Most docs seem to be against Obamacare, while most premeds are in favor of it

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
You are correct in your assessment of your knowledge about healthcare, pre-med.

I will admit that I haven't had the direct experience that attendings possess, but I was belittling the standard pre-med train of thought that healthcare is a God-given right. Medical treatment is nothing more than a service and a privilege, just like legal representation, waiting tables, or cutting hair. What if the government mandated that haircuts were a right, stating that all barbers had to provide discounted or free haircuts and couldn't refuse service for anyone within 50 feet of a barber shop? There would be a natural spike in artificial demand, creating shortages, skyrocketing prices, and further government intervention.

Howdy! Glad to meet ya!

Correction: I have yet to meet one in person.
 
You are aware that Obamacare isn't government-run healthcare, right? The main thing it does is mandate private health insurance coverage and make it much easier for people to get said private health insurance. So nothing has changed about the market other than that now we don't have something like 25-35% of the population not participating until they get seriously ill or injured at which point they require expensive treatment be given to them for free.

Who is going to pay for the new coverage?? Most people who don't have insurance can't afford it. Forcing people to buy things they can't afford cannot improve a system. And if they can afford it then who is giving them expensive medical procedures for free? Also its more like 10-15 percent of the population.
 
You do understand how marginal tax rates work, right? In Virginia a married person with no children making 300K will clear ~202K without taking a single deduction.

Its called AMT, where marginal rates go out the window.
 
Who is going to pay for the new coverage?? Most people who don't have insurance can't afford it. Forcing people to buy things they can't afford cannot improve a system. And if they can afford it then who is giving them expensive medical procedures for free? Also its more like 10-15 percent of the population.

Actually, not really.

The main purpose of the mandate is to force people who don't really need health insurance to buy it to keep the system healthy for those who are sick and will actually use it.

A good portion of those without insurance are actually pretty healthy, they just are irresponsible or unemployed. Having them pay is a way to keep insurance costs down for other people.

(Medcaid already covers the poor, and Medicare already covers the old.)

If you don't mandate insurance, only sick people buy it --> it gets prohibitively expensive, causing healthier people to drop out --> it gets even more expensive.
 
Actually, not really.

The main purpose of the mandate is to force people who don't really need health insurance to buy it to keep the system healthy for those who are sick and will actually use it.

A good portion of those without insurance are actually pretty healthy, they just are irresponsible or unemployed. Having them pay is a way to keep insurance costs down for other people.

(Medcaid already covers the poor, and Medicare already covers the old.)

If you don't mandate insurance, only sick people buy it --> it gets prohibitively expensive, causing healthier people to drop out --> it gets even more expensive.

http://www.schiffradio.com/b/Justice-Roberts-is-Right:-The-Plan-Wont-Work/-858127735601911877.html

Pretty short piece.
 

Yup, I agree, which is why the uproar about the mandate was silly - there was never a real mandate.

Considering Obama used the mandate as a talking point against Hillary, he was clearly never going to commit to it fully.

It's a backwards way of trying to get everyone basic insurance.

It would have been much simpler to let people buy into Medicare.

As long as the cost was always adjusted to the average cost of Medicare benefits per capita, it would be approximately revenue neutral.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who is going to pay for the new coverage?? Most people who don't have insurance can't afford it. Forcing people to buy things they can't afford cannot improve a system. And if they can afford it then who is giving them expensive medical procedures for free? Also its more like 10-15 percent of the population.

You are arguing against something you clearly do not understand, not even the basics. In a nutshell, the PPACA:

1. Expands Medicaid to include people with higher incomes than currently allowed. It also raises Medicaid reimbursement rates to Medicare levels, in order to encourage providers to accept them. These provisions are intended to aid the poorest citizens.

2. For those under 65 who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, yet do not have employer-provided coverage, the government will subsidize the purchase of private insurance on a sliding scale up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. This is also where the insurance exchanges come into play, allowing individuals to pool and reduce their aggregate premiums. These provisions are intended to aid the lower/middle class citizens who have some means but need affordable coverage options.

3. For those above 400% of the Federal Poverty Level who do not have employer-based or other coverage, the options are to buy an unsubsidized, individual policy through an exchange or pay a penalty/tax. There aren't many of these people, but they do exist, and they are the primary target of the infamous "mandate."

Any more questions?
 
Top