The Affordable Care Act

[Charles]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Yeah I understand that New Zealand is the place to go for hip and knee replacements, plus a charming vacation for less than just the surgery here.

Don't have to go that far.

http://rollybrook.com/health.htm

Chas

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

And exactly WTF is wrong with minting more doctors to serve more needy patients? It's not as though there are a limited number of people who have the intelligence to become doctors. Hell, we're overproducing lawyers. If prospective law students see no job future, maybe they'll major in medicine. By your logic, we should training the exact same number of buggy-whip makers as we did in 1880 (i.e., the number of professionals in a field should remain stagnant and not adjust itself due to market forces).

Nothing's wrong with it at all. But they're not going to fall out of the sky, are they? That's the AMA's point, and a point you'd seem to prefer to ignore. Of course, the AMA loves Obamacare, but you did notice who they blame for the physician shortage, right?

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

You see Mikey some ailments are so rare back home that it simply makes no sense to set aside hospital beds that would be lucky to get used once every five years.

So, medical care for those ailments is rationed back home Robby?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Nothing's wrong with it at all. But they're not going to fall out of the sky, are they? That's the AMA's point, and a point you'd seem to prefer to ignore. Of course, the AMA loves Obamacare, but you did notice who they blame for the physician shortage, right?

That article is nothing other than a part of their lobbying effort to get more money into their coffers (i.e.,more doctors paying dues to their trade association). I have similar skepticism when I read articles from the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) on the need to spend untold gazillions on infrastructure. Such articles aren't written for altruistic purposes. In fact, such professional societies exist primarily to make more money for themselves and their members, not to serve society (e.g., the NEA isn't about students).

From your tone it seems that you think that the Fed (i.e., Medicare) should subsidize the education of doctors. This kind of thinking is enough to get you excommunicated.

[bobabode]

Well, Mike. If you quack like a duck? Don't be too outraged when someone puts you in a pot and makes duck soup.

I'll take one of those autographs, Ike.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

So, medical care for those ailments is rationed back home Robby?

Take a remedial reading course Mike because that is why some patients are sent down here and paid for by SinglePayer. You are especially thick these days.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Well, Mike. If you quack like a duck? Don't be too outraged when someone puts you in a pot and makes duck soup.

Right. When that actually happens, I'll worry about it.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Rigid ideology is the enemy of fresh ideas.

Originally Posted by finnbow

That article is nothing other than a part of their lobbying effort to get more money into their coffers (i.e.,more doctors paying dues to their trade association). I have similar skepticism when I read articles from the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) on the need to spend untold gazillions on infrastructure. Such articles aren't written for altruistic purposes. In fact, such professional societies exist primarily to make more money for themselves and their members, not to serve society (e.g., the NEA isn't about students).

From your tone it seems that you think that the Fed (i.e., Medicare) should subsidize the education of doctors. This kind of thinking is enough to get you excommunicated.

No, I didn't think that. That was the AMA, who have been carrying lots of water for the Bamster on Obamacare.

You've developed a skill these days for coloring your own posts. You don't like the information presented by a knowledgeable source, so attack the source.

So, I guess all of these folks are engaging in lobbying efforts for physicians?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...55741780608174

And these guys too? http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/healt...pecialization/

And certainly CNBC is all about raising money for docs: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100546118

They're even fundraising for docs in liberal California. Oh the humanity! http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci...s-short-supply

Then again, if CNN reports on it, its got to be wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/health...ctor-shortage/

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Take a remedial reading course Mike because that is why some patients are sent down here and paid for by SinglePayer. You are especially thick these days.

Now you're swerving closer to the truth about why Single Payer is a non-starter for most Americans. The medical system that has evolved here is essentially medicine on demand. That's what Americans have become used to, and its been pretty successful. Single payer is mostly about medicine when its allowed, or maybe when its available, particularly as it relates to specialty care.

I'm not in favor of dumping the current system. I am in favor of making it better by removing bottlenecks and inefficiencies.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm not in favor of dumping the current system. I am in favor of making it better by removing bottlenecks and inefficiencies.

That's what Obamacare is designed to do, at least in small measure. The removing of inefficiencies is what actually has those paying for repeal & replace efforts upset. There lots of money to be made in these inefficiencies, considering we pay double of what other successful single-payer system countries do per capita. Making great strides in expense reduction is probably only possible with single-payer (precisely the reason that those making so much money on our current system are against it).