Let me be the first to welcome ...

[bkpa2med]

---

Members do not see this ad.

 

[bravotwozero]

eh, time will tell.

 

[Boner]

I think a lot of people on SDN either don't understand what socialized medicine is, or don't understand the Obama health care plan. Whatever the case, it is pretty sad considering most people get their info from the pundits and ads, rather than going staright to the source.


FAQs

Entire plan

 

[andexterouss]

I think a lot of people on SDN either don't understand what socialized medicine is, or don't understand the Obama health care plan. Whatever the case, it is pretty sad considering most people get their info from the pundits and ads, rather than going staright to the source.


FAQs

Entire plan

Pay no mind to those folks. They are motivated fear by rather than reason. "socialist", "communist" ,"terrorist supporter", "negro lover" ,"feminist" buzzwords has worked wonders for the Republican Party for a long time. Obama's landslide victory hopefully signals that reason and intellect are gaining ground.

 

[jp104]

Pay no mind to those folks. They are motivated fear by rather than reason. "socialist", "communist" ,"terrorist supporter", "negro lover" ,"feminist" buzzwords has worked wonders for the Republican Party for a long time. Obama's landslide victory hopefully signals that reason and intellect are gaining ground.

I don't think it's fair to paint the OP as racist just because he's concerned about universal health care.

 

[homeboy]

Pay no mind to those folks. They are motivated fear by rather than reason. "socialist", "communist" ,"terrorist supporter", "negro lover" ,"feminist" buzzwords has worked wonders for the Republican Party for a long time. Obama's landslide victory hopefully signals that reason and intellect are gaining ground.

Keep in mind words like "socialist" and "communist" are words that stretch WAY beyond the current republican party, and are used by people of that persuasion all the time. Bill Ayers readily admits he's a socialist and calls himself a "small 'c' communist."

 

[andexterouss]

I don't think it's fair to paint the OP as racist just because he's concerned about universal health care.

Huh? How did you make that inference from my post? I was pointing out how the Republican Party using those words to stir up fear in people . "Negro lover" was used in the 50's and 60's for Jim Crow. "Socialism" and" communism" was used to great effect in the 80s and is now making a come back.The OP's concern about socialized medicine is bored out of unfounded fear not facts.
The term "socialized medicine" does not apply Obama's healthcare plan at all else the term "socialism" loses its definition.Those interested in his healthcare plan can go to his website to see what it stipulates but I'm not going to try posting it here since some will refuse to accept regardless.

 

[andexterouss]

Keep in mind words like "socialist" and "communist" are words that stretch WAY beyond the current republican party, and are used by people of that persuasion all the time. Bill Ayers readily admits he's a socialist and calls himself a "small 'c' communist."

Regardless of who uses it, we should be cautious about its meaning. And not allow ourselves to used as part of propaganda.

 

[jp104]

Huh? How did you make that inference from my post? I was pointing out how the Republican Party using those words to stir up fear in people . "Negro lover" was used in the 50's and 60's for Jim Crow. "Socialism" and" communism" was used to great effect in the 80s and is now making a come back.The OP's concern about socialized medicine is bored out of unfounded fear not facts.
The term "socialized medicine" does not apply Obama's healthcare plan at all else the term "socialism" loses its definition.Those interested in his healthcare plan can go to his website to see what it stipulates but I'm not going to try posting it here since some will refuse to accept regardless.

You associated the OP with the republican party ("Pay no mind to these people...etc") and then associated the republican party with "fear and ignorance".....It just seems like a slight against the OP.

Personally, I don't have an opinion on this matter either way (that I am willing to share on a public board 😉 ) but I just didn't think it was fair to paint with such a broad brush.

 

[andexterouss]

You associated the OP with the republican party ("Pay no mind to these people...etc") and then associated the republican party with "fear and ignorance".....It just seems like a slight against the OP.

Personally, I don't have an opinion on this matter either way (that I am willing to share on a public board 😉 ) but I just didn't think it was fair to paint with such a broad brush.

"Pay no mind to these people": People that allow fear to control them. They are not necessarily republicans only. They can be the average Joe or even democrats.

"Associated the republican party with fear and ignorance": True. For the past 50 years the Republican Party has used fear tactics to win votes; Obama is "Muslim", "Hussien" "too radical" "not patriotic"etc. Not all republicans are guilty of this but the PARTY itself has used this as a major vehicle.

I don't think the OP is a racist even if my post was misread.🙂

 

[jp104]

"Pay no mind to these people": People that allow fear to control them. They are not necessarily republicans only. They can be the average Joe or even democrats.

"Associated the republican party with fear and ignorance": True. For the past 50 years the Republican Party has used fear tactics to win votes; Obama is "Muslim", "Hussien" "too radical" "not patriotic"etc. Not all republicans are guilty of this but the PARTY itself has used this as a major vehicle.

I don't think the OP is a racist even if my post was misread.🙂

My mistake then, I misread your statements 🙂

PS: good luck on your interview at NYCOM tomorrow 👍

 

[homeboy]

Regardless of who uses it, we should be cautious about its meaning. And not allow ourselves to used as part of propaganda.

I don't see what's so confusing about the meaning of socialist principles: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Socialism doesn't have to come in the form of a malicious murderous regime...it comes in the form of a belief that the COLLECTIVE good trumps the INDIVIDUAL good.

Like Richard Weaver said:
The past shows unvaryingly that when a people's freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all.

 

[homeboy]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

 

[andexterouss]

My mistake then, I misread your statements 🙂

PS: good luck on your interview at NYCOM tomorrow 👍

Thanks! Any last minute tips for the interview?😀

 

[Relativity]

Yeah I totally agree. I am tired of paying taxes for the same police and fire departments.I make more, I pay more, I deserve better service. Let those high crime and danger area population die and burn to the ground.

I dont want the same services as others, I want better.

Fifty million uninsured, who cares, I dont want to pay for them scumbs.

Being a doctor is about getting paid, know what I mean. I refuse to take less money or care so joe scumb can pay for his grandma's cancer.

America is about capitalism in all areas. I can't wait until they start charging for air we breathe cause you know I am gonna get 100% O2 stuff while the low lives will be breathing that diluted ****.

Its all about me me me me me me me me me me . Get the pictures, you socialist devils!👍

 

[theKirk]

joe scumb can pay for his grandma's cancer.
👍

I want joe scumb to pay for his grandma's cancer. But where I'm from, Joe scumb lives next to 3-4 Sally Shut-In's who can't wait for their check "they deserve" so they can buy more cigarettes.

I want to help my fellow man. I want hardworking people to get what they deserve. I want fairness and justice.
But reality check:
1) Mankind isn't inherently good. The bad apples are plentiful.
2) the system is broken and I don't want to pump more money into it.


(I think Obama is awesome, before you bash, but I've been simply asking both candidates HOW. HOW is this change gonna happen? Because both of the answers I was getting ain't gonna do it.)

 

[DannMann99]

isn't that absurdly drastic? No one wants anyone to die from cancer. I think the thought process is more like...

I've worked my ass off in highschool to get into a good college.
I've worked my ass off in college to get into med school.
I busted my ass on an 8 hour exam.
I did tons of community service for free...
I got in!
Now I have to bust my ass in med school.
Now I get to do a residency and i'm getting paid 30,000$...

15-20 years later... after working SO GOD DAMN HARD. I'll be able to start paying off some loans. It's been a long road huh.

After all of that. Do you really believe you should make as much as say a school teacher?

Do you?

If you are so altruistic doesn't the fact that you gave up 20 years of your life, and 200,000$ to get where you are play at all into how you view society.

I like to drink. But you don't see me giving up on life because I enjoy hanging in a bar.

I'm working as hard as I can to make something of myself. Why should I have to share that with anyone... let alone someone who is not working at all.

 

[homeboy]

Yeah I totally agree. I am tired of paying taxes for the same police and fire departments.I make more, I pay more, I deserve better service. Let those high crime and danger area population die and burn to the ground. :

There's a DIFFERENCE between paying taxes for services we ALL receive under equal protection of the laws, and providing cradle to grave services for EVERY aspect of our life.

No one decrying the disparity of taxes is demanding MORE services you tool--you're completely missing the point, and you're going completely over the top in a lame attempt to prove some abstract notion that capitalist = evil. Pathetic.

I dont want the same services as others, I want better.

Fifty million uninsured, who cares, I dont want to pay for them scumbs.:

We all care, but that DOESN'T mean we're going to pay every cent of EVERYONE'S health care. Where do we draw the line? Dental? Optometry exams? All radiographic studies needed?...only a few a year? Every chemo drug out there? All of this for free if you make less than $50k?

Give me a break.

Being a doctor is about getting paid, know what I mean. I refuse to take less money or care so joe scumb can pay for his grandma's cancer.:

Being a doctor isn't about getting paid, but from your pathetic pre-med existence, you have no appreciation of working for a living and seeing 50-cents of every dollar taken by the government under the auspices of FAIRNESS.

Grow up.

America is about capitalism in all areas. I can't wait until they start charging for air we breathe cause you know I am gonna get 100% O2 stuff while the low lives will be breathing that diluted ****.

Its all about me me me me me me me me me me . Get the pictures, you socialist devils!👍

Individualism does not equate to egotism, and maybe if you've read something besides Obama's website you'd learn some history and compare the capitalistic societies to the social ones.

 

[bkpa2med]

homeboy,

Great job! I agree with you 100%. What I don't get is why are people looking for socialism in a capitalistic nation? Relativity should move to the UK or Canada and enjoy it there.

 

[homeboy]

homeboy,

Great job! I agree with you 100%. What I don't get is why are people looking for socialism in a capitalistic nation? Relativity should move to the UK or Canada and enjoy it there.

Because it's not "socialism" to them...it's their American birthright, and they're oblivious to the fact that socialism doesn't always present in the form of black-boots and brown shirts.

That's why I love this quote, and I'll post it for the 2nd time:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

 

[Relativity]

My whole point was that health-care like food, water, shelter, fire department and police department is right that everyone deserves.

Give me a break homeboy, acting like you know me. My single mother has worked for 20+ years making less than 20,000. I have worked through out highschool, college paying for my tuition. Its good to see you take cheap shots. If you dont like my point just disagree and state your reasons.

DannMann, I see your point, respect it, but disagree with some aspects.

Just because there is universal health-care that doesnt mean doctors make 30 thousand or less. They still make way above average in most countries with universal health-care.

Early prevention is the biggest problem in our country because many uninsured people wait until something serious develops to go to the hospital. We live in a globalized world, somethings may work at one time and not another. We have to learn from other countries on different aspects of government. If europe and other countries hadn't ended slavery first, we probably would have never followed.

 

[bkpa2med]

Dude health insurance is not a right of any American citizen. Americans have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, NOT health insurance.

Look up the thread under the ER forum --> Healthcare a right?

 

[homeboy]

My whole point was that health-care like food, water, shelter, fire department and police department is right that everyone deserves.

Give me a break homeboy, acting like you know me. My single mother has worked for 20+ years making less than 20,000. I have worked through out highschool, college paying for my tuition. Its good to see you take cheap shots. If you dont like my point just disagree and state your reasons.

DannMann, I see your point, respect it, but disagree with some aspects.

Just because there is universal health-care that doesnt mean doctors make 30 thousand or less. They still make way above average in most countries with universal health-care.

Early prevention is the biggest problem in our country because many uninsured people wait until something serious develops to go to the hospital. We live in a globalized world, somethings may work at one time and not another. We have to learn from other countries on different aspects of government. If europe and other countries hadn't ended slavery first, we probably would have never followed.

I've been stating my reasons the whole time!! You're the one throwing the incendiary crap! Geez, read your last post!

Look, if your entire point is that healthcare is a RIGHT equivalent to food, shelter, etc. , I have to disagree with you, and so do most Americans.

I'll state it again: to WHAT extent should the govt assume responsibility for your care? What aspects of medicine / dental / eye care should the govt be responsible for...all of it?

You have NO idea what socialized medicine means other than what you hear about Europe and Canada. That's what makes America America: we don't follow suit with the transient pressure of the times.

And just because certain portions of society have adopted progressive stances and social doctrines, doesn't mean the Federal govt is required to humor them.

 

[bkpa2med]

I've been stating my reasons the whole time!! You're the one throwing the incendiary crap! Geez, read your last post!

Look, if your entire point is that healthcare is a RIGHT equivalent to food, shelter, etc. , I have to disagree with you, and so do most Americans.

I'll state it again: to WHAT extent should the govt assume responsibility for your care? What aspects of medicine / dental / eye care should the govt be responsible for...all of it?

You have NO idea what socialized medicine means other than what you hear about Europe and Canada. That's what makes America America: we don't follow suit with the transient pressure of the times.

And just because certain portions of society have adopted progressive stances and social doctrines, doesn't mean the Federal govt is required to humor them.

 

[DC DOC]

I've been stating my reasons the whole time!! You're the one throwing the incendiary crap! Geez, read your last post!

Look, if your entire point is that healthcare is a RIGHT equivalent to food, shelter, etc. , I have to disagree with you, and so do most Americans.

I'll state it again: to WHAT extent should the govt assume responsibility for your care? What aspects of medicine / dental / eye care should the govt be responsible for...all of it?

You have NO idea what socialized medicine means other than what you hear about Europe and Canada. That's what makes America America: we don't follow suit with the transient pressure of the times.

And just because certain portions of society have adopted progressive stances and social doctrines, doesn't mean the Federal govt is required to humor them.

From the apparent turnout of the past presidential election, I might have to disagree with you on this one. It appears most Americans believe it to be a right, not a privilege.

 

[Cp22kjer]

Look, if your entire point is that healthcare is a RIGHT equivalent to food, shelter, etc. , I have to disagree with you, and so do most Americans.

And now we have millions without any healthcare. I hope most Americans see it as more than just a privilege at this point.

I agree with you mostly but the principle of this sucks for those who cannot afford it.

 

[homeboy]

From the apparent turnout of the past presidential election, I might have to disagree with you on this one. It appears most Americans believe it to be a right, not a privilege.

Que?

Health care is neither a HUMAN right, nor an American right, the first because it explicitly depends on the skills, knowledge, training, and availability of another human being to deliver, the latter because it's not explicitly outlined in our constitution. That's not to suggest we shouldn't help those in need, whether here or in Africa, Asia or wherever. But the notion that we are BOUND by our simple human nature to privide food, water, shelter, health care, etc, to every man, woman and child completely ignores the reality that such an undertaking is impossible. If people LIVE in a society or country where health care is deemed a responsibility of the State, that's fine. But it's NOT the theme of America and NOT implicit of our constitution.

Listen, it wasn't until the PRICE of healthcare started to rise that people started saying, "Hey, wait a minute...maybe the govt should pay for this since I can't afford it."

That's not an argument that healthcare is a RIGHT akin to food, shelter, etc...and if anything merely speaks to the QUALITY and BREADTH of care medicine can offer people. Doctors have always been well paid, but we haven't always been able to offer MRIs, $50k chemo drugs, organ transplants, etc.

The technology and scope of medicine have advanced at an exponential rate, and being that companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars into developing these new technologies, they consequently charge hundreds of millions of dollars for their use.

That, coupled with the RIDICULOUS gouging from middle men--there are SO many administrators, efficiency pencil pushers and insurance companies that have their hands in the system that we don't practice medicine anymore, we follow the medical cookbook, and our job depends on it.

I'm not saying I have a great solution that will solve everything, but having the government assume responsibility for your health care is not the right answer.

It would be the same thing with gas: if gas shot up to $10 / gallon, people would declare unleaded gasoline a right also. Having the government simply pay for your health care doesn't address the core of the issue.

 

[Relativity]

Que?

Health care is neither a HUMAN right, nor an American right, the first because it explicitly depends on the skills, knowledge, training, and availability of another human being to deliver, the latter because it's not explicitly outlined in our constitution. That's not to suggest we shouldn't help those in need, whether here or in Africa, Asia or wherever. But the notion that we are BOUND by our simple human nature to privide food, water, shelter, health care, etc, to every man, woman and child completely ignores the reality that such an undertaking is impossible. If people LIVE in a society or country where health care is deemed a responsibility of the State, that's fine. But it's NOT the theme of America and NOT implicit of our constitution.

Listen, it wasn't until the PRICE of healthcare started to rise that people started saying, "Hey, wait a minute...maybe the govt should pay for this since I can't afford it."

That's not an argument that healthcare is a RIGHT akin to food, shelter, etc...and if anything merely speaks to the QUALITY and BREADTH of care medicine can offer people. Doctors have always been well paid, but we haven't always been able to offer MRIs, $50k chemo drugs, organ transplants, etc.

The technology and scope of medicine have advanced at an exponential rate, and being that companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars into developing these new technologies, they consequently charge hundreds of millions of dollars for their use.

That, coupled with the RIDICULOUS gouging from middle men--there are SO many administrators, efficiency pencil pushers and insurance companies that have their hands in the system that we don't practice medicine anymore, we follow the medical cookbook, and our job depends on it.

I'm not saying I have a great solution that will solve everything, but having the government assume responsibility for your health care is not the right answer.

It would be the same thing with gas: if gas shot up to $10 / gallon, people would declare unleaded gasoline a right also. Having the government simply pay for your health care doesn't address the core of the issue.

So does public schools(primary and secondary), clean water, fire department, and police department!.

With high gas prices, people always have options; find work closer to home, take the bus, train or walk.

If someone can't buy health insurance or their work doesn't provide health insurance, they have no other options usually. 50 million uninsured is a huge issue for me, maybe not for others. I want to help those people, even if my current wealth or future wealth depends on it.

I like how everybody is talking about the constituition like its the bible and set in stone. Everything has to change eventually, if not for the better than worse. I find universal health care a solution, worth a try, since what we got isnt working well. If something better comes along, I will humor it.

 

[Relativity]

Que?

Health care is neither a HUMAN right, nor an American right, the first because it explicitly depends on the skills, knowledge, training, and availability of another human being to deliver, the latter because it's not explicitly outlined in our constitution. That's not to suggest we shouldn't help those in need, whether here or in Africa, Asia or wherever. But the notion that we are BOUND by our simple human nature to privide food, water, shelter, health care, etc, to every man, woman and child completely ignores the reality that such an undertaking is impossible. If people LIVE in a society or country where health care is deemed a responsibility of the State, that's fine. But it's NOT the theme of America and NOT implicit of our constitution.

Listen, it wasn't until the PRICE of healthcare started to rise that people started saying, "Hey, wait a minute...maybe the govt should pay for this since I can't afford it."

That's not an argument that healthcare is a RIGHT akin to food, shelter, etc...and if anything merely speaks to the QUALITY and BREADTH of care medicine can offer people. Doctors have always been well paid, but we haven't always been able to offer MRIs, $50k chemo drugs, organ transplants, etc.

The technology and scope of medicine have advanced at an exponential rate, and being that companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars into developing these new technologies, they consequently charge hundreds of millions of dollars for their use.

That, coupled with the RIDICULOUS gouging from middle men--there are SO many administrators, efficiency pencil pushers and insurance companies that have their hands in the system that we don't practice medicine anymore, we follow the medical cookbook, and our job depends on it.

I'm not saying I have a great solution that will solve everything, but having the government assume responsibility for your health care is not the right answer.

It would be the same thing with gas: if gas shot up to $10 / gallon, people would declare unleaded gasoline a right also. Having the government simply pay for your health care doesn't address the core of the issue.

So does public schools(primary and secondary), clean water, fire department, police department!.

With high gas prices people always have options find work closer to home, take the bus, train or walk.

If someone can't buy health insurance or their work doesn't provide health insurance, they have no other options usually. 50 million uninsured is a huge issue for me, maybe not for others.I want to help those people, even if my current wealth or future wealth depends on it.

I like how everybody is talking about the constituition like its the bible and set in stone. Everything has to change eventually, if not for the better than worse. I find universal health care a solution, worth a try, since what we got isnt working well. If something better comes along, I will humor it.

 

[theKirk]

I find universal health care a solution, worth a try, since what we got isnt working well. If something better comes along, I will humor it.

The problem is, THAT is a flawed system too. Ask any Canadian. When Govt runs the show, they have to cost-contain. They run things onthe cheap.
(which will likely mean limited access to healthcare even though it's free and of course lower wages for docs, nurses, staff, etc.)

People wait months to see a doctor in Canada. Free, yes, but access is much worse. Plus technologies will be of limited use to cost-contain:
My buddy who grew up in Canada always joked "growing up, the saying always went 'dont' break your arm on Thursday, because Wednesday was X-Ray day!'"

His mother actually needed a questionable mass removed from her breast, but ended up on a year and half waiting list b/c her tumor was considered "potential malignancy no malignant." So it was deemed that she had to wait.
What did they do? Sold things and raised money and came to the US so she could have it removed.

So, Joe Scumb's cancer mother (see above posts) may die waiting on her free healthcare - all depends on if the Govt says she's a priority or not.

That's right, it may be free, but Uncle Sam is now your triage nurse. I'd bring a book if I were you.

 

[sexyman]

Homebody-

It is a lonely world is it not?

I am glad there is someone out there who values FREEDOM and LIBERTY and does not worship the "WE".

 

[DannMann99]

I'm just wondering if that means we can get rid of affirmative action...

I mean... Really, this is getting kind of bogus.

 

[theKirk]

Homebody-

It is a lonely world is it not?

I am glad there is someone out there who values FREEDOM and LIBERTY and does not worship the "WE".

Dude check my grades. I worship the "Wii" too much obviously.

 

[homeboy]

So does public schools(primary and secondary), clean water, fire department, and police department!.

With high gas prices, people always have options; find work closer to home, take the bus, train or walk.

If someone can't buy health insurance or their work doesn't provide health insurance, they have no other options usually. 50 million uninsured is a huge issue for me, maybe not for others. I want to help those people, even if my current wealth or future wealth depends on it.

But that doesn't make those things HUMAN rights!!! Moreover, those are LOCAL services, not services provided by the FEDERAL government.

NO ONE is saying you can't help those uninsured, but the belief that EVERYONE is required to pay for EVERYONE else is ridiculous.

And have you ever broken down the #'s to examine how many of those 50 million uninsured are genuinely uninsured? The states already have a means to provide for economically troubled: it's called medicaid. When you discount from the 50 million those that a.) are in between jobs, b.) qualify for Medicaid but don't take it, c.) are just ******ed, and d.) are illegal immigrants, the # is closer to 25 million.

I like how everybody is talking about the constituition like its the bible and set in stone.

It is set in stone you *****.
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous--this is BASIC high school history & political science, buddy. The constitution is not an evolving document that morphs with the prevailing wings of change. That's EXACTLY why it's a CONSTITUTION!

 

[psy]

And how many of those uninsured are people who op not get healthcare from their employer so they can send an extra 100 dollars back home to mexico (russia, china, etc) every month?

 

[bkpa2med]

 

[psy]

So instead of Stone, it's set in an old piece of paper. 😆

 

[USArmyDoc]

So does public schools(primary and secondary), clean water, fire department, police department!.

With high gas prices people always have options find work closer to home, take the bus, train or walk.

If someone can't buy health insurance or their work doesn't provide health insurance, they have no other options usually. 50 million uninsured is a huge issue for me, maybe not for others.I want to help those people, even if my current wealth or future wealth depends on it.

I like how everybody is talking about the constituition like its the bible and set in stone. Everything has to change eventually, if not for the better than worse. I find universal health care a solution, worth a try, since what we got isnt working well. If something better comes along, I will humor it.

I hate using this line and try to avoid from doing it. However, you are a pre-medical student that does not understand the amount of work we do to get where we are. Eventually you will and it may change your feelings.

Socialized health care will not work and it will not be implemented, but nonetheless I find him to be nauseating. He does not deserve to be president, but since he is we need to accept him. I pray he doesn't get his way.

From what I understand, he wants to implement something similar to Hawaii where all kids were provided with health care. It turned out that the rich dropped their insurance plans so they didn't have to pay for it. The program flopped in 7 months.

 

[USArmyDoc]

This worries me though. You have Relativity who is not even a medical student advocating Obama's health plan. I am sorry his mother only makes $20,000 a year. That stinks, but why should we be penalized for what has happened to her for whatever reason. My friend told me that someone said that we as doctors have a duty to pay more taxes. This just infuriates me. I think its everyone's duty to get off their ***** and get a college degree giving them better opportunities. They want to tax people who make more money and now they want to do this to doctors. So, they want to tax us and then hurt our income b/c some people are lacking the ability to provide for themselves.

I am looking to see how this class warefare turns out b/c that is what is will become.

 

[Relativity]

But that doesn't make those things HUMAN rights!!! Moreover, those are LOCAL services, not services provided by the FEDERAL government.

NO ONE is saying you can't help those uninsured, but the belief that EVERYONE is required to pay for EVERYONE else is ridiculous.

And have you ever broken down the #'s to examine how many of those 50 million uninsured are genuinely uninsured? The states already have a means to provide for economically troubled: it's called medicaid. When you discount from the 50 million those that a.) are in between jobs, b.) qualify for Medicaid but don't take it, c.) are just ******ed, and d.) are illegal immigrants, the # is closer to 25 million.


It is set in stone you *****.
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous--this is BASIC high school history & political science, buddy. The constitution is not an evolving document that morphs with the prevailing wings of change. That's EXACTLY why it's a CONSTITUTION!

I really didn't feel like doing this but I gots to put in check, homeboy. Thanks for calling me a *****! Here is part of the constitution's article 5.

Article V

Changing the Constitution The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Changing the Constitution

Congress can call a convention to propose making changes to this Constitution at any time when two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives agree or when two-thirds of the state legislatures agree. Any ratified amendments will become legitimate parts of this Constitution, whether ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states, whichever Congress proposes. Amendments ratified before 1808 can’t change Article 1, Section 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of this Constitution. Amendments can’t take away a state’s equal representation in the Senate without the consent of that state.


It’s clear you don’t like to read, only talk from your *** like Ace Ventura. That’s why our country rocks because we have a living constitution, *****.

PM me sometimes, I will teach other things as well especially manners, you insensitive hypocrite...and you’re the resident!

 

[Relativity]

But that doesn't make those things HUMAN rights!!! Moreover, those are LOCAL services, not services provided by the FEDERAL government.

NO ONE is saying you can't help those uninsured, but the belief that EVERYONE is required to pay for EVERYONE else is ridiculous.

And have you ever broken down the #'s to examine how many of those 50 million uninsured are genuinely uninsured? The states already have a means to provide for economically troubled: it's called medicaid. When you discount from the 50 million those that a.) are in between jobs, b.) qualify for Medicaid but don't take it, c.) are just ******ed, and d.) are illegal immigrants, the # is closer to 25 million.


It is set in stone you *****.
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous--this is BASIC high school history & political science, buddy. The constitution is not an evolving document that morphs with the prevailing wings of change. That's EXACTLY why it's a CONSTITUTION!

I really didn't feel like doing this but I gots to put in check, homeboy. Thanks for calling me a *****! Here is part of the constitution's article 5.

Article V

Changing the Constitution The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Changing the Constitution

Congress can call a convention to propose making changes to this Constitution at any time when two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives agree or when two-thirds of the state legislatures agree. Any ratified amendments will become legitimate parts of this Constitution, whether ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states, whichever Congress proposes. Amendments ratified before 1808 can’t change Article 1, Section 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of this Constitution. Amendments can’t take away a state’s equal representation in the Senate without the consent of that state.


It’s clear you don’t like to read, only talk from your *** like Ace Ventura. That’s why our country rocks because we have a living constitution, *****.

PM me sometimes, I will teach other things as well especially manners, you insensitive hypocrite...and you’re the resident!

 

[USArmyDoc]

You are unbelievable..you are a nobody. All you want is money for mommy b/c she didn't/couldn't get a meaningful job. People don't work so other people, like your mother, can feed off of us.

Go study for the MCAT

I really didn't feel like doing this but I gots to put in check, homeboy. Thanks for calling me a *****! Here is part of the constitution's article 5.

Article V

Changing the Constitution The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Changing the Constitution

Congress can call a convention to propose making changes to this Constitution at any time when two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives agree or when two-thirds of the state legislatures agree. Any ratified amendments will become legitimate parts of this Constitution, whether ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states, whichever Congress proposes. Amendments ratified before 1808 can’t change Article 1, Section 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of this Constitution. Amendments can’t take away a state’s equal representation in the Senate without the consent of that state.


It’s clear you don’t like to read, only talk from your *** like Ace Ventura. That’s why our country rocks because we have a living constitution, *****.

PM me sometimes, I will teach other things as well especially manners, you insensitive hypocrite...and you’re the resident!

 

[homeboy]

I really didn't feel like doing this but I gots to put in check, homeboy. Thanks for calling me a *****! Here is part of the constitution's article 5.

Article V

Changing the Constitution The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Changing the Constitution

Congress can call a convention to propose making changes to this Constitution at any time when two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives agree or when two-thirds of the state legislatures agree. Any ratified amendments will become legitimate parts of this Constitution, whether ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states, whichever Congress proposes. Amendments ratified before 1808 can't change Article 1, Section 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of this Constitution. Amendments can't take away a state's equal representation in the Senate without the consent of that state.


It's clear you don't like to read, only talk from your *** like Ace Ventura. That's why our country rocks because we have a living constitution, *****.

PM me sometimes, I will teach other things as well especially manners, you insensitive hypocrite...and you're the resident!

You can ratify and make Amendments to the Constitution, but the premise of the doctine is non-changing: that the individual sets the tone for his/he life, not the Federal government, and whatever rights are not expressly identified as being Congressional rights are guaranteed to the people. Making an Amendment is not on par with changing the manner in which the Constitution is interpreted, which is what I was referring to if you would have followed the logic from previous posts.

Article V of the Constitution is not something taken lightly, and if you consider the difficulty required to make an Amendment, you see that only on RARE circumstances will 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, and 3/4 of state legislatures, agree on changing it.

Don't talk to me like you studied constitutional law, or like you're somehow "putting the smack down" by looking up the Constitution on Wikipedia. That's kinda pathetic. Copy n pasting from Wiki or whatever Googled-site you found doesn't imply any great literally skills on your part.

My point was, and still is, that the basis of the Constitution is not something that can simply change on a whim (with the prevailing times), and requires great lengths to make any additions.

A "living constitution" is an interpretation that activist judges subscribe to and not something generally accepted by most people.

Your entire premise is that healthcare is a right. It is not, and the constitution will never "guarantee" healthcare as a right via an AMENDMENT. If anything, they'll just use the 16th Amendment as a means to collect enough taxes to provide for healthcare. Which is what I'm objecting to.
The Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) are specific outlines LIMITING the government's intrusion into the individual's life, and limiting power of govt, not mandating that the government provide necessities of life for each citizen. (and there's certainly plenty of evidence to show that not all amendments are improvements, eg. prohibition)

I understand your compassion, and many can sympathize with similar compassion, but the notion that egalitarian compassion is the foundation of the Constitution is completely wrong, regardless of how compassionately-pleasant it sounds. Sure there are things that govt provides for the general welfare: fire dept, police, garbage service, water, etc... But these are services provided by local governments, and not something guaranteed by our Federal laws. Moreover, our state & property taxes subsidize them, as they do Medicaid (with matching funds provided by the federal govt)

I, and others against social medicine, are not arguing against helping people, nor are we arguing that we cut the cord to already existing programs. Most fair-minded people agree that as a society we can afford to offer a baseline level of care to those who truly can't afford it (as a compromise). But the key word is baseline, and the understanding that it's a small number of people that truly are in bad situations where they can't help but require assistance.

We've gotten to a point in society where it's expected the govt should have to pay for certain things because people don't want to allocate any portion of their income to something they can get for free. I recognize the unfairness of life, and that bad things happen to good people, but it's not the govt's job to be the arbiter of fairness out of some utopian notion that if we all chip in, the world can be a better place. It can be a better place, but not by force.

 

[DannMann99]

I know how he wants to help the economy...

reparations

 

[DC DOC]

Que?

Health care is neither a HUMAN right, nor an American right, the first because it explicitly depends on the skills, knowledge, training, and availability of another human being to deliver, the latter because it's not explicitly outlined in our constitution. That's not to suggest we shouldn't help those in need, whether here or in Africa, Asia or wherever. But the notion that we are BOUND by our simple human nature to privide food, water, shelter, health care, etc, to every man, woman and child completely ignores the reality that such an undertaking is impossible. If people LIVE in a society or country where health care is deemed a responsibility of the State, that's fine. But it's NOT the theme of America and NOT implicit of our constitution.

Listen, it wasn't until the PRICE of healthcare started to rise that people started saying, "Hey, wait a minute...maybe the govt should pay for this since I can't afford it."

That's not an argument that healthcare is a RIGHT akin to food, shelter, etc...and if anything merely speaks to the QUALITY and BREADTH of care medicine can offer people. Doctors have always been well paid, but we haven't always been able to offer MRIs, $50k chemo drugs, organ transplants, etc.

The technology and scope of medicine have advanced at an exponential rate, and being that companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars into developing these new technologies, they consequently charge hundreds of millions of dollars for their use.

That, coupled with the RIDICULOUS gouging from middle men--there are SO many administrators, efficiency pencil pushers and insurance companies that have their hands in the system that we don't practice medicine anymore, we follow the medical cookbook, and our job depends on it.

I'm not saying I have a great solution that will solve everything, but having the government assume responsibility for your health care is not the right answer.

It would be the same thing with gas: if gas shot up to $10 / gallon, people would declare unleaded gasoline a right also. Having the government simply pay for your health care doesn't address the core of the issue.

First of all I never argued that it was a right, I just stated that the majority of Americans believe that it is a right, correcting what you had previously posted.

And comparing health care and gas just does not work. I can walk to school or work, but I cannot remove my appendix. Your argument has good points and there are things that I agree with, but I see your idea of health care getting us nowhere, and having "us" assume responsibility is not working. Greed takes over, and we need someone that can regulate, what you yourself pointed out, "the administrators, efficiency pencil pushers and insurance companies that have their hands in the system". No one is doing anything about it and I believe that is why Americans represented themselves and voted for something that was different, even though it carried with it a bit of risk, it still happened. People want a different way of handling things, and it is not solely the people that are looking for a hand out. It is the majority of America.

 

[homeboy]

...but I see your idea of health care getting us nowhere, and having "us" assume responsibility is not working. Greed takes over, and we need someone that can regulate, what you yourself pointed out, "the administrators, efficiency pencil pushers and insurance companies that have their hands in the system". No one is doing anything about it and I believe that is why Americans represented themselves and voted for something that was different, even though it carried with it a bit of risk...

Throwing the baby out with the bath water is not smart politics. What is easier: patching an already existing, deeply invested, extremely complicated infrastructure that involves HUGE portions of the economy, or completely dumping it and starting from scratch?

Moreover, I challenge the notion that our country's healthcare should function like that of the VA system. Have you worked in or received healthcare from the VA?
Being only a resident, I've only experienced the administrative side of it since med school, but spending 10 yrs in the military, I've experienced the receiving end plenty. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the VA system for what it is: a horribly inefficient black-hole of federal dollars with lack-luster results.

So what is the government supposed to do, justify a 25% federal income tax hike (which I assume would be only for the "high income", as the low & middle class would receive their healthcare for next to nothing), subsidize all medical education, residency and practicing physician salaries, cap what drug companies can charge for their products, disband all private insurance companies...?

We already have our first step to socialized medicine, and it is called SCHIP. SCHIP has been expanded over the years to go WAY beyond what it initially set out to do (guarantee healthcare to children of families that can't afford it) & has funded the healthcare of children AND adults upwards of 300% the poverty level (>200% in 20 states), because once the feds give the money to the states, they can do with it what they wish.
That's not to say the premise of the plan is faulty, but the implementation (us usually happens with the govt) has been less than stellar.

Simply throwing our hands up and letting the govt assume responsibility for health care is absolutely no guarantee for any improvements, and the only guarantee you have is rationing of care: Massachusetts is a PRIME example if you take a look at what's happened since Romneycare.

 

[bkpa2med]

What's wrong with Romney's Plan? Sounds pretty good. Still kept it free market didn't he?

 

[Gold 5]

What is really funny is that part of my family is in Europe and they pay for private insurance because of the public systems faults. Even with private insurance, it still takes awhile to receive services such as CT scan or MRI. A lot of folks in the US are in for quit a shock as to what they will really get with socialized medicine.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water is not smart politics. What is easier: patching an already existing, deeply invested, extremely complicated infrastructure that involves HUGE portions of the economy, or completely dumping it and starting from scratch?

Moreover, I challenge the notion that our country's healthcare should function like that of the VA system. Have you worked in or received healthcare from the VA?
Being only a resident, I've only experienced the administrative side of it since med school, but spending 10 yrs in the military, I've experienced the receiving end plenty. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the VA system for what it is: a horribly inefficient black-hole of federal dollars with lack-luster results.

So what is the government supposed to do, justify a 25% federal income tax hike (which I assume would be only for the "high income", as the low & middle class would receive their healthcare for next to nothing), subsidize all medical education, residency and practicing physician salaries, cap what drug companies can charge for their products, disband all private insurance companies...?

We already have our first step to socialized medicine, and it is called SCHIP. SCHIP has been expanded over the years to go WAY beyond what it initially set out to do (guarantee healthcare to children of families that can't afford it) & has funded the healthcare of children AND adults upwards of 300% the poverty level (>200% in 20 states), because once the feds give the money to the states, they can do with it what they wish.
That's not to say the premise of the plan is faulty, but the implementation (us usually happens with the govt) has been less than stellar.

Simply throwing our hands up and letting the govt assume responsibility for health care is absolutely no guarantee for any improvements, and the only guarantee you have is rationing of care: Massachusetts is a PRIME example if you take a look at what's happened since Romneycare.

 

[Instatewaiter]

So does public schools(primary and secondary), clean water, fire department, and police department!.

With high gas prices, people always have options; find work closer to home, take the bus, train or walk.

yup those things do depend on someone else, which is why they are not rights. The Govt has taken the stance that these public goods are useful to the country. Arguably healthcare could fall into this "useful to the country" bin but definitely not into the "right" bin.

People always make choices according to their wants. You will find that in that 50 million statistics a significant portion of people can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it. They spend the money on other things.

The school I go to mainly sees indigent patients. If you saw the number of people with $100+ shoes, $300 phones, designer glasses and designer threads on, who pay absolutely none of their healthcare costs, you would be astounded. If you value those things more than your health, fine. But if you expect me to pay for it because you refuse to... not ok.

Really, you spent a few hundred bucks on that nifty phone (which you have been texting on for most of the interview) and smoke a few hundred bucks worth of cigarettes a month and you are complaining about affording $4 walmart meds... really?

Eventually the country will go socialized. I think it would be best that they scrap all their current systems medicare/medicaid/VA/etc and start anew. But what inevitably will happen is that these already broken systems will be expanded until you have a nationalized system that doesnt work.

Personally I think that before we travel further down this socialized road, we need to ensure the country adheres to a higher level of personal responsibility. A socialized system will inevitably fail if each of its citizens do not accept responsibility for their own actions. The self entitlement has got to go.

The constitution is not an evolving document that morphs with the prevailing wings of change. That's EXACTLY why it's a CONSTITUTION!

QFT

 

[DC DOC]

Throwing the baby out with the bath water is not smart politics. What is easier: patching an already existing, deeply invested, extremely complicated infrastructure that involves HUGE portions of the economy, or completely dumping it and starting from scratch?

Moreover, I challenge the notion that our country's healthcare should function like that of the VA system. Have you worked in or received healthcare from the VA?
Being only a resident, I've only experienced the administrative side of it since med school, but spending 10 yrs in the military, I've experienced the receiving end plenty. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the VA system for what it is: a horribly inefficient black-hole of federal dollars with lack-luster results.

So what is the government supposed to do, justify a 25% federal income tax hike (which I assume would be only for the "high income", as the low & middle class would receive their healthcare for next to nothing), subsidize all medical education, residency and practicing physician salaries, cap what drug companies can charge for their products, disband all private insurance companies...?

We already have our first step to socialized medicine, and it is called SCHIP. SCHIP has been expanded over the years to go WAY beyond what it initially set out to do (guarantee healthcare to children of families that can't afford it) & has funded the healthcare of children AND adults upwards of 300% the poverty level (>200% in 20 states), because once the feds give the money to the states, they can do with it what they wish.
That's not to say the premise of the plan is faulty, but the implementation (us usually happens with the govt) has been less than stellar.

Simply throwing our hands up and letting the govt assume responsibility for health care is absolutely no guarantee for any improvements, and the only guarantee you have is rationing of care: Massachusetts is a PRIME example if you take a look at what's happened since Romneycare.

I don't believe an overhaul is necessary either, but serious additions and modifications need to be made. I also don't believe the gov't is necessarily the answer, but I don't see anyone else making adjustments, do you? And I honestly don't think that the big wigs of the Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are going to risk their 7 figure incomes in order to reboot the infrastructure of our inefficient health care system. Socialization of health care more than likely will not happen, but streamlining and expanding upon medicaid so that it becomes a competitor with privitized insurance, in my opinion would be the start to a solution. Organizing subsidized buy in plans that are tiered according to income to compete in the free market with other private insurances would more than likely drive down cost and decrease the uninsured.