Socialized medicine and the next president

[shaq3482001]

Hi guys,

I'm a predent right now, and I just wanted to see what your views and thoughts were on socialized medicine. If the next president is a democrat and socialized medicine were put into effect, how do you see it affecting dentistry? Would it suffer as much as medicine? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[shaq3482001]

I posted this in the dental forum too, but I wanted to see what all your thoughts were on socialized medicine. If a democrat gets into office, could a universal healthcare system really be put in place? Would dentistry be hurt as much as medicine?

Looking forward to hearing what all of you think!

 

[curiosteph]

After working in Camden for almost three years (one of the poorest, if not THE poorest cities in America), I hope some system of socialized medicine is implemented soon - at least enough to cover all children. How can you deny people access to healthcare just so a doctor can park an extra Lexus in his driveway?

I think we need a compromise between what we have now and socialized medicine.

Good topic to post!

 

[SMCohen]

Coming from Canada, I am obviously biased towards a universal healthcare system. So instead, I have a sincere question asking why normal people (that is, not doctors nor people who work for insurance companies) would be opposed to 'socialized' medicine? Especially when you have 'socialized' education? Like the education system, would people be opposed to a 'universal' system running in parallel to a private, for-profit system? Or is it that insurance companies have a lot of political power?

I know this is a touchy subject - believe me, healthcare is touchy in Canada as well. I'm just curious to know what it is that really irks people about the idea of universal healthcare (not considering the major restructuring of the current system, and loss of jobs that will be a result of insurance companies playing a smaller role)

 

[shamrock2006]

I dont know how much of an issue it would be. It would probably be more like Canada's deal now. If I remember right, yes healthcare is socialized..but that does not include dental care as its still pretty much considered "elective". I think I remember hearing one of my canadian friends say this once, but it was a little while ago. So if it was the case, and healthcare goes social and follows suit w/ Canada...even though I dont really think it will...I dont really see that dentistry will be included.

 

[Alteran]

What irks me about socialized medicine is the fact as it currently stands the gov't currently is doing a lousy job with Medicare and Medicaid, so what realistic expectation do I have that they are going to be doing any better when they manage the whole thing. And its not like we're going to have different people to mange the disaster socialized medicine will be than those currently managing two tanking programs.

The problem is that socialized medicine will:

1. NOT reduce the incentive someone has to work harder BUT will disinterest physicians from doing it because the pay schedules for services rendered will barely cover their overhead (a situation occurring right now with Medicare & Medicaid and can only be corrected by increasing taxes or cutting other programs that there would be riots over should they be lost)
2. Force physicians who accept these patients to cram their offices with even more patients than is possible to make ends meet and effectively destroy any quality of care (think of how annoying it is to wait in the post office for 3 hours despite you having an appointment just to get your photo taken...now think about that annoyance with you being sick and just wanting some antibiotics). You'll have an access to health care issue, the very thing socialized medicine claims to fix.
3. Create even more paperwork & bureaucrats to manage the whole system resulting in reduced efficiency

The net result will be the implementation of a deeply flawed and mismanaged system with few if any physicians to staff it. You'll have the rise of concierge based practices and insurance & private pay only clinics as has happened in every other country with socialized medicine. And in the event some idiot politician gets the bright idea that physicians should be forced to partake in this disaster, those that can leave the field will do so and the best and brightest at that point in time will no longer consider medicine as a viable career option.

 

[SMCohen]

I hear what you're saying - the current healthcare-financing system in the US is not set up to bear the costs of a universal healthcare system. And indeed, it is not something that can be implemented overnight - we have much higher taxes in Canada to fund the system, and it is by no means perfect, but I think you'll find that most of us feel quite fortunate to have it. Our system is also quite sustainable; although, the politicians would never have you believe it. In addition, I am hearing a lot of distrust for your government to successfully implement and manage a universal system, based on the current situation with medicare and medicaid. Is that a fair interpretation?

 

[yelloflash]

I agree with some your points, Alteran, but you seem to be okay leaving things as they are for the benefit of the health professionals and people who can afford their services. Do you have another idea for how to correct the situation that leaves so many uninsured and untreated? I think that the majority of people who have no affordable healthcare right now would gladly sit in line for 3 hours to get antibiotics versus getting none at all.

Perhaps a private sector of healthcare combined with a socialized system would be a good first step. Tuition reimbursement for doctors who work a certain number of years in the socialized system would also provide incentive. Who knows, some of them (me) may want to stay there!

 

[Jem27]

First off, I have very little experience with healthcare policy so I almost feel like I shouldn't be piping up but I'm all for discussion so here goes ...

Alteran, the issues you pointed out are also the ones I have with universal healthcare. I see what that kind of system wants to do but I also see the problems it would create. I'm not sure the other extreme of complete privatization would be the best option either although I think it would be better than universal healthcare.

 

[superfinger45]

I would love a universal health care system, just think... going to the doctors office would be like going to the DMV... oh wait that would suck. Almost everything the government "tries" to run ends up in the sh***er.

 

[Blarelli]

I just don't see how a universal health care system can be financed. I believe right now Medicare alone without the prescription drug benefit is about 13% of the federal budget. Despite having that huge chunk of the budget, they are almost $9 trillion in the hole (obligation to those that currently pay into the system). That figure doesn't figure in the prescription drug benefit either. Now, I believe Medicare covers about 50-60 million people, or about 1/5 of the country. If you take that $9 trillion and multiply it by 5, all of the sudden each person in the country will be $150,000 in the hole with Medicare alone. I don't know about you guys, but I don't make that kind of skrill.

 

[jeezy]

Alteran, the issues you pointed out are also the ones I have with universal healthcare. I see what that kind of system wants to do but I also see the problems it would create. I'm not sure the other extreme of complete privatization would be the best option either although I think it would be better than universal healthcare.

or tuition scholarships, like how the navy/army does

 

[Tooth]

I also don't think it will ever happen here. There's too much money at stake in the insurance business which means plenty of money available to pay off congressman. Have you watched the movie Sicko, by Michael Moore? As the nations spokesman for socialized medicine, even HE admits that Hitlery was eventually bought off by the insurance companies to keep America just how it is today.

But lets say healthcare is socialized by Obama. Even if it doesn't initially affect dentistry, it will only be a matter of time befor the bureaucracy is expanded to engulf dentistry. It's anyones guess as to how it will affect dentistry. Every nation that socializes medicine does it a little differently.

I really don't think it will ever happen here though.

 

[SMCohen]

I just don't see how a universal health care system can be financed. I believe right now Medicare alone without the prescription drug benefit is about 13% of the federal budget. Despite having that huge chunk of the budget, they are almost $9 trillion in the hole (obligation to those that currently pay into the system). That figure doesn't figure in the prescription drug benefit either. Now, I believe Medicare covers about 50-60 million people, or about 1/5 of the country. If you take that $9 trillion and multiply it by 5, all of the sudden each person in the country will be $150,000 in the hole with Medicare alone. I don't know about you guys, but I don't make that kind of skrill.

The first step would be to redirect the insurance premiums that you currently pay to the government through your taxes. The problem with this is that your taxes are inevitably raised, whether or not you're spending more in absolute dollars. Obviously, those who would benefit most are the people who cannot afford private health care, which generally are the same people who require the most medical attention.

Just a note on health care spending: the US is one of the highest spenders (as a percentage of GDP) on health care; however, the health of Americans is not any better than other developed countries, or maybe slightly worse (as determined by population health indicators, such as average life span or infancy mortality rates). One reason for the high cost of the American health care system is the redundancy of adminstration costs. In a single-payer system (i.e., the government in a universal health care system), most of these redundancies are eliminated. With that said, there are obvious trade-offs such as choice or increased wait-times. In Canada, you can choose your surgeon, but because everyone can 'afford' to choose him/her, you end up on a long wait-list. Sometimes you can't afford to wait - especially if increased waiting means a drastically lower chance of recovery (e.g., hip/knee replacements). With either system, there are going to be problems and complaints, but I suppose it is which set of problems you would rather have. If anyone is interested (or questions) where I got the above information, I'll be happy to find the article for you - I'm sure the OECD has performed studies on this topic.

 

[tamkhan]

Dentistry is generally never a part of a universal health care system. Dentists and Optometrists in Canada have a higher earning potential than an MD. If we wish to blend dentistry into a 'universal health care system' to provide some sort of benefits to the under-served community, why not make GPRs mandatory on all students?

 

[sunu44]

I also don't think it will ever happen here. There's too much money at stake in the insurance business which means plenty of money available to pay off congressman. Have you watched the movie Sicko, by Michael Moore? As the nations spokesman for socialized medicine, even HE admits that Hitlery was eventually bought off by the insurance companies to keep America just how it is today.

But lets say healthcare is socialized by Obama. Even if it doesn't initially affect dentistry, it will only be a matter of time befor the bureaucracy is expanded to engulf dentistry. It's anyones guess as to how it will affect dentistry. Every nation that socializes medicine does it a little differently.

I really don't think it will ever happen here though.

So how will socialized/universal medicine affect dentistry...how will it affect medical? wouldn't socialized medicine better for patients? but as a practitioner, how would it affect us?

 

[jrf271psu]

The first step would be to redirect the insurance premiums that you currently pay to the government through your taxes. The problem with this is that your taxes are inevitably raised, whether or not you're spending more in absolute dollars. Obviously, those who would benefit most are the people who cannot afford private health care, which generally are the same people who require the most medical attention.

Just a note on health care spending: the US is one of the highest spenders (as a percentage of GDP) on health care; however, the health of Americans is not any better than other developed countries, or maybe slightly worse (as determined by population health indicators, such as average life span or infancy mortality rates). One reason for the high cost of the American health care system is the redundancy of adminstration costs. In a single-payer system (i.e., the government in a universal health care system), most of these redundancies are eliminated. With that said, there are obvious trade-offs such as choice or increased wait-times. In Canada, you can choose your surgeon, but because everyone can 'afford' to choose him/her, you end up on a long wait-list. Sometimes you can't afford to wait - especially if increased waiting means a drastically lower chance of recovery (e.g., hip/knee replacements). With either system, there are going to be problems and complaints, but I suppose it is which set of problems you would rather have. If anyone is interested (or questions) where I got the above information, I'll be happy to find the article for you - I'm sure the OECD has performed studies on this topic.

The health of Americans is definitely not better than other developed countries. Among other things, this is one argument against socialized healthcare... why should we all pay the medical bills for people who chronically smoke/ eat unhealthily/ live sedentary lifestyles. There are more than a few Americans who do all of these things. With that aside, my take on the situation about health care situation in America comes down to two issues -

1. Americans do not want to pay more money (in higher taxes) to have a system that trades current problems (high insurance premiums, lack of care in poor areas, etc) for the problems in countries with socialized medicine (long wait times, so-called 'healthcare rationining', taxes)

2. Americans have always been weary of their government. Who can trust a government that cant quickly respond in New Orleans, maintain bridges in Minnesota, or control programs like Medicare and Medicaid (failing) or Social Security (a socialized program that we all are paying for, which won't be there for our generation when we retire), [insert any other government failure here]

If universal health care is implemented, it will have to be phased in slowly with A LOT of care and funding (taxes). New facilities, EHRs, policy allowing parallel govt/private sectors to run in harmony...

Then you could get into the healthcare problems vs health insurance problems debate... but that is for another day.

 

[gyzeus]

but as a practitioner, how would it affect us?

Think of medicaid.. but now it would be like everybody is on medicaid..
So we would be controlled by the gov and definitely be getting a lower income than now..
But if you look at other countries with socialized med, they do cover dental treatments too, but only to a minimum range..
Cosmetical procedures will definitely not be covered but treatments like RC, crown, cleaning, x-ray, denture will probably be covered..

 

[makushin]

So how will socialized/universal medicine affect dentistry...how will it affect medical? wouldn't socialized medicine better for patients? but as a practitioner, how would it affect us?

If the government is involved, the overall standard of care will surely drop. Sure, more people may have access, but if dentists are expected to make business investments for government reimbursement, you can bet your butt they will offer less to bring down overhead.

Even if dentistry is not directly affected, there will be indirect effects. Since people will be accustomed to getting free health care, they will be shocked at dental care costs and not want to pay. This is what has happened in Canada.

Obama is the candidate most likely to support this type of health care. Let us hope this junior senator does not become president.

 

[rkamsterdam]

Just think in the 70's and 80's when HMO's were becoming prevalent, how scared dentists were then. While DMO's exists, they aren't common throughout the nation.

Universal healthcare is just being flirted with, It will take years before it will come into effect and analougouly to HMO's will take even longer (if ever) before it effects the dental community, IMO. Just be glad that we have good lobbyists.

 

[MansonTiles]

Just think in the 70's and 80's when HMO's were becoming prevalent, how scared dentists were then. While DMO's exists, they aren't common throughout the nation.

Universal healthcare is just being flirted with, It will take years before it will come into effect and analougouly to HMO's will take even longer (if ever) before it effects the dental community, IMO. Just be glad that we have good lobbyists.

well, it will also take years for me to become a competent dentist (so right when the time comes for us to start building a life....)

great.

 

[12YearOldKid]

Obama has promised that he will have socialized medicine by the end of his first term. I think (sadly) he is a shoe-in for the presidency. McCain's chances of winning are slim. Even a large portion of his own party despises him. I hope I am wrong on this, but that is the way I see it.

I don't think coverage will include dental at first. It's just too expensive. But people will become accustomed to "free" healthcare so they will balk at paying for dental; in that sense it will have some impact on dentists.

I predict that by the time the government decides to add dental it will be almost a moot point as the system will be hopelessly failing. Look at other countries that have experimented with this; the NHS is slowly creeping back to private. It is too expensive and government is too inefficient at delivering anything.

The US is already in way over its head in debt. The dollar is falling. Politicians are buying votes by promising to increase taxes on the "rich" and corporations. We already have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world which drives tons of business out of the United States. Increasing taxes is only going to exacerbate the problem of the falling dollar and soft economy as EVEN more businesses leave the US.

Medicaid and Medicare entitlements have burdened the federal deficit to the point that if we decided to phase Medicare out over 10 years we would still be stuck with a deficit that would require EVERY MAN, WOMAN and CHILD to cough up over $400,000 to pay off.

So there you have the setup. Now we want to add a government program that is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year --- in perpetuity?!! Foreign governments are going to see this situation for what it is and the US will have a hard time getting loans. This is a problem because as a country we do NOT live within our means. Poor credit rating means interest rates will go sky high, inflation will skyrocket. We are looking at the setup for a perfect storm here and we could really be screwed.

I know some of you are going to say, but Obama will bring the troops home. I will grant you, the war in Iraq is one expensive turd but it is a drop in the bucket compared to what entitlement programs cost us. I truly believe there are some tough times ahead for the US. Many of the bigtime investors (soros for example) see this and are pulling their assets out of the US and getting away from the dollar. Our politicians (Dems and Republicans alike) don't care though. All they are worried about is getting into office.

Dang, I sound like some crazy Ron Paul supporter. I'm going to quit now. I'm depressing myself.

 

[rkamsterdam]

Obama has promised that he will have socialized medicine by the end of his first term. I think (sadly) he is a shoe-in for the presidency. McCain's chances of winning are slim. Even a large portion of his own party despises him. I hope I am wrong on this, but that is the way I see it.

I don't think coverage will include dental at first. It's just too expensive. But people will become accustomed to "free" healthcare so they will balk at paying for dental; in that sense it will have some impact on dentists.

I predict that by the time the government decides to add dental it will be almost a moot point as the system will be hopelessly failing. Look at other countries that have experimented with this; the NHS is slowly creeping back to private. It is too expensive and government is too inefficient at delivering anything.

The US is already in way over its head in debt. The dollar is falling. Politicians are buying votes by promising to increase taxes on the "rich" and corporations. We already have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world which drives tons of business out of the United States. Increasing taxes is only going to exacerbate the problem of the falling dollar and soft economy as EVEN more businesses leave the US.

Medicaid and Medicare entitlements have burdened the federal deficit to the point that if we decided to phase Medicare out over 10 years we would still be stuck with a deficit that would require EVERY MAN, WOMAN and CHILD to cough up over $400,000 to pay off.

So there you have the setup. Now we want to add a government program that is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year --- in perpetuity?!! Foreign governments are going to see this situation for what it is and the US will have a hard time getting loans. This is a problem because as a country we do NOT live within our means. Poor credit rating means interest rates will go sky high, inflation will skyrocket. We are looking at the setup for a perfect storm here and we could really be screwed.

I know some of you are going to say, but Obama will bring the troops home. I will grant you, the war in Iraq is one expensive turd but it is a drop in the bucket compared to what entitlement programs cost us. I truly believe there are some tough times ahead for the US. Many of the bigtime investors (soros for example) see this and are pulling their assets out of the US and getting away from the dollar. Our politicians (Dems and Republicans alike) don't care though. All they are worried about is getting into office.

Dang, I sound like some crazy Ron Paul supporter. I'm going to quit now. I'm depressing myself.

Thanks for the ominous forecast, Nostradamus, DDS. Why dont you just tell us that we are gonna die someday. Oh wait!

 

[toofshucker]

I know some of you are going to say, but Obama will bring the troops home. I will grant you, the war in Iraq is one expensive turd but it is a drop in the bucket compared to what entitlement programs cost us. I truly believe there are some tough times ahead for the US. Many of the bigtime investors (soros for example) see this and are pulling their assets out of the US and getting away from the dollar. Our politicians (Dems and Republicans alike) don't care though. All they are worried about is getting into office.

Dang, I sound like some crazy Ron Paul supporter. I'm going to quit now. I'm depressing myself.

Neither Clinton or Obama will bring the troops home because neither one will want to go down in history as the president that "lost" the war in Iraq. AND on the faint possibility that Bush's worst fears come to past and Iraq becomes a terrorist haven and ends up attacking America again....well, nobody, democrat or republican will take that chance of that type of legacy.

 

[rkamsterdam]

Its always the hardline republicans that are so pessimistic and afraid of change. Like the status-quo is any better. Change is at least gives us a chance. without it where would we be now?

I've found it in the least bit ironic that a majority of the pre-dents here are so right-wing and against broader access to care because it may slightly cut into their pretty profit margins, but pounce on any pre-dent inquiring about dentists salary saying "you must be compassionate first".

And I dont know what my own personal opinion is (I guess I'm progressive independent), but at least I dont contradict myself

 

[IndianaOD]

If dental gets included in national health care you can kiss your profits goodbye.

Dentists have an amazing riot going right now. High fees that patients pay because there is no alternative. Low insurance penetration.

Currently dentists make more on average than half the MDs out there. Since they will be in charge of the health care decisions (no doubt) think they will let you get paid more than them? HA HA Ha. Most of them think they are God himself.

 

[12YearOldKid]

Neither Clinton or Obama will bring the troops home because neither one will want to go down in history as the president that "lost" the war in Iraq. AND on the faint possibility that Bush's worst fears come to past and Iraq becomes a terrorist haven and ends up attacking America again....well, nobody, democrat or republican will take that chance of that type of legacy.

I think you're right that Clinton would not bring the troops home. She is smart enough to know that an immediate pull out is a losing proposition. Unlike a lot of naive, moon-eyed liberals, I believe she sees the world as it truly is. She just chooses to ignore the realilty and spout whatever nonsense will increase her power. At the moment, it doesn't look like she will have a shot at the Whitehouse in '08. Things change quickly though.

I don't know about Obama, though. He doesn't talk policy or ideas much so it's hard to get a good read on him. I get the feeling that he is sincere; that he really buys into the whole socialist/communist, the-government-can-fix-everything ideology. In some ways that scares me more than somebody like the Clintons or Kennedys who just uses that ideology as a way of gaining power.

 

[12YearOldKid]

Thanks for the ominous forecast, Nostradamus, DDS. Why dont you just tell us that we are gonna die someday. Oh wait!

I will admit I got a little carried away, but the OP asked for our thoughts. Because we're talking about the future that's all anybody has - predictions.

BTW, it's Nostradamus, DMD.

 

[cryptozoologist]

i agree with everything he said except for obamas destined position in the white house.

YES mccain is despised by his own party...but don't forget Republicans don't want to lose and they don't want Obama / Hillary in office either...so they will support him...

AND McCain is OLD and won't cowtow to interests...he'll achieve alot if he wants to.

AND McCains maverick attitude and distaste (by his own party) enamors him with moderates (most of the country). He's got a lions share of the independent moderate types in the country...and he will get ALL the republican votes just by NOT being Obama/Hillary...so McCAIN has a very real shot.

He's also just the sort of maverick that would try to do something while in office. he's the closest thing to a non-politician to get near the office in a long time...and how scary good would a mccain / bloomberg ticket be?

don't count out mccain...

 

[12YearOldKid]

Its always the hardline republicans that are so pessimistic and afraid of change. Like the status-quo is any better. Change is at least gives us a chance. without it where would we be now?

I don't know if you're talking about me. I'm not a hardline Republican by any means. I hate them almost as much as the Democrats. They are both leading us down the same path; the Democrats just want to do it much more quickly. Bush has been one of the most liberal presidents in a long time, prescription drug benefits, tons of new spending, DOUBLED the budget. He makes Demcrats of 40 yrs ago look like freaking Pat Buchanan. I voted for Bush but he has dissappointed me on many issues.

Change is the new buzzword right now and I'm all for it. But change just for the sake of change is a bad idea. Nobody is coming up with any real, specific ideas on HOW they will change things and why it will work. Universal healthcare is a prime example - it's easy to say "I will give everyone free healthcare"; it's quite another to come up with a specific program and explain how we are going to implement that.

All I am asking for is somebody who will govern with a little common sense. It's not that complicated. You can't spend more than you earn without it eventually coming back to bite you in the butt. There's only so much money you can take away from businesses through taxes and expect them to stick around and build our economy. Let people live their lives. If we want to be fat, gay, goth, polygamists, whatever. Fine. Leave us alone. Don't tell us what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot drive, where we can and cannot live, who we can and cannot sleep with, how we can and cannot spend our money, etc... And most of all, let us live with the consequences of our choices.

If we have to suffer a little we will make better choices in the future. Don't coddle us, don't nanny us, don't bail us out every time we do something really stupid; we learn better if there are consequences to our choices. If I choose not to work, the consequence should be that I am really, really hungry. Eventually I will go out and find a job - or better yet I will make my own job. And then I will make jobs for others. People have to be allowed to succeed, but they also have to be allowed to fail.

I think most Americans can get behind these ideas. It is common sense, but it is so far removed from the arena of political ideas that no major candidate has a platform even close to this. If you know of somebody who thinks this way, let me know because he has my vote.

 

[rkamsterdam]

I don't know if you're talking about me. I'm not a hardline Republican by any means. I hate them almost as much as the Democrats. They are both leading us down the same path; the Democrats just want to do it much more quickly. Bush has been one of the most liberal presidents in a long time, prescription drug benefits, tons of new spending, DOUBLED the budget. He makes Demcrats of 40 yrs ago look like freaking Pat Buchanan. I voted for Bush but he has dissappointed me on many issues.

Change is the new buzzword right now and I'm all for it. But change just for the sake of change is a bad idea. Nobody is coming up with any real, specific ideas on HOW they will change things and why it will work. Universal healthcare is a prime example - it's easy to say "I will give everyone free healthcare"; it's quite another to come up with a specific program and explain how we are going to implement that.

All I am asking for is somebody who will govern with a little common sense. It's not that complicated. You can't spend more than you earn without it eventually coming back to bite you in the butt. There's only so much money you can take away from businesses through taxes and expect them to stick around and build our economy. Let people live their lives. If we want to be fat, gay, goth, polygamists, whatever. Fine. Leave us alone. Don't tell us what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot drive, where we can and cannot live, who we can and cannot sleep with, how we can and cannot spend our money, etc... And most of all, let us live with the consequences of our choices.

If we have to suffer a little we will make better choices in the future. Don't coddle us, don't nanny us, don't bail us out every time we do something really stupid; we learn better if there are consequences to our choices. If I choose not to work, the consequence should be that I am really, really hungry. Eventually I will go out and find a job - or better yet I will make my own job. And then I will make jobs for others. People have to be allowed to succeed, but they also have to be allowed to fail.

I think most Americans can get behind these ideas. It is common sense, but it is so far removed from the arena of political ideas that no major candidate has a platform even close to this. If you know of somebody who thinks this way, let me know because he has my vote.

Change may be a buzzword, but its the undeniable path to a prosperous future whatever that path may be is questionable.

I agree with most everything you say; its pretty classical libertarian theory that resonates with most young voters, including myself. But I do believe that there are undeniable rights and healthcare should/will be one of these. Simply providing examples on why it wont work does not debunk the possibility of it. I think We (America) can make it work and we as a whole will all be better off.

 

[12YearOldKid]

i agree with everything he said except for obamas destined position in the white house.

YES mccain is despised by his own party...but don't forget Republicans don't want to lose and they don't want Obama / Hillary in office either...so they will support him...

AND McCain is OLD and won't cowtow to interests...he'll achieve alot if he wants to.

AND McCains maverick attitude and distaste (by his own party) enamors him with moderates (most of the country). He's got a lions share of the independent moderate types in the country...and he will get ALL the republican votes just by NOT being Obama/Hillary...so McCAIN has a very real shot.

He's also just the sort of maverick that would try to do something while in office. he's the closest thing to a non-politician to get near the office in a long time...and how scary good would a mccain / bloomberg ticket be?

don't count out mccain...

Good analysis. You think Bloomberg has a shot at VP? I think Huckabee probably wants it, but I don't think he'll get it. He is running as the sort of overly zealous theocrat that so many moderates despise (myself included). Huckabee as VP would totally negate McCain's position with independents.

I think you may be off though in calling McCain a non-politician. He is a great politician. In fact I would put him in the same category as Bill and Hillary Clinton. Truly talented politicians have no real guiding philosophy in life or politics and this is what makes them such great politicians. They can support or oppose any policy based on how it will advance them politically.

Now don't confuse great politician with great leader because there is a HUGE difference. But I think Bill Clinton was probably the most talented politician America has ever seen... and that's not a compliment.

 

[12YearOldKid]

Change may be a buzzword, but its the undeniable path to a prosperous future whatever that path may be is questionable.

I agree with most everything you say; its pretty classical libertarian theory that resonates with most young voters, including myself. But I do believe that there are undeniable rights and healthcare should/will be one of these. Simply providing examples on why it wont work does not debunk the possibility of it. I think We (America) can make it work and we as a whole will all be better off.

It sounds like we agree on a lot of things. I just can't agree with you on healthcare as a fundamental human right. I can't agree that anyone is entitled to forcefully acquire the property or service of another human being just because they are alive. Whether that is healthcare, housing, food, or Lamborghinis is irrelevant to me.

Now I will agree that we all have a moral obligation to help our neighbors. Whether you feel the same or choose to abide by that should be a personal choice. I do thousands of dollars of free dentistry every month and donate a significant portion of my income to charitable causes because I feel that strongly about my moral obligation to help my neighbor - that is not an exaggeration.

But it is not the goverment's place to come tell me how to help my neighbor. As soon as the government is involved there is force being used. Charity at the point of a gun is not charity, it is theft. Looks like we'll agree to disagree on that, though.

 

[cryptozoologist]

Good analysis. You think Bloomberg has a shot at VP? I think Huckabee probably wants it, but I don't think he'll get it. He is running as the sort of overly zealous theocrat that so many moderates despise (myself included). Huckabee as VP would totally negate McCain's position with independents.

I think you may be off though in calling McCain a non-politician. He is a great politician. In fact I would put him in the same category as Bill and Hillary Clinton. Truly talented politicians have no real guiding philosophy in life or politics and this is what makes them such great politicians. They can support or oppose any policy based on how it will advance them politically.

Now don't confuse great politician with great leader because there is a HUGE difference. But I think Bill Clinton was probably the most talented politician America has ever seen... and that's not a compliment.

I definitely think bloomberg has potential...it would be earthshaking politically, but that might be what the battlefield calls for. I just think all the whining by the repub pundits and posturing is a shoddy effort at trying to get Huckabee more votes (it sort of worked in Kansas) but I can't see it working for the long run...so in the end.

As to his political skills, let me be more clear, he's the LEAST political AT HEART...he's only political now because of what happened ot him during his contest with Bush in 2000. He's learned his lesson. Once he has the prize though, the boyscout in him will do good things for the country and not give a damn that some of thema are unpopular: things like do something ANYTHING with social security, restructure/define the entire tax code, incentivize detroit to INNOVATE with auto energy, etc...SOO MANY THINGS...

who McCain picks will tell me what type of leader he really is. I don't think he'll pick huckabee...not enough 'utility'. If anyone from the RIGHT, he'll pick Romney...because he can task Romney with REAL fiscal projects, budget BS, and so forth...AND get his rightside value. and Romney will do well with those projects...Romney will do it too...he's ambitious, he's a problem solver, and he's young enough to let McCain have his 4 yrs, perhaps 8...and then it's his turn. Bloomberg would be the same situation...slightly riskier, but also slightly more enabling of the indepedent/middle class vote...afterall I simply cannot see any conservative, no matter how much you dislike mccain, NOT voting for him when it comes to pulling the trigger for him or for obama/hillary...

it will be interesting. Lastly, things have gotten so out of whack fiscally, that nothing major will change in the next decade on the 'new spending' side of things. (IE healthcare). any democrat that gets elected will simply try to get the deficit and budget in control, regain some dollar strength, won't be able to do much else. Only mccain would TRY to do more by doing something zealous and impossible...

and it looks like we're heading into a recession...Good luck doubling taxes to pay for a healthcare system that will be of MOST help to the 15% of the population without insurance...the others? well they have insurance and yes it's expensive, and wa wa wa... social security is a far bigger problem to me than healthcare...and one that will impact generations of poeple...

CZ

P.S. PM me, curious where you practice.

 

[rkamsterdam]

It sounds like we agree on a lot of things. I just can't agree with you on healthcare as a fundamental human right. I can't agree that anyone is entitled to forcefully acquire the property or service of another human being just because they are alive. Whether that is healthcare, housing, food, or Lamborghinis is irrelevant to me.

Now I will agree that we all have a moral obligation to help our neighbors. Whether you feel the same or choose to abide by that should be a personal choice. I do thousands of dollars of free dentistry every month and donate a significant portion of my income to charitable causes because I feel that strongly about my moral obligation to help my neighbor - that is not an exaggeration.

But it is not the goverment's place to come tell me how to help my neighbor. As soon as the government is involved there is force being used. Charity at the point of a gun is not charity, it is theft. Looks like we'll agree to disagree on that, though.

I just don't see how you can skew universal healthcare as an infringement of personal liberties. To me, thats like stating that you should have a choice whether or not to pay your income taxes. And maybe you shouldnt, but its just not going to happen in today's society.

I think If you ask citizens in countries with national health if they feel as though they're civil liberties are being violated, I think they would laugh. By suggesting the idea of universal healthcare, I'm not advocating a mandatory six month checkup. I'm advocating a personal right for healthcare access regardless of which tax bracket you happen to fall in or your level of intellegence. I find it unfair to those un/underinsured who have it hard in the first place to be forced into bankrupcy if such an unfortunate emergency does happen.

Individuals will still ultimately be the sole determiner in whether they should seek medical attention.

 

[Cold Front]

Obama has promised that he will have socialized medicine by the end of his first term. I think (sadly) he is a shoe-in for the presidency.

that's funny, hating on Obama!

A long time ago (in 1994)... OJ was in trouble.. Hillary was in Washington... and she had a healthcare-plan!... and it was complicated... and expensive... and it put the government in charge of your medical care... now it's 2008... OJ is still in trouble... Hillary is still in Washington... she's still got a healthcare plan... and it's still complicated... still expensive... yep, still going to put the government in charge of your healthcare... somethings never change.

I am sure Obama will find a better balance to make healthcare costs affordable without making this country turn into Canada or Europe. Just pay little more attention to his plans and you will see what I am talking about.

 

[rkamsterdam]

that's funny, hating on Obama!

A long time ago (in 1994)... OJ was in trouble.. Hillary was in Washington... and she had a healthcare-plan!... and it was complicated... and expensive... and it put the government in charge of your medical care... now it's 2008... OJ is still in trouble... Hillary is still in Washington... she's still got a healthcare plan... and it's still complicated... still expensive... yep, still going to put the government in charge of your healthcare... somethings never change.

I am sure Obama will find a better balance to make healthcare costs affordable without making this country turn into Canada or Europe. Just pay little more attention to his plans and you will see what I am talking about.

you make it sound as if Hillary or Obama will personally be the one formulating every detail of a healthcare plan---> i happen to think the candidate doesnt matter in this respect because they'll more than likely employ the same experts.

 

[OceanDMD]

that's funny, hating on Obama!

A long time ago (in 1994)... OJ was in trouble.. Hillary was in Washington... and she had a healthcare-plan!... and it was complicated... and expensive... and it put the government in charge of your medical care... now it's 2008... OJ is still in trouble... Hillary is still in Washington... she's still got a healthcare plan... and it's still complicated... still expensive... yep, still going to put the government in charge of your healthcare... somethings never change.

I am sure Obama will find a better balance to make healthcare costs affordable without making this country turn into Canada or Europe. Just pay little more attention to his plans and you will see what I am talking about.[/QUOTE]


You might want to pay attention to your income tax ,if this is the case,as well.

 

[toofshucker]

Its always the hardline republicans that are so pessimistic and afraid of change. Like the status-quo is any better. Change is at least gives us a chance. without it where would we be now?

I've found it in the least bit ironic that a majority of the pre-dents here are so right-wing and against broader access to care because it may slightly cut into their pretty profit margins, but pounce on any pre-dent inquiring about dentists salary saying "you must be compassionate first".

And I dont know what my own personal opinion is (I guess I'm progressive independent), but at least I dont contradict myself

I have never contradicted myself. I know that I will make a lot of money doing this, and as long as I am ethical in my dealings with my patients, there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with being successful. You throw out these generalizations and you are doing the same thing the other people are when they say we can't cut into our profits but we need to be compassionate.

 

[toofshucker]

AND McCain is OLD and won't cowtow to interests...he'll achieve alot if he wants to.

Hahahahahahahaha. Just like he didn't cowtail to get all those endorsements? Just like he didn't team up with Huckabee to keep Romney from winning more delegates? McCain is a dirty politician and owes everybody a favor. I can't wait to see the backlash McCain gets when he can't come through on everything he says he will.

 

[Logjammin]

Could you imagine if dentistry becomes socialized. Obama wants to make it LAW that if your revenue is above a certain cap as a doctor, you will have to donate the rest to the government in order to pay for the expense of his plan. WTF

Do you know how many private dental/medical schools would shut down as a result of this? I forsee some majorly scary times ahead for physicians and health care professionals if his plan is enacted. Socialized medicine will never work, it never has. You think people would have half a brain to understand the fallout from this.

 

[blissdental]

Do you know how many private dental/medical schools would shut down as a result of this?

True.. I've read before in the news that almost 1/3 of the dentists in UK shut down their office after dentistry was socialized..

 

[Logjammin]

True.. I've read before in the news that almost 1/3 of the dentists in UK shut down their office after dentistry was socialized..

Not only that, but we would be left with hoards of student debt as a result of this. Dental Labs would have to completely restructure their businesses to keep costs down, and quality would suffer. The entire dental field as we know it would take a huge dump.

 

[toofshucker]

The funny thing is, we all sit here and complain about what the next president is going to do, but how many of us actually went out and campaigned for who we thought would do the best job? How many of us even went out and voted in the caucuses? The only way to get change is to go out and make it happen, yet we all just sit around waiting for it to happen.

 

[bodiddely]

bama wants to make it LAW that if your revenue is above a certain cap as a doctor, you will have to donate the rest to the government in order to pay for the expense of his plan.

Can you provide a link for this? Sounds too crazy to be true. Either way, I don't think Congress and the Supreme Court would go along with it.

 

[Logjammin]

Can you provide a link for this? Sounds too crazy to be true. Either way, I don't think Congress and the Supreme Court would go along with it.

"Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt."


That is a direct statement on his website:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

 

[bodiddely]

"Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt."


That is a direct statement on his website:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

That's a lot different than placing a cap on physician income.

 

[Visceral]

I'm a dental student in Canada and I honestly don't think there is any need to be concerned. Dentistry in Canada operates much like in the USA, except for some very limited plans for impoverished children or those on some type of social assistance. I understand this is similar to Medicaid.

If Canada doesn't have socialized dentistry, I highly doubt the USA will. I know this isn't exactly the best reasoning but the USA healthcare system being more socialized than the Canadian seems kind of far fetched. Also, I don't hear of any discussion in political nor dental circles in Canada about including dentistry in our health plan; most people seem content with the status quo.

In Canada, we actually recently lost other non-MD healthcare from our health plan such as optometric or chiropractic treatment. I don't think you guys have anything to worry about. If this does happen, would this mean a mass exodus of dentists to Canada? ;p Crazy thought haha

 

[12YearOldKid]

Can you provide a link for this? Sounds too crazy to be true. Either way, I don't think Congress and the Supreme Court would go along with it.

New Mexico already has a 10% tax on gross earnings of all private dental and medical practices. It is a state screaming for dentists; I considered going there because of demand -- then I found this out.

BTW, if you have 65% overhead, 10% of gross = 29% of net!!! And they wonder why they have trouble getting new dentists to set up shop there.

 

[NewMexDent]

New Mexico already has a 10% tax on gross earnings of all private dental and medical practices. It is a state screaming for dentists; I considered going there because of demand -- then I found this out.

BTW, if you have 65% overhead, 10% of gross = 29% of net!!! And they wonder why they have trouble getting new dentists to set up shop there.

Wow, is this for real? I'm from New Mexico and I'd like to practice in New Mexico, but if they are going to take 10% of my gross I might be a little hesitant.