctor everyone has to see). The reason being the primary care workers get saddled with all the grunt work and the specialists get all the glory and pay. In addition, the pay difference from an extra 1-2 in residency is astounding, so no one wants to stop at primary care because at the age of 29-32 a lot are just starting their "home" lives (purchasing a car, buying a house, getting married, having kids) and they don't wanna have the additional student debt hanging over their head for very long. So you go for the job that is still satisfying your need to help, but also has a high salary to pay down the debt faster.

Something does need to be done about healthcare, it's just not this.

 

[Lysinee]

"The court will soon hear six hours of oral arguments over three days [March 26-28] on the law's constitutionality -- and your health and your finances could be on the line. Their eventual rulings in an election year will not only guide how every American receives medical care but would also establish precedent-setting boundaries of government regulation over a range of social areas."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/politics/scotus-health-care-preview/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

[pupster]

"The court will soon hear six hours of oral arguments over three days [March 26-28] on the law's constitutionality -- and your health and your finances could be on the line. Their eventual rulings in an election year will not only guide how every American receives medical care but would also establish precedent-setting boundaries of government regulation over a range of social areas."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/politics/scotus-health-care-preview/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/callouts/health-care-case/

'Nuff said....

 

[SteinUmStein]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/callouts/health-care-case/

'Nuff said....

Ah yes, the esteemed Legal Experts of the Internet.

I can't wait for the Supreme Court ruling so I don't have to hear people pretend to be Constitutional scholars. One way or another, it'll be over soon.

 

[scarshapedstar]

Ah yes, the esteemed Legal Experts of the Internet.

I can't wait for the Supreme Court ruling so I don't have to hear people pretend to be Constitutional scholars. One way or another, it'll be over soon.

If only. Next they'll be sputtering about how that liberal Kennedy is in the tank for Obama.

 

[JackShephard MD]

Here are some interesting polls:

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/health-tracking-poll-interactive.cfm

Like everything in America, it's a partisan debate, the results can be summarized like this:

Approximately:
70% of Republicans - unfavorable view
70% of Democrats - favorable view
40% favorable / 40% unfavorable for Indepedents

It looks like it will stand up in the Supreme Court. It's very unlikely they say this is unconstitutional.

 

[Dave89]

He also indicated that Sandra Fluke was testifying about her own needs. That's worth, like, a -5 verbal on the MCAT. In fact, if Dave has trouble identifying the subject of spoken sentences, he probably ought to have a stat cranial CT.

That is a lie. I never indicated that.

 

[Dave89]

"Such as" indicates you were holding up Sandra Fluke as an example of your point. To use something as an example you imply specific, relevant knowledge of it.

She was talking about fellow law students at Georgetown. Tuition: $46,865 per year (full-time)
$33,500 per year (part-time).

I'm sorry, I don't buy the claim that people (generally) in such a situation have anything to complain about regarding contraceptive cost.

 

[pupster]

Ah yes, the esteemed Legal Experts of the Internet.

I can't wait for the Supreme Court ruling so I don't have to hear people pretend to be Constitutional scholars. One way or another, it'll be over soon.

The point was that 96% of people currently say it's unconstitutional. 4% say it is constitutional. Just a poll of readers....

 

[pupster]

He also indicated that Sandra Fluke was testifying about her own needs. That's worth, like, a -5 verbal on the MCAT. In fact, if Dave has trouble identifying the subject of spoken sentences, he probably ought to have a stat cranial CT.

Doesn't matter, since Dave already took the MCAT and is IN medical school whereas you're still waiting to start in the fall...

 

[pupster]

She was talking about fellow law students at Georgetown. Tuition: $46,865 per year (full-time)
$33,500 per year (part-time).

I'm sorry, I don't buy the claim that people (generally) in such a situation have anything to complain about regarding contraceptive cost.

 

[JackShephard MD]

The point was that 96% of people currently say it's unconstitutional. 4% say it is constitutional. Just a poll of readers....

If we polled readers about effective treatments of an acute MI, what could you glean from those results?

Lawyers and supreme court judges know more about the constitution, their opinions hold weight.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

If only. Next they'll be sputtering about how that liberal Kennedy is in the tank for Obama.

Totally agree! They have been foaming at the mouth about 'freedom' and 'government takeover' - red veins and all bulging ferociously out of their furrowed foreheads! I'm just ready for a ruling - any ruling - so we can hopefully lower the blood pressure stats of 'the American people'...coz you know the rest of us with normal BP stats in the argument are un-American traitors

The SCOTUS framed the issue in today's prelim round of hearings to be an opposition to the PPACA requiring individuals to purchase insurance (aka Individual Mandate...also ironically the brainchild of brilliant Republican minds). I was NOT surprised to learn that the GOPer lawyers have no opposition to the penalties associated with not purchasing insurance - this is strategic because if the mandate was found to be constitutional, but they successfully challenged the penalties, then that would signal trouble for the profit margins of their corporate sponsors in the industry who would then be forced to insure 'the American people' only when they got sick - because 'the American people' would no longer be required to carry coverage at all times - which Republicans initially wanted arguing that 'the American people' needed to show some 'personal responsibility' on the issue!

At this point, it is clear that Obama is hated for no other reason other than the fact that they are Republicans and he is Obama. They have shown that they will spite themselves and their own ideas, as long as they appear to be spiting Obama If it is not healthcare they hate, it will be one of a gazillion other things about him that they can't stand...like the fact that his birth certificate is fake...well, scratch that...it is actually genuine and was issued by the Kenyan Government Independents are slightly amused by the circus, transfixed by the histrionics...but thankfully, as one, I know most of us vote with our brains.