• 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!

60 doctor-owned hospitals canceled due to new health law

The Prof said:
oh, my...

the more we learn about this PIG of a bill...

why didn't the party think of these things, y'know, in advance?

Healthcare overhaul won't stop premium increases - latimes.com
Click to expand...

I have two comments...

Insurance companies will probably do the same thing banks and credit card companies did last year. Soon after Congress passed a law limiting interest rate hikes, credit card companies immediately sent out notices of increased interest rates to beat the implementation of the law. Health insurance companies will probably do the same thing.

Point 2... If anyone thinks outlawing pre-existing condition exclusions will not result in higher rates for everyone, I have a couple of Ohio River bridges I'd like to sell. Insurance companies will be forced to insure people AFTER they find out they are sick.

If I was a young twenty-something, I would pay my measly annual penalty for not having insurance, then buy insurance if I found out I had a serious illness. People have been doing the exact same thing with auto insurance for years.
 
Gill said:
I have two comments...

Insurance companies will probably do the same thing banks and credit card companies did last year. Soon after Congress passed a law limiting interest rate hikes, credit card companies immediately sent out notices of increased interest rates to beat the implementation of the law. Health insurance companies will probably do the same thing.

Point 2... If anyone thinks outlawing pre-existing condition exclusions will not result in higher rates for everyone, I have a couple of Ohio River bridges I'd like to sell. Insurance companies will be forced to insure people AFTER they find out they are sick.

If I was a young twenty-something, I would pay my measly annual penalty for not having insurance, then buy insurance if I found out I had a serious illness. People have been doing the exact same thing with auto insurance for years.
Click to expand...

You can claim religious exemption or financial hardship and not have to pay any fine.
 
Gill said:
I have two comments...

Insurance companies will probably do the same thing banks and credit card companies did last year. Soon after Congress passed a law limiting interest rate hikes, credit card companies immediately sent out notices of increased interest rates to beat the implementation of the law. Health insurance companies will probably do the same thing.

Point 2... If anyone thinks outlawing pre-existing condition exclusions will not result in higher rates for everyone, I have a couple of Ohio River bridges I'd like to sell. Insurance companies will be forced to insure people AFTER they find out they are sick.

If I was a young twenty-something, I would pay my measly annual penalty for not having insurance, then buy insurance if I found out I had a serious illness. People have been doing the exact same thing with auto insurance for years.
Click to expand...

That's what they've been doing under Romneycare, too.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There are people who had ideas that weren't Republicans.
They were ignored for the most part.
Click to expand...

Be specific. As the bill has a lot of republican ideas, I would say they were ignored. And if they were not republicans, are you saying there were ignored, or that they just didn't get their ideas in the bill? There is a difference.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You can claim religious exemption or financial hardship and not have to pay any fine.
Click to expand...

not if you don't have a religious exemption or a financial hardship

just wait til junior learns the candidate he swooned for has just made him a CRIMINAL

live it, libs, love it

it's YOURS!
 
Gill said:
If anyone thinks outlawing pre-existing condition exclusions will not result in higher rates for everyone, I have a couple of Ohio River bridges I'd like to sell.
Click to expand...

thanks

fundamentally---YOU CAN'T EXPAND MEDICARE AND MEDICAID BY 12 MIL WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY CUTTING THEIR ALREADY SEVERELY STRAINED FUNDING BY HALF A TRIL

as inescapable as gravity on earth
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
not if you don't have a religious exemption or a financial hardship

just wait til junior learns the candidate he swooned for has just made him a CRIMINAL

live it, libs, love it

it's YOURS!
Click to expand...

Yep, the ones that will be screaming the loudest are the recent college graduates when they find out how much their insurance premiums will cost them, or... when they find out they are not getting back the income tax refund that they had planned on using for a vacation.
 
I don't really see the point is preserving the private insurance companies. For a society that has reached our psychological and technological standpoint, for-profit health insurance is a burden. They need to be phased out except for the super-wealthy.
 
Morality Games said:
I don't really see the point is preserving the private insurance companies. For a society that has reached our psychological and technological standpoint, for-profit health insurance is a burden. They need to be phased out except for the super-wealthy.
Click to expand...

Many insurance companies are non-profit, for example one of the largest... Blue Cross/ Blue Shield.
 
Boo Radley said:
Be specific. As the bill has a lot of republican ideas, I would say they were ignored. And if they were not republicans, are you saying there were ignored, or that they just didn't get their ideas in the bill? There is a difference.
Click to expand...

There were ideas that were not included in the bill.
They had no chance of making it because, they did not do something for large businesses(insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc.) and/or specific worker lobbies(doctors, nurses etc.).
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There were ideas that were not included in the bill.
They had no chance of making it because, they did not do something for large businesses(insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc.) and/or specific worker lobbies(doctors, nurses etc.).
Click to expand...

I'm sure they were, though I'd like to know which ones. I doubt seriously that anything could ever get passed that didn't consider those lobbies, and some of that would be appropriate. Not all, but some.

The bill didn't go far enough, and I personally hoped for it to go farther, but that would have made conservatives even less happy. But with something, there is a starting place that might lead to better reform later on.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sure they were, though I'd like to know which ones. I doubt seriously that anything could ever get passed that didn't consider those lobbies, and some of that would be appropriate. Not all, but some.

The bill didn't go far enough, and I personally hoped for it to go farther, but that would have made conservatives even less happy. But with something, there is a starting place that might lead to better reform later on.
Click to expand...

Squeezing the patent ownership time for pharma would have been really good as well as normalizing or eliminating scope of practice laws.

Ending the cap on doctors residency could of helped loads but that didn't have a hot chance in hell of happening.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sure they were, though I'd like to know which ones. I doubt seriously that anything could ever get passed that didn't consider those lobbies, and some of that would be appropriate. Not all, but some.

The bill didn't go far enough, and I personally hoped for it to go farther, but that would have made conservatives even less happy. But with something, there is a starting place that might lead to better reform later on.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can tell us how to pay for this thing that you think did not go far enough?
 
Objective Voice said:
I really don't understand why this doctor shortage issue has suddenly become a problem for the average Joe. If you have a family doctor whom you see regularly (atleast once every 4-6 months), as long as that doctor doesn't retire or change/relocate his/her practise outside your reach, there really shouldn't be a problem.

While I do understand the concern being raised, this nation's doctor/nurse shortage really is old news, folks. It's just getting alot more attention since health care reform legistlation has been passed. And while I understand the rationale behind those who honestly see this as a problem directly related to passage of the health care reform bill, I think the matter will correct itself. You'll start seeing more advertising for people to go into the medical field. The medical profession as a whole will regroup and start figuring out how to do more with less; technology will lead the way and close some of the gaps for a time, but eventually the system will correct itself. It always does when people put real thought behind a problem.
Click to expand...

The moguls of rant radio have predicted that something like 45% of the doctors will leave the country if health care passes. Since it did pass, and since guys like Rush and Beck are always right, we can expect to see a huge exodus just any time now, so the doctor shortage will get worse.

Unless, of course, it doesn't. In that case, they'll find something else to rant about.
 
obama is such an idiot

uncertainty is a VIRUS in difficult economic times

and yet no one, admit it, really knows EVERYTHING that's in this health care bill

ie, how it will affect you, me, our families, friends, fellow workers...

no one, admit it, knows EXACTLY how all these huge SOCIAL and economic changes are gonna touch us and ours

this idiot obama ACTIVELY breeds uncertainty with his every stumbling step

health care, cap and trade, wall street reg reform...

just how are business, investment, consumption to proceed with so many querulous question marks standing, obstacle like, between us and our progress?

in such dim, dark days?

uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, like a virus, worries us with our every transaction

here, the grey lady, ny times, exposes our own CONGRESSIONAL REPS, they're as in-the-dark about all these doubts as anybody else

ie, it's THAT bad

Washington Memo - Baffled by Health Plan? So Are Some Lawmakers - NYTimes.com

party on, progressives

represent!
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Squeezing the patent ownership time for pharma would have been really good as well as normalizing or eliminating scope of practice laws.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, when the pharmaceutical company (Pfizer for instance) spends billions of dollars in R&D to develop one drug, how long do you think they should be able to keep the patent?

When you make the patent even shorter then it already is, how do you think that would affect spending on the R&D and how many drugs are developed in the future?

I heard a pharma CEO recently say that if the profit margins for his company are reduced, it wouldn't be worthwhile for them to stay in the medical pharmaceutical industry. Instead, they would just switch to making vitamins and supplements - where profit margins are much higher. Think investors might do the same?
 
buck said:
Just out of curiosity, when the pharmaceutical company (Pfizer for instance) spends billions of dollars in R&D to develop one drug, how long do you think they should be able to keep the patent?

When you make the patent even shorter then it already is, how do you think that would affect spending on the R&D and how many drugs are developed in the future?
Click to expand...

2 years tops.

Intellectual property has no single owner once it has been released for public consumption.
I bet you money there is a ton of waste going into that R&D, something that the government shouldn't prop up with monopoly power.

Research has been institutionalized too much, individual inventors can be used to research things with their own money if the powers that be would let off on chemicals for non formal institutions.

buck said:
I heard a pharma CEO recently say that if the profit margins for his company are reduced, it wouldn't be worthwhile for them to stay in the medical pharmaceutical industry. Instead, they would just switch to making vitamins and supplements - where profit margins are much higher. Think investors might do the same?
Click to expand...

I'm sure that will happen, they will dilute that limited market even further reducing profit margins.
That brings them back to square one all over again.

They know this already though.
 
cholla said:
Maybe you can tell us how to pay for this thing that you think did not go far enough?
Click to expand...

We're paying for it before reform. We pay in insurance premiums, higher costs, passed on by those who use services and don't pay, a society that believes more is better (more tests, more procedures, more drugs) no matter what the actual fact of the matter is. Our present system without reform encourages excess in every way. How do you suppose we pay for that?

Fact is, more reform, something a kind to a universal payer (which has not even ever been proposed), would allow some ability to measure and control cost, being more cost effective than the ad hock mess we currently have.

Just because you're not paying with tax dollars doesn't mean you aren't paying for it and for others. You pay for those uninsured and unable to pay right now, without a single tax increase or one attached to health care reform.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Squeezing the patent ownership time for pharma would have been really good as well as normalizing or eliminating scope of practice laws.

Ending the cap on doctors residency could of helped loads but that didn't have a hot chance in hell of happening.
Click to expand...

Well, I do see the not a chance in hell of passing comment. ;) I suggest this is part of the problem. Some of the best answers have no chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom