Good one.
Health Care Bill........
- Thread starter adrift1984
- Start date
You open a new account just to say this?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 1,211
- Reaction score
- 8
+1
Not only that... but first of if you are in the condition to not to afford it. imagine this there are many people in your place and one incident such as listed above will drive you into a deep debt which will take years to get out. and what happens when you have another similar event before on top of that debt you have more debt... what will you do then?
Imagine this you meet at least 10 of these people everyday on just drive to school... the gas pump guy, employee in your coffee shop, your lunch truck guy, the news paper guy, the security officer in school... etc... but i wish it would be affordable for lower income people($<35k)
just because people make less money that does not qualify them to enjoy the benefits of enjoying diseases or dying early which could be simply preventable. But these people are scared to even go to a doctor b/c they know one event will set them back many years for everything that they worked for. F the republicans.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 0
i'm sorry buddy....but i am not going to be told i have to buy something, and i am definitely not going to tell my neighbor that he has to do it for me.
if you say......."well it is for your own good and that of the nation" well boo hoo. what next are you going to tell me that i have to buy a gym membership.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,957
- Reaction score
- 817
Fair enough, but what happens when you get sick or accidentally injured? That's the basis of the democrats argument. Don't look at health insurance as a luxury item, look at it as a necessity.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 140
- Reaction score
- 1
adrift1984, you completely just ignored what I said about an accident occurring when you don't have insurance. Its expensive and can happen to any of us.
Second of all, I don't like your attitude. Why are you even on this thread yelling at us? Last I checked, I didn't cast my vote in the House election, so quit taking it out on me that OUR elected officials passed this bill. What the hell am I supposed to do about it?
Thirdly, what the hell are you gonna get done by ranting on SDN!?! Write to your Congressman and sing him a sad song. Apart from that, we are ALL in the same boat.
Second of all, I don't like your attitude. Why are you even on this thread yelling at us? Last I checked, I didn't cast my vote in the House election, so quit taking it out on me that OUR elected officials passed this bill. What the hell am I supposed to do about it?
Thirdly, what the hell are you gonna get done by ranting on SDN!?! Write to your Congressman and sing him a sad song. Apart from that, we are ALL in the same boat.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 520
adrift, the reason why having uninsured Americans are so costly is because they create a large risk pool. as others have already alluded to, when an uninsured person needs medical care, those costs as passed onto the hospital/provider (assuming there debt can be discharged under chapter 7 bankruptcy), and that gets passed on to those with insurance. Hospitals/providers raise their fees to cover the cost of the unisured. By eliminating the risk pool, cost must necessarily go down.
comparing a gym membership (which only affects you directly) to reducing a national risk pool (which affects everyone, both insured and not) is a faulty conclusion.
comparing a gym membership (which only affects you directly) to reducing a national risk pool (which affects everyone, both insured and not) is a faulty conclusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
and
PSI169 "adrift1984, you completely just ignored what I said about an accident occurring when you don't have insurance. Its expensive and can happen to any of us.
Second of all, I don't like your attitude. Why are you even on this thread yelling at us? Last I checked, I didn't cast my vote in the House election, so quit taking it out on me that OUR elected officials passed this bill. What the hell am I supposed to do about it?
Thirdly, what the hell are you gonna get done by ranting on SDN!?! Write to your Congressman and sing him a sad song. Apart from that, we are ALL in the same boat."
+1+1
Maybe you should drop your car insurance too and stick it to the man, eh? Screw whoever you get in an accident with, right?!?!
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 520
Interesting. Thanks for the info Blarelli. What do you think about this section though?
SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
(a) GENERAL RULE.In the case of a taxpayer
other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal
to 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross
income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.
(b) TAXPAYERS NOT MAKING A JOINT RETURN.
In the case of any taxpayer other than a taxpayer making
a joint return under section 6013 or a surviving spouse
(as defined in section 2(a)), subsection (a) shall be applied
by substituting $500,000 for $1,000,000.
(c) MODIFIED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.For
purposes of this section, the term modified adjusted gross
income means adjusted gross income reduced by any de
duction (not taken into account in determining adjusted
gross income) allowed for investment interest (as defined
in section 163(d)). In the case of an estate or trust, ad18
justed gross income shall be determined as provided in sec19
tion 67(e).
are there any applicable deductions we as future practioners can make? Assuming one makes $500,000 (which is truly the upper end of a GP's earning potential), the additional 5.4% would effectively add $30,000 of taxes a year.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 0
I guess i will respond to this comment in bewilderment since i haven't yelled at anyone but rather just expressed my opinion.........just as you did when you responded to my post. I expressed in the first post why I opened up this thread....and it was to find out the opinions of predents. I have written my representatives....i'm so happy they listened to the majority of us.
in response to what would i do if i had some catastrophic event.....hell man, that's life. I know i would feel different if it happened to me but as i stated earlier this is a difference of fundamental ideals. we have over half of the citizens of this country feeding off of the upper class. once the scales tip in that direction what is to stop them. My opinion....work hard, make your own future and take care of yourself. For the unfortunate people of this world that through no fault of their own fall victim.......most are taken care of by the generosities of others. But i don't want to pay for the health care of the overweight, diabetic smokers of this country.....sounds ugly but it is true.
DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNER! Regardless of my opinion on the health care bill, we have a huge social and health problem in our country. We have high rates of alcoholics, obese, diabetics, and smokers in this country compared to many countries. Obviously our current costs are sky rocketing b.c of it. However, how is our country that is already in such a huge deficit going to pay for this? **** our money is gonna run out at one point. The chinese will stop lending at some point.
What we should have is mandate everyone go to the f***ing gym once in awhile, stop smoking so much, and eat healthier.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,957
- Reaction score
- 817
This is a fair outlook. People do get sick and accidents do happen. But there is more to the picture than just you. What about your parents, siblings, or family in general who want you alive and well. Even if you don't have dependents to be around for, you still have people who care about you. So although you may be able to accept that **** does happen, your loved ones may not. Just something to think about.
Oh and I don't mean to argue your outlook. It's a realistic approach and makes sense.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 0
hajibandeh
don't get me wrong haji.....i am definitely for defending the rights of individuals who have managed to gain insurance and been left high and dry by faulty practices. But how does insuring high risk pools lower costs, when providers will have to certainly offset the higher costs of these individuals by raising premiums. that is where the government jumped in with this bill and will now subsidize those increases with taxes. this bill does nothing to lower costs it just (sorry to say) redistributes wealth.
don't get me wrong haji.....i am definitely for defending the rights of individuals who have managed to gain insurance and been left high and dry by faulty practices. But how does insuring high risk pools lower costs, when providers will have to certainly offset the higher costs of these individuals by raising premiums. that is where the government jumped in with this bill and will now subsidize those increases with taxes. this bill does nothing to lower costs it just (sorry to say) redistributes wealth.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 520
and
how can these 2 statements coexist? if you say that you don't want to pay for the healthcare of others AND these very same people are taken care of by others' generosity, kinda seems....contradictory.
again, blanket generalization here. you are directly implying that all 40 million uninsured are like this. Additionally, once you are on an insurance plan, you are already paying for the healthcare of the overweight, diabetic smokers of this country. that's called shared risk, and that's how every single private health insurance company operates. where do you think the $$ from your premiums go? after paying the overhead of an insurance company, those monies pay for those in your pool who are sick, dying, pregnant/giving birth ---> this shiz costs money, and you are already paying for it son.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 0
haji, those statements coexist in perfect harmony.......If my neighbor was stricken with an aggressive case of cancer and i could help...I would try to do my part. if a young girl was hit by a drunk driver the town would raise money for her and her family.......
But i am sick of hearing of my tax dollars paying for alcoholic's liver transplants and severely obese individual's gastric bypass and quadruple bypass. Like you said....I already pay for enough of it.....I don't need to ensure the rest of them. Right now those higher risk individuals pay higher premiums....if they sought out wellness programs and improved their health they could lower them......but this bill simply (as i already stated) subsidizes it for them by taxing.
and before i say anymore.......I do respect and appreciate the opinions of everyone on here and am glad that a fair amount are actually engaged in the concerns of this country.
But i am sick of hearing of my tax dollars paying for alcoholic's liver transplants and severely obese individual's gastric bypass and quadruple bypass. Like you said....I already pay for enough of it.....I don't need to ensure the rest of them. Right now those higher risk individuals pay higher premiums....if they sought out wellness programs and improved their health they could lower them......but this bill simply (as i already stated) subsidizes it for them by taxing.
and before i say anymore.......I do respect and appreciate the opinions of everyone on here and am glad that a fair amount are actually engaged in the concerns of this country.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 6
No house, alright.... where are you going to live? An apartment? Well, you have to pay for lease and utilities.
No new car, alright... you still have to pay for insurance and repairs (hopefully the later can be avoided) on the old car.
I didn't say anything about buying a practice. But paying for overhead and the malpractice insurance is bad enough. Also most of us aren't blessed to have our dad's practice (netting an estimated 750k) waiting for us when we get graduate DS.
Arguing for the status quo???? I think you miss understand me. I believe the healthcare system is flawed and that it requires some big changes. But I also believe that this new reform bill isn't the best way to make these changes especially for the dental field.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
enough said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
enough said.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 520
from whom are you hearing these things? give us real data and numbers to work with, not what you 'hear', and you will add credibility to your statements. You really think the entire demographic of the uninsured/medicaid/medicare users is composed of this extreme?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 6
You should be careful with your use of diabetic.
Many people have Type I diabetes so even eating right and exercising are not enough. However, the type II diabetics can be another story.
Sure, I agree, it isn't the best way but no legislation is. In fact, nothing is perfect especially when you put something through a sifter of 100 or 435 individuals (take your pick) all with their own opinions and motivations. I'm just arguing it's better than the status quo. Not making a decision is making a decision to do nothing. If nothing is done then that is the status quo and without a policy window, nothing would have gotten done otherwise. And yeah, I get I'm blessed as we all are and I get it's hard, nothing in life that is worth doing isn't difficult (for the most part) I'm just saying with all of this said, at the end of the day, it's not going to break any of us and we all are going to still be better off than most other people in the U.S.
We as future dentists should be very worried about this in my opinion. Health care reform is needed, but not this goverment takeover BS that was passed last night!
1). We are going to be paying higher taxes, thats for sure. That may not seem like a big deal when an office is grossing 500K, but talk to someone that actually runs a dental business and they will tell you that is not much considering overhead/loans/mortgages. Who the hell is the government to take my hard earned money and put it in the pockets of people they see fit? Ridiculous.
2). Mandatory coverage will kick in in 2014, when most of us are graduating. This will reek havoc on the economy (for reasons that should be obvious to any person past average intellgience), expect about a 15% unemployment rate. And guess what, dental insurance only covers a small piece of the dental bill (especially for big procedures). Economy bad= people have no money for expensive procedures =your going to be working your ass off doing fillings all day to stay afloat.
3). But what should worry us most is the big picture: Just like anything else the government does, it is always WAY more expensive in real life than it is on paper. If this spending continues, In 10 years the government is going to be paying 800,000,000,000 a year just in interest!!!! Do you realize how robust the economy has to be to support that kind of payment? Defiantly not robust enough with all this government takeover. So basically, all these socialist-like policies being implemented will bankrupt the US beyond repair, and the dollar will crash. At that point it doesn't matter what profession your in, we are all screwed.
1). We are going to be paying higher taxes, thats for sure. That may not seem like a big deal when an office is grossing 500K, but talk to someone that actually runs a dental business and they will tell you that is not much considering overhead/loans/mortgages. Who the hell is the government to take my hard earned money and put it in the pockets of people they see fit? Ridiculous.
2). Mandatory coverage will kick in in 2014, when most of us are graduating. This will reek havoc on the economy (for reasons that should be obvious to any person past average intellgience), expect about a 15% unemployment rate. And guess what, dental insurance only covers a small piece of the dental bill (especially for big procedures). Economy bad= people have no money for expensive procedures =your going to be working your ass off doing fillings all day to stay afloat.
3). But what should worry us most is the big picture: Just like anything else the government does, it is always WAY more expensive in real life than it is on paper. If this spending continues, In 10 years the government is going to be paying 800,000,000,000 a year just in interest!!!! Do you realize how robust the economy has to be to support that kind of payment? Defiantly not robust enough with all this government takeover. So basically, all these socialist-like policies being implemented will bankrupt the US beyond repair, and the dollar will crash. At that point it doesn't matter what profession your in, we are all screwed
.- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 0
do you honestly need evidence of this countries obesity figures and alcohol consumption......
sure the uninsured don't account for only these type of individuals....but our country has one of the worst records for level of health. Therefore in my opinion if we are going to go for national health care...we better address healthier living rather than health insurance coverage.
actually this is the trade off.....if we want to be a country of freedoms with sedentary lifestyles and all you can eat buffets....don't expect national health care. On the other hand if you want national health care prepare for the government intrusions...for example new york implemented regulations capping the amount of salt used in restaurants. (just think of how far they could go)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 6
Too bad every single politician (dem and rep) has his/her hand in someone's pocket. And the only way to keep their hands in those pockets is it vote as the owner of those pockets wants.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 520
Precisely! Well said. A public heath campaign is 100% necessary not only as a prudent health care measure but as part of a massive cost-cutting measure. AND THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS HCR:
Subtitle B—National Prevention
2 and Wellness Strategy
3 ‘‘SEC. 3121. NATIONAL PREVENTION AND WELLNESS STRATEGY.
5 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall submit to
6 the Congress within one year after the date of the enact-
7 ment of this section, and at least every 2 years thereafter,
8 a national strategy that is designed to improve the Na-
9 tion's health through evidence-based clinical and commu-
10 nity prevention and wellness activities (in this section re-
11 ferred to as ‘prevention and wellness activities'), including
12 core public health infrastructure improvement activities.
13 ‘‘(b) CONTENTS.—The strategy under subsection (a)
14 shall include each of the following:
15 ‘‘(1) Identification of specific national goals and
16 objectives in prevention and wellness activities that
17 take into account appropriate public health measures
18 and standards, including departmental measures and
19 standards (including Healthy People and National
20 Public Health Performance Standards).
21 ‘‘(2) Establishment of national priorities for
22 prevention and wellness, taking into account unmet
23 prevention and wellness needs.
24 ‘‘(3) Establishment of national priorities for re25
search on prevention and wellness, taking into ac-
1 count unanswered research questions on prevention
2 and wellness.
3 ‘‘(4) Identification of health disparities in pre4
vention and wellness.
5 ‘‘(5) Review of prevention payment incentives,
6 the prevention workforce, and prevention delivery
7 system capacity.
8 ‘‘(6) A plan for addressing and implementing
9 paragraphs (1) through (5).
10 ‘‘(c) CONSULTATION.—In developing or revising the
11 strategy under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult
12 with the following:
13 ‘‘(1) The heads of appropriate health agencies
14 and offices in the Department, including the Office
15 of the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service,
16 the Office of Minority Health, the Office on Wom17
en's Health, and the Substance Abuse and Mental
18 Health Services Administration.
19 ‘‘(2) As appropriate, the heads of other Federal
20 departments and agencies whose programs have a
21 significant impact upon health (as determined by the
22 Secretary).
23 ‘‘(3) As appropriate, nonprofit and for-profit
24 entities.
1 ‘‘(4) The Association of State and Territorial
2 Health Officials and the National Association of
3 County and City Health Officials.
4 ‘‘(5) The Task Force on Community Preventive
5 Services and the Task Force on Clinical Preventive
6 Services.
7 ‘‘Subtitle C—Prevention Task
8 Forces
9 ‘‘SEC. 3131. TASK FORCE ON CLINICAL PREVENTIVE SERVICES.
11 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through
12 the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and
13 Quality, shall establish a permanent task force to be
14 known as the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services
15 (in this section referred to as the ‘Task Force').
16 ‘‘(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Task Force shall—
17 ‘‘(1) identify clinical preventive services for re18
view;
19 ‘‘(2) review the scientific evidence related to the
20 benefits, effectiveness, appropriateness, and costs of
21 clinical preventive services identified under para22
graph (1) for the purpose of developing, updating,
23 publishing, and disseminating evidence-based rec24
ommendations on the use of such services;
1292
•HR 3962 IH
1 ‘‘(3) as appropriate, take into account health
2 disparities in developing, updating, publishing, and
3 disseminating evidence-based recommendations on
4 the use of such services;
5 ‘‘(4) identify gaps in clinical preventive services
6 research and evaluation and recommend priority
7 areas for such research and evaluation;
8 ‘‘(5) pursuant to section 3143(c), determine
9 whether subsidies and rewards meet the Task
10 Force's standards for a grade of A or B;
11 ‘‘(6) as appropriate, consult with the clinical
12 prevention stakeholders board in accordance with
13 subsection (f);
14 ‘‘(7) consult with the Task Force on Commu15
nity Preventive Services established under section
16 3132; and
17 ‘‘(8) as appropriate, in carrying out this sec18
tion, consider the national strategy under section
19 3121.
20 ‘‘(c) ROLE OF AGENCY.—The Secretary shall provide
21 ongoing administrative, research, and technical support
22 for the operations of the Task Force, including coordi23
nating and supporting the dissemination of the rec24
ommendations of the Task Force.
1294
RESEARCH ON SUBSIDIES AND REWARDS TO
23 ENCOURAGE WELLNESS AND HEALTHY BE24
HAVIORS.
25 ‘‘(a) RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.—
1306
•HR 3962 IH
1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall con2
duct, or award grants to public or nonprofit private
3 entities to conduct, research and demonstration
4 projects on the use of financial and in-kind subsidies
5 and rewards to encourage individuals and commu6
nities to promote wellness, adopt healthy behaviors,
7 and use evidence-based preventive health services.
8 ‘‘(2) FOCUS.—Research and demonstration
9 projects under paragraph (1) shall focus on—
10 ‘‘(A) tobacco use, obesity, and other pre11
vention and wellness priorities identified by the
12 Secretary in the national strategy under section
13 3121;
14 ‘‘(B) the initiation, maintenance, and long15
term sustainability of wellness promotion; adop16
tion of healthy behaviors; and use of evidence17
based preventive health services; and
18 ‘‘(C) populations at high risk of prevent19
able diseases and conditions.
funny, because all European countries have "socialized" / universal medical coverage, yet some of the lowest obesity/sedentary lifestyle rates (much less than us fatty americans)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Obesity_country_comparison_-_path.svg
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
THE UNITED STATES HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD...if u want a surgery in britain u will wait for 10 months to get one..not the case here
My favorite Republican quote is, "Keep your government hands off of my medicare!"... misinformation breeds misinformation which keeps people arguing things like that the U.S. has the best healthcare system in the world and that it takes 10 months to get surgery in the U.K. Strangely, the U.K. is ranked as being better than our own and if you dig into it, it's only some elective surgeries in the U.K. (pay attention to the word elective) that can take up to 4 months to receive. Arguably, I don't know what or how they decide something is elective but I'm sure that elective surgery doesn't include such things as malignant tumors being removed or else how would they be ranked as 18th and the U.S as 37th?
Not in terms of outcome. Our outcomes are amazing. And, anything you THINK you know about infant mortality rates is wrong. The reason our rates are lower than other countries is because of what we report as infant mortality. E.g. anything we even attempt to save, no matter the age, is considered an infant mortality if it dies. In some countries the child must have lived for up to 3 weeks and then die before it can be counted as an infant mortality. One must both learn from and produce statistics responsibly.
Relax. No one even mentioned infant mortality rate. Maybe anything you think is WRONG if I say so otherwise?? How you do know what I think. Maybe I think the same about infant mortality as you do...
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 312
- Reaction score
- 0
Seriously? Peanut123b or whatever, F the republicans? Iwannabeadent liberal like pelosi? Come on guys. Grow up
You just said you believe all the baloney about our healthcare quality standing according to the WHO. It's logical to assume you also agree with the arguments of the leftists spreading the propaganda.
wow, what a joke. I'm just making the point that the U.S. does not have the best healthcare system in the world.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 1
hajibandeh, in your obvious infinite wisdom and eloquence, would you mind explaining why the latest polls show almost HALF of current MD's claiming they will retire after the bill is implemented?! Gee, maybe they would have a better idea than the average blowhard on SDN about this bill? Then explain how adding 30 million people that are currently uninsured into the healthcare system with half of the docs will benefit anything. RATIONING ANYONE? I'm with adrift.
30 percent said they would leave practice early if Obama's health care overhaul passed without a public option – such as the legislation passed by the Senate and now under consideration in the House. Eight percent said they would leave right away, even if they were nowhere close to retirement age.
When physicians were asked if a public option were included in health care reform, 45 percent said they would leave medicine. 21 percent responded, "I would try to leave medical practice even if not near retirement age."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10031916.html
EDIT: Here is what I see happening. Either there will be a sweetener for physicians to make them stay, or the suckers who don't leave are going to be having a lot more difficulty getting out of the hospital at the end of the day.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 520
thanks for the patronization. real professional
According to the New England Journal of Medicine (an actual study done not based on internet polling):
Overall, a majority of physicians (62.9%) supported public and private options (see Panel A of graph). Only 27.3% supported offering private options only. Respondents — across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types — showed majority support (>57.4%) for the inclusion of a public option (see Table 1). Primary care providers were the most likely to support a public option (65.2%); among the other specialty groups, the "other" physicians — those in fields that generally have less regular direct contact with patients, such as radiology, anesthesiology, and nuclear medicine — were the least likely to support a public option, though 57.4% did so. Physicians in every census region showed majority support for a public option, with percentages in favor ranging from 58.9% in the South to 69.7% in the Northeast. Practice owners were less likely than nonowners to support a public option (59.7% vs. 67.1%, P<0.001), but a majority still supported it. Finally, there was also majority support for a public option among AMA members (62.2%).
On one of the most critical elements — expansion of coverage — our study of a national sample of physicians showed that a clear majority support a combined public–private approach to expanding health insurance. <notice that in the below chart, only ~22% directly oppose, while ~18% are unsure>
Full Article: http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790
According to the American Medical Association:
"While the House-passed bill isn't perfect, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good when it comes to something as important as the health of Americans. By extending health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured, improving competition and choice in the insurance marketplace, promoting prevention and wellness, reducing administrative burdens, and promoting clinical comparative effectiveness research, this bill will help patients and the physicians who care for them. There are increased payments for primary care physicians caring for Medicaid patients and bonus payments for physicians in underserved areas."
Full article: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/ama-supports-reform-passage.shtml
Additionally,
AMA Supports House Passage of Health System Reform
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 971
- Reaction score
- 3
From that survey you posted:
Which of the following best describes your overall opinion / support for health reform?
- I support the current proposed legislation – 28.5%
- I support the current proposed legislation minus the public option* – 5.0%
- I support reform but would prefer a different, more incremental approach - 63.0%
- I prefer the status quo – the healthcare system is fine the way it is – 3.6%
Change was supported by an overwhelming majority of physicians. As of today though, the current reform is the only viable way to stop declining health care in this country.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 0
I would like to interject this thought;
We have been told that our health care system (ranked 37th) lags behind other countries and that its effects are apparent in our unhealthy population. This was a major focus this past year as many argued that we spend as much if not more than other nations and yet we have nothing to show for it.
I'd question if it is perhaps the other way around.....it is not that we have a poor system that is inefficient and produces unhealthy people, but rather that we have a sick population to begin with that clogs our system and is overly costly.
I support, as Haji showed, preventative medicine and wellness programs for schools. Do most of you remember recess and PE, a lot of schools have done away with it (besides the point) This is not to say I support the bill since to much of it is class warfare legislation. I'm afraid though that government can do little to change this....as what we truly need is a more motivated, independent, responsible population that looks not to Washington for answers but to themselves.
We have been told that our health care system (ranked 37th) lags behind other countries and that its effects are apparent in our unhealthy population. This was a major focus this past year as many argued that we spend as much if not more than other nations and yet we have nothing to show for it.
I'd question if it is perhaps the other way around.....it is not that we have a poor system that is inefficient and produces unhealthy people, but rather that we have a sick population to begin with that clogs our system and is overly costly.
I support, as Haji showed, preventative medicine and wellness programs for schools. Do most of you remember recess and PE, a lot of schools have done away with it (besides the point) This is not to say I support the bill since to much of it is class warfare legislation. I'm afraid though that government can do little to change this....as what we truly need is a more motivated, independent, responsible population that looks not to Washington for answers but to themselves.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 1
I was looking at it as more of a small business tax, not a personal income tax. According to the ADA, the average general dental practice grosses over $700k, meaning a general practice just lost about another $40k in taxes. That is pretty significant.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 520
i guess that's where my question lies. it says "In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby impose...." I was under the impression that any practicing dentist would register their small business/practice as a corporation, thus this particular section wouldn't apply (though there is obviously some other tax rate that will be charged to a corporation under some other provision). As such, if you (for example) were a practicing GP who's practice grossed 700k, take out 60% overhead and you are taking home (as a wage) 280k. I thought it was the 280k earned as a 'person' that would be subject to a tax, not the gross of your company/corporation, and would just be subject to the current 39.6% tax rate.
Again, i'm not really sure, but it would be interesting to know how the taxes would pan out specifically in different scenarios and where the exemptions lie. any thoughts?
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 1
hajibandeh,
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199
"The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby the powerful American Medical Association both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul"
"Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul."
"It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform.""
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=11156&id=54994
An op ed you might learn something from...
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/se...16/obamacare-driving-doctors-out-of-medicine/
And yet another...
http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus-media-survey-reveals-impact-health-reform
What many people may not realize is that health reform could impact physician supply in such a way that the quality of health care could suffer, said Steve Marsh, managing partner at The Medicus Firm in Dallas. The reality is that there may not be enough doctors to provide quality medical care to the millions of newly insured patients.
"Why would physicians want to leave medicine in the wake of health reform? The survey results, as seen in Market Watch, indicate that many physicians worry that reform could result in a significant decline in the overall quality of medical care nationwide. "
"What does this mean for physician recruiting? Its difficult to predict with absolute certainty, but one consequence is inevitable. After health reform is passed and implemented, physicians will be more in demand than ever before. Shortages could be exacerbated further beyond the predictions of industry analysts. Therefore, the strongest physician recruiters and firms will be in demand. Additionally, hospitals and practices may be forced to rely on unprecedented recruitment methods to attract and retain physicians. Health reform, even if its passed in a most diluted form, could be a game-changer for physician recruitment, said Bob Collins, managing partner of The Medicus Firm in Texas. As competitive as the market is now, we may not even be able to comprehend how challenging it will become after health reform takes effect.
So... with medicine becoming a less attractive career path for our brightest and best, it will become tougher to recruit MD's. INCREASING the shortage of doctors in the field. On top of the doctors who have already left because of this entitlement disaster!
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199
"The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby the powerful American Medical Association both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul"
"Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul."
"It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform.""
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=11156&id=54994
An op ed you might learn something from...
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/se...16/obamacare-driving-doctors-out-of-medicine/
And yet another...
http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus-media-survey-reveals-impact-health-reform
What many people may not realize is that health reform could impact physician supply in such a way that the quality of health care could suffer, said Steve Marsh, managing partner at The Medicus Firm in Dallas. The reality is that there may not be enough doctors to provide quality medical care to the millions of newly insured patients.
"Why would physicians want to leave medicine in the wake of health reform? The survey results, as seen in Market Watch, indicate that many physicians worry that reform could result in a significant decline in the overall quality of medical care nationwide. "
"What does this mean for physician recruiting? Its difficult to predict with absolute certainty, but one consequence is inevitable. After health reform is passed and implemented, physicians will be more in demand than ever before. Shortages could be exacerbated further beyond the predictions of industry analysts. Therefore, the strongest physician recruiters and firms will be in demand. Additionally, hospitals and practices may be forced to rely on unprecedented recruitment methods to attract and retain physicians. Health reform, even if its passed in a most diluted form, could be a game-changer for physician recruitment, said Bob Collins, managing partner of The Medicus Firm in Texas. As competitive as the market is now, we may not even be able to comprehend how challenging it will become after health reform takes effect.
So... with medicine becoming a less attractive career path for our brightest and best, it will become tougher to recruit MD's. INCREASING the shortage of doctors in the field. On top of the doctors who have already left because of this entitlement disaster!
White House = the most biased source of info on the topic you can find.
AMA = 200,000 members, a large chunk of which are medical students. They are NOT representative of the general population of physicians. The AMA is a joke, I threw away my application and I know I'm not the only one.
That's irrelevant. That's a philosophical questions. What these doctors were asked is if they would leave because of THIS BILL! They said yes in striking numbers. (Although I highly doubt they'll actually leave in numbers like that).
Similar threads
