Weatherman terrorists: Obama's centrism a 'smokescreen'

[schwaky18]

That is not what universal health care is, that is an anti-government myth that the tin foils and lobbyists have created. Why do you think the price is going down on Lasic eye surgery? Because people cannot afford it. I say tough **** that the doctors cannot make 1.4 million dollars a year by exploiting people. Welcome to the real world, millions of people have jobs with salary caps on them and they still do their job. I would want a doctor that cares more about helping people than getting rich working on me, but thats just IMO.
You can still pick and choose how you live in a universal health care system as well.

Great idea, if doctors don't make alot of money the smartest and brightest won't become doctors because they can make better money else where. (I would not have went to law school if I knew I could have made better money elsewhere without the hardship of becoming a lawyer.) They may not know what they are doing, or be able to save your life, but at least they care about helping you. They just aren't bright enough to figure out how.

Thats what I want a dumb down doctor.

No I want the best brightest doctor in this country and I will pay whatever I can in order to get him. Why? because when your dicking with my life, I want you to be the best of the best. Not some ass munch that was able to be a doctor because all the smart kids found higher paying jobs.

Its called FREE MARKET. Although we don't have much of it left, I still think its the best practice.

 

[03mustgt]

Great idea, if doctors don't make alot of money the smartest and brightest won't become doctors because they can make better money else where. (I would not have went to law school if I knew I could have made better money elsewhere without the hardship of becoming a lawyer.) They may not know what they are doing, or be able to save your life, but at least they care about helping you. They just aren't bright enough to figure out how.

Thats what I want a dumb down doctor.

No I want the best brightest doctor in this country and I will pay whatever I can in order to get him. Why? because when your dicking with my life, I want you to be the best of the best. Not some ass munch that was able to be a doctor because all the smart kids found higher paying jobs.

Its called FREE MARKET. Although we don't have much of it left, I still think its the best practice.

They will not lower the standards for medical school just because of Universal Health Care. Doctors will still be well off, after all it is a job that requires an advanced set of skills. You did not go to law school because either A) it was too hard, B) you did not have the money C) you did not have the motivation. Be realistic.

 

[schwaky18]

But the brightest that could make more money elsewhere will not go to med school. Its not the everyday student in med school that someday will make the great medical advancements but the top students that are smarter than **** and could do anything that they want to. Why would they go to med school now when they can make more money being a biologist or an attorney?

And I did go to law school ,that was a hypothetical. But I would not have if there would have been a limit on my pay. I had many different opportunities and I would have taken the most economical choice. Moreover, I wouldn't want to be in a profession where someone tells me that I cannot make over X amount of money no matter how successful I am.


And if enrollment would go down, Yes they would lower their standards. Med school is ran like a business, you fill those seats no matter. And that may mean lowering your standards to let the kid that you would have reject in this year. And that continues on till now you have a whole class of students that would have been rejected 10 years ago.

 

[dburkhead]

That is understandable, but when your doctor writes you a prescription, and you have inusrance, your insurance should cover that prescription, not refuse to pay until the doctor changes it to a cheaper drug with less efficacy.

Last time I had an issue with a prescription not being covered by insurance, the doctor filled out the paperwork and got the medicine added to the formulary.

And if you don't think that a government run/paid for system isn't going to make decisions about your medicines you are deluding yourself. At best, it will be "hidden" (restrictions on what the doctor can prescribe rather than what the plan will pay for).

The government already takes care of the majority of the elderly, have you heard of MEDICARE? I do not see elderly people dying because the budget has been used up. There will always be people who take advantage of the system, thats a fact. Let me ask you this, who do you think is paying for said person's healthcare right now? You are, through medicaid.

I guess then that supplemental Medicare insurance doesn't exist then. Oh, wait a minute....

You might want to take a closer look at Medicare too.

Again, do you honestly believe our current system is any better in this regard? Your attorney is going to be eaten alive by the legal teams of the big insurance companies. Not to mention they will employ the same stall tactics as the gov.

Not quite. The insurance company's legal teams cost the insurance company money. Too many suits and it starts hitting their bottom line. They have an incentive to avoid that. Government attorney's are paid by taxpayers. I.e. you and me. They have essentially no concern for how much it costs. Furthermore, they can (and have) simply declared themselves immune from legal action (example, military members cannot sue over military healthcare). The only recourses you have is what the government lets you have.

Is it more complicated than that? The United States is one of the richest countries in the world. Yes I am aware of Infant mortality rate, which for the united states it happens to be around 6.3/1,000 live births. That does not account for why the USA with our great healthcare is #45 on the list of countries for life expectancy.
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, it is more complicated than that. First off. look at what the actual difference is between those countries. The best is Macau (PRC) at 84.33. That's a 6.27 year difference from the US. Do you have any idea about statistics for large populations? Do you think that every birth, every death, every immigration, every emigration, is recorded and somebody just does some arithmatic? Those numbers are, at best, estimates, at worst, pure fantasies. Do you honestly believe that at least some of the countries on that list don't "cook" their figures even to the extent of simply reporting what they want people to believe about them?

And do you honestly think that "universal health care" is the only factor even beyond that?

Here's one factor to consider: recent immigration from less developed nations tends to have both higher birthrates and higher infant mortality rates than more "stable" populations in developed nations. If the US is simply better at recording those births and deaths that would tend to draw down the US life expectancy figures compared to countries that don't have as good figures for that segment of their population (or countries where that segment is relatively smaller).

Here's another factor to consider: if some people are unhappy with the health care provided in that country and go somewhere else to obtain health care they hope is better, and some of them die in the second country (as some will do, regardless of how good the healthcare is), for which country's statistics does the death "count"--the one where they found the care inadequate, or the one that desperation forced them to?

 

[dburkhead]

Do we not experience those same problems here?

By comparison? No.

 

[03mustgt]

Last time I had an issue with a prescription not being covered by insurance, the doctor filled out the paperwork and got the medicine added to the formulary.

And if you don't think that a government run/paid for system isn't going to make decisions about your medicines you are deluding yourself. At best, it will be "hidden" (restrictions on what the doctor can prescribe rather than what the plan will pay for).



I guess then that supplemental Medicare insurance doesn't exist then. Oh, wait a minute....

You might want to take a closer look at Medicare too.



Not quite. The insurance company's legal teams cost the insurance company money. Too many suits and it starts hitting their bottom line. They have an incentive to avoid that. Government attorney's are paid by taxpayers. I.e. you and me. They have essentially no concern for how much it costs. Furthermore, they can (and have) simply declared themselves immune from legal action (example, military members cannot sue over military healthcare). The only recourses you have is what the government lets you have.



Yes, it is more complicated than that. First off. look at what the actual difference is between those countries. The best is Macau (PRC) at 84.33. That's a 6.27 year difference from the US. Do you have any idea about statistics for large populations? Do you think that every birth, every death, every immigration, every emigration, is recorded and somebody just does some arithmatic? Those numbers are, at best, estimates, at worst, pure fantasies. Do you honestly believe that at least some of the countries on that list don't "cook" their figures even to the extent of simply reporting what they want people to believe about them?

And do you honestly think that "universal health care" is the only factor even beyond that?

Here's one factor to consider: recent immigration from less developed nations tends to have both higher birthrates and higher infant mortality rates than more "stable" populations in developed nations. If the US is simply better at recording those births and deaths that would tend to draw down the US life expectancy figures compared to countries that don't have as good figures for that segment of their population (or countries where that segment is relatively smaller).

Here's another factor to consider: if some people are unhappy with the health care provided in that country and go somewhere else to obtain health care they hope is better, and some of them die in the second country (as some will do, regardless of how good the healthcare is), for which country's statistics does the death "count"--the one where they found the care inadequate, or the one that desperation forced them to?

Death and Birth statistics are recorded. Hence death and birth statistics. Sure the numbers may be off from the actual value, but do you think the US is not subject to the same? Do you think the US might inflate their numbers? Medicare Supplement Insurance is for items not covered under medicare, sure medicare is not perfect, but it does not let the elderly die at the end of the month for budget reasons. And Medicare part D has been very beneficial. Also an insurance company would much rather stall on a law suit and fight it than pay some ridiculous settlement.

 

[dburkhead]

They will not lower the standards for medical school just because of Universal Health Care. Doctors will still be well off, after all it is a job that requires an advanced set of skills. You did not go to law school because either A) it was too hard, B) you did not have the money C) you did not have the motivation. Be realistic.

Keeping the standards high will only last until they start feeling the pinch of too few doctors. Reducing the reward, while keeping the cost high, will reduce the supply of doctors--simple microeconomics. This is microeconomics 101 stuff.

BTW, while you're comment about not going to law school was not directed at me, I'll answer it anyway: Folks with hard science backgrounds such as physics tend to do very well on LSAT's and in Law School. (My degree is in physics, and the diploma says "Magna *** Laude".) Don't presume to know why other people made the choices they made.

 

[03mustgt]

By comparison? No.

Yes, we do.

 

[03mustgt]

Keeping the standards high will only last until they start feeling the pinch of too few doctors. Reducing the reward, while keeping the cost high, will reduce the supply of doctors--simple microeconomics. This is microeconomics 101 stuff.

BTW, while you're comment about not going to law school was not directed at me, I'll answer it anyway: Folks with hard science backgrounds such as physics tend to do very well on LSAT's and in Law School. (My degree is in physics, and the diploma says "Magna *** Laude".) Don't presume to know why other people made the choices they made.

Its not like doctors will make 30K a year man, they will still make 100K plus, which is not bad. Pharmacists start out a 100K and pharmacy schools have done nothing but raise their standards. Thats simple common sense. Name 1 other job where you can start right out of school making 100K+ thats not medical related.

 

[dburkhead]

Death and Birth statistics are recorded. Hence death and birth statistics. Sure the numbers may be off from the actual value, but do you think the US is not subject to the same? Do you think the US might inflate their numbers? Medicare Supplement Insurance is for items not covered under medicare, sure medicare is not perfect, but it does not let the elderly die at the end of the month for budget reasons. And Medicare part D has been very beneficial. Also an insurance company would much rather stall on a law suit and fight it than pay some ridiculous settlement.

You need to learn a bit more about what "statistics" are. Statistics are a way to get a handle on _incomplete_ information.

Those numbers are "reasonably close" at best. Take, for instance, the case of illegal aliens. Do you think all, or even most, of those are recorded? We don't even know with any accuracy how many illegal aliens there are in the country, let alone how many give birth or die.

And the point is that no one is immune to those kinds of errors. That's why I talk about "error bars" (numbers should have a "+/- xxx" after them). When you consider the error bars around them, values that are "close" are actually indistinguishable. 77.6 years is only a middle value. The "actual" number (if we had perfect information) could be less, could be more--we don't know. 84.3 years is only a middle value of a range of possibilities. Without knowing the error bars and the distribution on the error we cannot know if those values are significantly different or not.

I deal with measurements every day. It's my day job. Understanding errors, sources of errors, and whether different measurements actually represent "real" differences or just a result of imperfect information is a large part of what the customers pay me for.

Those life expectency numbers, by themselves, don't support the conclusions you seem to think they support.

 

[03mustgt]

You need to learn a bit more about what "statistics" are. Statistics are a way to get a handle on _incomplete_ information.

Those numbers are "reasonably close" at best. Take, for instance, the case of illegal aliens. Do you think all, or even most, of those are recorded? We don't even know with any accuracy how many illegal aliens there are in the country, let alone how many give birth or die.

And the point is that no one is immune to those kinds of errors. That's why I talk about "error bars" (numbers should have a "+/- xxx" after them). When you consider the error bars around them, values that are "close" are actually indistinguishable. 77.6 years is only a middle value. The "actual" number (if we had perfect information) could be less, could be more--we don't know. 84.3 years is only a middle value of a range of possibilities. Without knowing the error bars and the distribution on the error we cannot know if those values are significantly different or not.

I deal with measurements every day. It's my day job. Understanding errors, sources of errors, and whether different measurements actually represent "real" differences or just a result of imperfect information is a large part of what the customers pay me for.

Those life expectency numbers, by themselves, don't support the conclusions you seem to think they support.

What conclusions do they support? They sure do not disprove my theory. Keep Reaching.

 

[dburkhead]

Yes, we do.

Okay, I call.
My hand is a 6 month wait for a colonoscopy after a finding of blood in the stools (at which time the chance of successful treatment of colon cancer has gone way down compared to the two week wait the last time I had such a procedure).

Show your cards.

 

[dburkhead]

What conclusions do they support? They sure do not disprove my theory. Keep Reaching.

By themselves they don't support any conclusion. Thats. The. Point.

They are insufficient evidence from which to draw a conclusion.

 

[dburkhead]

Its not like doctors will make 30K a year man, they will still make 100K plus, which is not bad. Pharmacists start out a 100K and pharmacy schools have done nothing but raise their standards. Thats simple common sense. Name 1 other job where you can start right out of school making 100K+ thats not medical related.

Name one other school that has:

4 years of college
4 years of medical school
Internship
Residency
The frankly abusive hours for three of the four of those
The extremely high costs and resulting rather crushing debt load of paying for all of that.

 

[CarmelHP]

After Daniels reorganized the BMV I have yet to have an issue there.

OK, how about when everybody starts going to a BMV type office for every little complaint they have because it now costs them the same no matter what their problem. Still think you'll have no issues? And every country that has socialized medicine eventually came to impose cost controls on the doctors.

 

[Turtle]

think of playing a game..... right now hes at the top hovering above looking down at the board. We are all just pieces to be manipulated. Once each piece is where he wants it he will make his move and it will all be over good or bad .... if hes stupid and makes his move too soon or too late he will lose the game. This could be good or bad. Hes got a poker face and I know hes playing to win. And he scares the hell out of me personally.

Next ellection will likely be rigged and I wouldnt put it past him to change the rules so he has power longer.

 

[haldir]

And how many of those much more progressive than we countries still have the liberties that we enjoy? Most of them that have universal government run health care, also have all kinds of laws restricting speech, press, religion and yes gun rights most of all.

 

[03mustgt]

Name one other school that has:

4 years of college
4 years of medical school
Internship
Residency
The frankly abusive hours for three of the four of those
The extremely high costs and resulting rather crushing debt load of paying for all of that.

Did not think you could. Statistics are a way to interpret data, neways I am done posting in this section, it has nothing to offer me. Off to my OC night with some buddies!

 

[schwaky18]

Its not like doctors will make 30K a year man, they will still make 100K plus, which is not bad. Pharmacists start out a 100K and pharmacy schools have done nothing but raise their standards. Thats simple common sense. Name 1 other job where you can start right out of school making 100K+ thats not medical related.

100k is nothing if you could make 1 million or more. And I am not talking about starting off, if the potential isn't there people won't want to enter the profession.

My roommate is in med school. He will have 200K in student loans when he finally becomes a doctor. He can make 100k plus and still live like he is only making 50k because at 8% interest (which is what it was when he was borrowing) it will take a long time to pay back 200K + interest.

He would have never incured such a massive debt load if he did not expect a high rate of return on his education. Making 100k is not worth it to him (I just asked him). He said he could have made that after ungrad without worrying about med school, insurance hassels, malpratice, ect. So your theory has just drove one out of the profession. Does he love medicine and have a passion for it? Yes, but the risks and struggles would not equal the reward if it was limited to a set amount of money.

Besides that govenment is already too big. This will just make them bigger. I would rather have no help from the government than lose my freedom by having help. I think the whole system is whacked. People expect the handouts instead of fending for themselves. If the great depression were to hit now our generation would be screwed because most of us would sit around and bitch about it expecting the government to bail us out.

The government is already taking on more debt than ever. Guess what you me and our children are going to have to pay this back. China is grabbing up all of the US's debt because they know they can screw us in the end with it. We will loose our power in this world, and China will be the next world power. And dispite what you think about our government, we are still a very generious world power and I know China won't give two shits about the rest of the world when it has all the power. National health care is just another step in that direction. Does it matter, probably not. We are already on the path to ruin.

 

[dburkhead]

Did not think you could. Statistics are a way to interpret data, neways I am done posting in this section, it has nothing to offer me. Off to my OC night with some buddies!

Whether I could or not, is less germane then the reason why the salaries involved are not excessive given the rather large barriers to entry of the field.

BTW, have you ever looked at the actual economics of doctors in private practice? (My boss is also a friend. His late mother, his late father, and one of his brothers were all MD's. We've actually discussed some of these issues.) The costs themselves are quite high and, generally, they have to keep a fairly high "throughput" of patients to stay afloat. Reality is not as you portray it.

"It has nothing to offer" you, huh? Nothing except information that contradicts your prejudices on the matter.

Your call, of course.