• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's Democrats in disarray over expiring tax cuts

winston53660 said:
Interesting part of the article:

A list of about 500 concierge doctors throughout the country is available on Dr. Knope’s Web site, www.conciergemedicinemd.com.
Is the care worth the money? Harold and Margret Thomas, who are in their mid-70s and live in Cincinnati, spend the winter in Tucson. After many phone calls, the couple were unable to find an internist in Tucson who took new Medicare patients, so they signed with Dr. Knope in 1996. Five years ago, when Mrs. Thomas developed a blinding headache, her husband called the doctor at 8 o’clock one night, and he, suspecting an aneurysm, insisted they get to the emergency room immediately.
The doctor met them and ordered an M.R.I. and a CT scan. The tests revealed an aneurysm, and Dr. Knope found a surgeon who quickly operated. Medicare paid for the emergency room, the surgery and the hospital stay.
Click to expand...

also from the times link:

EARLY this year, Barbara Plumb, a freelance editor and writer in New York who is on Medicare, received a disturbing letter. Her gynecologist informed her that she was opting out of Medicare. When Ms. Plumb asked her primary-care doctor to recommend another gynecologist who took Medicare, the doctor responded that she didn’t know any — and that if Ms. Plumb found one she liked, could she call and tell her the name?

Many people, just as they become eligible for Medicare, discover that the insurance rug has been pulled out from under them. Some doctors — often internists but also gastroenterologists, gynecologists, psychiatrists and other specialists — are no longer accepting Medicare, either because they have opted out of the insurance system or they are not accepting new patients with Medicare coverage. The doctors’ reasons: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle.

The solution to this problem is to find doctors who accept Medicare insurance — and to do it well before reaching age 65. But that is not always easy, especially if you are looking for an internist, a primary care doctor who deals with adults. Of the 93 internists affiliated with New York-Presbyterian Hospital, for example, only 37 accept Medicare, according to the hospital’s Web site.

Two trends are converging: there is a shortage of internists nationally — the American College of Physicians, the organization for internists, estimates that by 2025 there will be 35,000 to 45,000 fewer than the population needs — and internists are increasingly unwilling to accept new Medicare patients.

In a June 2008 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel that advises Congress on Medicare, said that 29 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them, up from 24 percent the year before. And a 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association found that while 58 percent of the state’s doctors took new Medicare patients, only 38 percent of primary care doctors did.
Click to expand...

it is what it is

we're all happy for harry and margaret, tho

some more pleasure reading:

Doctors refuse Medicare patients - CBS 19 - The Eye of East Texas News - 

USATODAY.com - Rejections rise for Medicare patients

Primary-Care Doctor Shortage May Undermine Health Reform Efforts - washingtonpost.com

Canada's Doctor Shortage Worsening - The Canadian Encyclopedia

Wait Time & Delayed Care: Doctor Shortage
 
zimmer said:
What we have is a bill that took bribes, lies, parliamentary tricks, and passage without even being read... even after MA voted Brown in to send a message to the Dems.

Milton Friedman called the pre-ObamaKare healthcare system Communist in nature, but ObamaKare doesn't rise to the level of socialist?


And what compromise? ROTFLOL...


.
Click to expand...

Lord, you guys do sucker easliy for hyperbole. There's no socialism let alone communism here.

But once you accept the republican plan of mandating health care over a public option, you had to deal with the insurance companies. You can't do away with pre-existing condition, cover all children without either the government providing a plan or mandating insurance. The public has a real disconnect here.
 
Boo Radley said:
Lord, you guys do sucker easliy for hyperbole. There's no socialism let alone communism here.

But once you accept the republican plan of mandating health care over a public option, you had to deal with the insurance companies. You can't do away with pre-existing condition, cover all children without either the government providing a plan or mandating insurance. The public has a real disconnect here.
Click to expand...

Well that's the understatement of the century...
 
 
Boo Radley said:
No, he didn't. He wanted a public option. What we ahve is the compromise.
Click to expand...

The Bamster didn't compromise with Republicans. The Bamster shoved Obamacare down their throats without a single Republican vote.

That wasn't true for Social Security or Medicare.
 
Last edited:
Albert Di Salvo said:
The Bamster didn't compromise with Republicans. The Bamster shoved Obamacare down their throats without a single Republican vote.

That wasn't true for Social Security or Medicare.
Click to expand...

Factually incorrect. The mandate was a republican idea, adopted when the public option became untenable.
 
Boo Radley said:
Factually incorrect. The mandate was a republican idea, adopted when the public option became untenable.
Click to expand...

The Mandate's origin is irrelevant. Obamacare was opposed by each and every Republican in Congress. That makes Obamacare illegitimate in a philosophical sense.
 
LOL!

obamacare with its CRIMINAL MANDATE was reconciled in senate with ZERO republican votes

it passed pelosi's place with ONE red assent, mr cao, the vietnamese seminarian from new orleans

live it, libs, love it

it's ALL yours!
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
The Mandate's origin is irrelevant. Obamacare was opposed by each and every Republican in Congress. That makes Obamacare illegitimate in a philosophical sense.
Click to expand...

Of course, as they were opposed to Obama no matter what he proposed. This is accepted. It was their clear strategy, which is why they even opposed their own ideas. But let's not pretend their ideas were not adopted. When a party says we're going to oppose everything you do, even when you accept our own ideas, that party loese the right to be involved.
 
Boo Radley said:
Of course, as they were opposed to Obama no matter what he proposed. This is accepted. It was their clear strategy, which is why they even opposed their own ideas. But let's not pretend their ideas were not adopted. When a party says we're going to oppose everything you do, even when you accept our own ideas, that party loese the right to be involved.
Click to expand...

Objectively, fault is irrelevant and cannot be proven. Both sides have the ability to cause the other side to fail. It is the subjective opinion of conservatives that your side established new rules for political opposition during the second Bush administration. Your side established a precedent for the proper treatment of presidents by members of the opposition. Conservatives have simply embraced leftist tactics.
 
loses the right to be involved---LOL!

tell it to the voters on tsunami tuesday
 
Boo Radley said:
You do realize this is nothing more than an opinion piece, right? Allow me to give you some reading in return:

One of the basic distinctions which Fein makes in the first chapter of his monograph on the physician shortage is that measuring the supply of physicians is one thing and measuring the supply of physician's services is quite another. From this distinction he derives the hypothesis that increasing the number of physicians is not necessarily the best solution to the current manpower problem. The remaining four chapters test this hypothesis by defining the terms of the physician manpower controversy, summarizing past arguments, and placing the manpower problem in a meaningful context of demand and supply.

JAMA -- Excerpt: The Doctor Shortage: An Economic Diagnosis, November 20, 1967, Balfe 202 (8): 849

THE NATIONAL shortage of physicians continues to receive widespread attention. Although many people agree there are locations in need of physicians, it has been difficult to determine satisfactorily the total national need for additional physicians.

JAMA -- Excerpt: Is There A Doctor Shortage?, March 25, 1974, Cooper 227 (12): 1410

Since AMA's creation of the Council a century ago, the U.S. population (75 million in 1900, 288 million in 2002) has increased in size by 284%, yet the number of medical schools has declined by 26% to 123.[8] [9] In terms of admissions limits, the peak year for applicants at U.S. schools was 1996 at 47,000 applications with a limit of 16,500 accepted. [10] This works out to roughly 64% of applications rejected. [11] On a micro level, for the last six years the University of Alabama (hardly a beacon of prestige in the medical discipline) has averaged about 1,498 applicants per year with an average of about 194 accepted. This is about an 87% rejection rate. The sizes of the entering classes have been of course even smaller, averaging about 161.

AMA would likely argue that there's nothing necessarily wrong with very high rejection rates. This is correct, except for the fact that these rates are being applied to pools of candidates who are cream-of-the-crop in quality and have put themselves through a very costly admissions process. [12] Current admissions practices could still be justified by what Milton Friedman (1982, p. 153) refers to as a "Cadillac standard." (Getting away from the pop-culture anachronisms of the 1960s, let's say "Lexus standard" a la the government decides that every driver today deserves nothing less than Lexus quality.) Applied to health care, the benefits of a Lexus standard could supposedly offset the costs of rejecting many ostensibly qualified applicants.

100 Years of Medical Robbery - Dale Steinreich - Mises Daily
Click to expand...

What is your point? Obama will add to the doctor shortage. You can't add millions and not increase the doctor shortage
 
The Prof said:
LOL!

obamacare with its CRIMINAL MANDATE was reconciled in senate with ZERO republican votes

it passed pelosi's place with ONE red assent, mr cao, the vietnamese seminarian from new orleanslive it, libs, love it

it's ALL yours!
Click to expand...

Mr. Cao got his butt kicked too. The dem took 65% of the vote. I guess the tea party and Republicans weren't too thrilled with his voting record.
 
ptif219 said:
What is your point? Obama will add to the doctor shortage. You can't add millions and not increase the doctor shortage
Click to expand...

Points:

1) the AMA keeps the doctor number down.

2) there are other ways to address the shortage, all of which will provide better care for more than we presently have.
 
Boo Radley said:
Points:

1) the AMA keeps the doctor number down.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

2) there are other ways to address the shortage, all of which will provide better care for more than we presently have.
Click to expand...

Again prove it, and please show us your credentials to make these absurd statements.

In any case, I think this highlights what went on since Obama was elected....




j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

I have a link above, and there's an entire thread on it in the Health care forum.


Again prove it, and please show us your credentials to make these absurd statements.

In any case, I think this highlights what went on since Obama was elected....




j-mac
Click to expand...


Two links from the AMA above.

And showing clips without providing history, recalling that the republican entire effort was to kill it regardless of what was in it, even when republicna ideas were adopted. This is one problem I often have with the republicna arguments. Had they showed real effort to participate, I might well have agreed with you.
 
Boo Radley said:
I have a link above, and there's an entire thread on it in the Health care forum.


Again prove it, and please show us your credentials to make these absurd statements.



Two links from the AMA above.
Click to expand...


The AMA is in Obama's pocket. They are a joke.

Now as for your credentials?

And showing clips without providing history, recalling that the republican entire effort was to kill it regardless of what was in it, even when republicna ideas were adopted. This is one problem I often have with the republicna arguments. Had they showed real effort to participate, I might well have agreed with you.
Click to expand...

Watch the clip Joe, the member explains it rather well.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
The AMA is in Obama's pocket. They are a joke.
Click to expand...

So, now, anyone who agrees is in his pocket? Does this apply to anyone who agress with anyone?

Now as for your credentials?
Click to expand...

What credentials do you think I need? What credentials do you need? We should get this straight, don't you think? :lamo



Watch the clip Joe, the member explains it rather well.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I did watch it. It does not cover the entiore history that came before it.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Points:

1) the AMA keeps the doctor number down.

2) there are other ways to address the shortage, all of which will provide better care for more than we presently have.
Click to expand...

Not the point. Obama has done his bill without looking at the consequences. This shows his incompetence and lack of leadership.

What way is Obama addressing this?
 
ptif219 said:
Not the point. Obama has done his bill without looking at the consequences. This shows his incompetence and lack of leadership.

What way is Obama addressing this?
Click to expand...

No, that's your spin.


. . . contains a number of measures designed to boost the provision of and payment for primary care services. According to analysts interviewed by AAFP News Now, implementation of these measures should lead to a greater role for primary care and family physicians in the U.S. health care system.

(providing more pay is an effort)

The health care reform law attempts to enhance the role of primary care via a variety of mechanisms, including through higher Medicare and Medicaid payments for primary care, innovative payment models to reward value instead of volume, and a substantial investment in the primary care workforce. In January, for example, Medicare will start paying certain primary care physicians -- those for whom primary care services comprise at least 60 percent of their total Medicare services -- a 10 percent bonus for the primary care services they provide.

(Same can be said for the above)

Consequently, the law provides $11 billion more in dedicated funding for community health centers and $1.5 billion in dedicated funding for the National Health Service Corps from 2011 to 2015. It also reauthorizes Section 747 of Title VII of the Public Health Service Act, the only federal program that provides funds to academic departments of family medicine and family medicine residency programs to increase training of family physicians.

(And this shows they have a plan to help increase the number of physicians)

Provisions in Health Care Reform Law Lay Out Role of Primary Care, Family Physicians -- AAFP News Now -- American Academy of Family Physicians

I'm sure you will note that the green words are mine. But this is just one link. There are many others explaining these efforts. So it would be factually incorrect to say there was no planning for this.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, that's your spin.


. . . contains a number of measures designed to boost the provision of and payment for primary care services. According to analysts interviewed by AAFP News Now, implementation of these measures should lead to a greater role for primary care and family physicians in the U.S. health care system.

(providing more pay is an effort)

The health care reform law attempts to enhance the role of primary care via a variety of mechanisms, including through higher Medicare and Medicaid payments for primary care, innovative payment models to reward value instead of volume, and a substantial investment in the primary care workforce. In January, for example, Medicare will start paying certain primary care physicians -- those for whom primary care services comprise at least 60 percent of their total Medicare services -- a 10 percent bonus for the primary care services they provide.

(Same can be said for the above)

Consequently, the law provides $11 billion more in dedicated funding for community health centers and $1.5 billion in dedicated funding for the National Health Service Corps from 2011 to 2015. It also reauthorizes Section 747 of Title VII of the Public Health Service Act, the only federal program that provides funds to academic departments of family medicine and family medicine residency programs to increase training of family physicians.

(And this shows they have a plan to help increase the number of physicians)

Provisions in Health Care Reform Law Lay Out Role of Primary Care, Family Physicians -- AAFP News Now -- American Academy of Family Physicians

I'm sure you will note that the green words are mine. But this is just one link. There are many others explaining these efforts. So it would be factually incorrect to say there was no planning for this.
Click to expand...

But where do the needed doctors come from? Adding buildings without more doctors will not help
 
ptif219 said:
But where do the needed doctors come from? Adding buildings without more doctors will not help
Click to expand...

Go back to the AMA denying people admission to medical school. There are more than effort candidates, but they have been held back by the AMA. The federal government, as noted above, will encourage more being admitted.
 
Boo Radley said:
Go back to the AMA denying people admission to medical school. There are more than effort candidates, but they have been held back by the AMA. The federal government, as noted above, will encourage more being admitted.
Click to expand...

The association has managed so far to escape the wrath of MoveOn.org and other Democratic apparatchiks by muting its opposition to their beloved public option--the proposed government-run health care plan--and joining a coalition of industry groups pledging to cut $80 billion in health care costs over the next decade. The president has been touting these savings as if they have been signed, sealed and delivered to the bank. But anyone who buys--even for a nano-second--that anything good can come for taxpayers or patients from an alliance between Big Government and Big Medicine should see a doctor.

The fact of the matter is that even if the AMA delivered its share of these "savings," it wouldn't begin to make up for the costs it imposes on the country--both in lost dollars and poorer patient care.

The Evil-Mongering Of The American Medical Association - Forbes.com
Click to expand...


Yep......:coffeepap:

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom