• 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

It is an increase in costs for someone, what happened to the rhetoric of "your premiums will decrease?"

I don't think that was a claim that Obama was making. When did Obama say that every American's premiums would be decreasing?

What about the fact that young people have less income and resources than older people, how does it make sense to raise costs on them?

It's inadequate assumption. Many older adults are living on fixed incomes and can't work.

It seems to me you're grasping at a justification for the existence of the bill that passed.

To the contrary. I haven't heard a sufficient argument to suggest that the legislation that passed won't control costs. Feel free to produce one. At present you have failed and only provided information on the Senate bill prior to the reconciliation.
 
Your assumption is contingent upon the belief that people will use medical services they don't need just because they are there. Could you provide a source establishing with actual statistics that this has occurred before?

Here's just one thing I know of...

Antibiotics Overprescribed By Doctors, Study Suggests

Moreover, with all the prescription medicine commercials out there, I have to assume that at least some of the people who "ask their doctor about ________" don't really need medical care.

I've personally been to the physician for something I didn't need, as have the rest of my family. I assume the phenomena of bitching and moaning isn't limited to myself and my kin...


The Massachusetts Health Mess - WSJ.com
 
The debate is whether the bill does enough to control costs. I have yet to hear an intelligent, evidence based argument presented from either side that indicates how this bill will affect cost. All I hear is speculation and ideology.
The law will cost $trillions, so where are the savings? :confused:
 
Do you have any sources that actually talk about the legislation that was passed? None of these sources seem to discuss the legislation that was actually passed, by which I mean the Senate Bill and the fixes that they approved later. They also refer to the CBO report of just the Senate Bill, not the CBO report that was released of the combined legislation.

If we are going to talk about whether or not Obama's health care will control costs, shouldn't we be talking about the legislation that we actually have?
Maybe you should get Bart Stupak to splain it to you, I hear he has plenty of time now. :lol:
 
I don't think that was a claim that Obama was making. When did Obama say that every American's premiums would be decreasing?

I'm criticizing the fact the you support it for ???? some reason.
I have yet to understand what reason that is though.

It's inadequate assumption. Many older adults are living on fixed incomes and can't work.

It's not an assumption, it is truth.
Fixed income can be $100k to $10k, that is an arbitrary judgment.

https://www.networthiq.com/explore/net-worth-statistics.aspx

To the contrary. I haven't heard a sufficient argument to suggest that the legislation that passed won't control costs. Feel free to produce one. At present you have failed and only provided information on the Senate bill prior to the reconciliation.

The key reasoning has not changed behind the increases in cost, mandates were not removed when the bill was passed or do you contest that?
They whole reason the CBO said that the increase would occur is because of additional insurance mandates.
 
Oh come now this has nothing what ever to do with making anything better it's about destroying the economy.

Had it been about health care it would have addressed the issues that needed to be fixed.

Doctors said they didn't want this, The only Doctors that were in favor of it were the White House Janitors in white lab coats at phony photo op.

The polls indicated broad support among physicians for the health care legislation. I think you are misinformed and bought into that fake NEJM poll.

Do doctors oppose health care reform? - City of Brass
 
The difference is where the demand will be placed on the system. Instead of it primarily being placed on emergency care, where it has been as a result of people without insurance waiting until they were sick enough that they had to get treatment, it will be placed on more standard care.

Costly ER still draws many now insured - The Boston Globe

Thousands of newly insured Massachusetts residents are relying on emergency rooms for routine medical care, an expensive habit that drives up healthcare costs and thwarts a major goal of the state's first-in-the-nation health insurance law.

Doctors and counselors working the front lines of emergency care say a major reason patients still flock to their doors for routine care is that there are too few primary care physicians in Massachusetts. Some newly insured patients are waiting months for their first visits.
 
I supported doing something that may have been a disaster over doing nothing that would have assuredly been a disaster.

wow

the lone defender on this thread of this PIG of a bill

ie, it's THAT bad
 
Your assumption is contingent upon the belief that people will use medical services they don't need just because they are there. Could you provide a source establishing with actual statistics that this has occurred before?



Source?

Go to any US Military Hospital.
 
What's this? Corporate Hospitals got the hook up from the people supposedly out to stop such?


HAHAHAHAHA

What's this? People supposedly out to stop corporate hospitals actually weren't?


HAHAHAHAHA.
 
it's starting

wsj, this morning: US faces shortage of 150,000 doctors

U.S. Faces Shortage of Doctors - WSJ.com

live it, libs, love it

it's yours

i hope it's EVERYTHING you wanted (cuz you aint gettin squat from here on out)
 
underlying everything is truth like gravity:

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

americans get it even if the clueless klutz in charge doesn't

it's why the PIG is so unpopular
 
it's starting

wsj, this morning: US faces shortage of 150,000 doctors

Ahhhhhhh! Suddenly 150,000 doctors went missing the day after this bill was signed!

Dolt.

The doctor shortage has been around for decades. It has nothing to do with this law.
 
but the HEADLINE is BRAND NEW

LOL!

politics is played in HEADLINES
 
CBC.ca - Canada Votes - Why MDs are scarce and what can be done about it

ISSUE WATCH
Doctor shortage
Why MDs are scarce and what can be done about it

According to Statistics Canada, 4.1 million Canadians over the age of 12 don't have a family doctor. Do you have a family doctor? Many Canadians don't.

In fact, Statistics Canada reported in June 2008 that about 4.1 million Canadians aged 12 or older don't have a family doctor.

About 1.5 million people said they simply could not find one. The federal agency reports that 78 per cent of those 4.1 million do seek medical care elsewhere, with most using walk-in or appointment clinics.

In total, about three-quarters of Canadians saw a doctor for some reason last year. Those numbers include visits to family doctors, specialists, emergency rooms and other types of consultations. So the demand for care is there.

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), there were 62,307 physicians in Canada in 2006, an increase of 4.9 per cent from five years earlier, which is about the same pace as the increase in population. So the number of doctors per person hasn't changed much in that time.

Doctors' groups began warning in the mid-1990s that a shortage was coming. But Canada's highest doctor-to-patient ratio came in 1993, and the perception of some policy makers was that there was a surplus. Enrolment at medical school was cut and retirement incentives were offered.

More interest in specialities

It wasn't until early in this decade that the worry about a shortage spread. In the 1990s, fewer doctors graduated as general practitioners. According to CIHI, in the early 1990s, about 80 per cent of physicians began their careers as general practitioners. By 2000, only 45 per cent did. The interest in specialties had increased.

With fewer GPs, remote regions were finding it harder and harder to attract those graduates.

Also in the mid '90s came new restrictions on international medical graduates.

The Canadian Medical Association says the shortage of health-care professionals is the most urgent issue facing the system today. A poll done for the CMA by Ipsos Reid in September 2008 found that respondents agreed. About 65 per cent of people polled said it was a top priority in health care. The poll surveyed 1,026 people from Sept. 24 to 26, and is considered accurate within three percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

In that survey, more than 70 per cent of respondents said politicians weren't spending enough time discussing health care during the current federal election campaign.

Parties weigh in

Health care, of course, is a provincial responsibility. But the Canada Health Act is a federal act, and federal transfers provide money for the provinces to use for health spending. So federal parties usually have a lot to say about health care, whether or not they can do anything about it.

Most of the major federal parties have called for an increase in funding to train new doctors and nurses.

Because of predictions in the 1990s that Canada would soon have too many doctors, many provinces cut the number of available spaces at medical schools. But increasing the number of spaces available means finding teachers, and spaces in hospitals where new graduates can do their residencies.

The Liberals say they would spend $420 million to increase the number of doctors and nurses being trained, and reward students who choose needed specialties.

The NDP has repeated its promise of $200 million a year towards a 50 per cent increase in the number of doctors being trained.

The Conservatives have promised to fund 50 new residencies every year in university hospitals. The party is also promising a $5-million fund to encourage Canadian physicians who practise abroad to return home.

Aging population a factor

The need for more doctors is likely to get even more pressing.

The aging population puts a double strain on health care: first, because older people need more medical care, and second, because the doctors themselves will be aging, and leaving their practices. The CMA reports that about one third of doctors are 55 or older. Statistics Canada says that in 2006, Canada's seniors hit a record 13.7 per cent of the population. The agency's projections suggest the proportion of seniors could double in the next 25 years.

Physician demographics are changing in other ways. There are more female physicians these days, and they tend to work fewer hours a week than their male counterparts. They are also more likely to take time off to raise children. Younger doctors of both sexes are less willing to work the 60-hour work weeks of their predecessors.

CMA president Robert Ouellet says there simply aren't enough physicians to go around.

"Patients need to have a family doctor, and they need to have access to health care, and to have access to surgeries, and treatments, and we need to have doctors to do that."

The CMA has launched an information campaign, saying Canada needs 26,000 more doctors immediately to achieve the OECD average of three physicians per 1,000 people.

The problem of few doctors is worse in so-called "under-serviced" areas, including those outside big cities, and areas with widely dispersed populations. Drive just an hour or two north of Toronto, and there are actually roadside signs pleading with doctors to relocate.

Several federal parties and provincial governments have devised strategies to lure doctors to underserved regions, including bonuses, and loan forgiveness.
 
Ahhhhhhh! Suddenly 150,000 doctors went missing the day after this bill was signed!

Dolt.

The doctor shortage has been around for decades. It has nothing to do with this law.

True. It will only get worse with the new health care legislation.

True, but that's the reasons more funding for higher education was added to health care reform legistlation - to try and stave off the anticipated drop off in doctor shortages. Still, as misterman so accurately pointed out, this country has had a shortage on doctors (and nurses) for years.

Prof,

What does Canada's doctor shortage have to do with America other than both countries are having the same problem?
 
Last edited:
So, it won't increase access to medical care?
it should decrease emergency room treatment, which is very expensive, with dr office visits, much less expensive. no substantial increase overall, i don't think.
 
Oh come now this has nothing what ever to do with making anything better it's about destroying the economy.

Had it been about health care it would have addressed the issues that needed to be fixed.

Doctors said they didn't want this, The only Doctors that were in favor of it were the White House Janitors in white lab coats at phony photo op.
why would obama want to destroy our country's economy? sometimes the outrageous statements i read here cause me to wonder about the sanity of some posters.
 
Back
Top Bottom