• 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!

More physicians leaving private practices

j-mac said:
Not at all. See when you make a law that intentionally drives certain costs, and slashes others in the name of "the Greater Good" then you force docs to make decisions like this because they can't afford their practices, and the tools to make them successful. This is only the first step in downgrading America's health care.

j-mac
Click to expand...

It still does not follow based on the article.

"...relief from administrative responsibilities; greater access to leading healthcare information technology tools, facilities and equipment; and a more manageable work week and stability."

Sounds more like the doctors are attracted to less stress, less cost and the benefit of cutting through the paperwork that they have to do.

Perhaps you should find an article that actually fits your premise? This one definitely doesn't.
 
Ikari said:
Really? Don't they force us all to buy car insurance?
Click to expand...

Not me. I don't have a driver's license, so I don't have to buy car insurance. If I choose to never get a driver's license, I will never need insurance.

The only way to not need health insurance is to stop living. Health insurance mandates are not comparable to auto insurance.
 
Whovian said:
I disagree. The problem is not fewer medical school students due to not enough medical schools... it's that more and more graduating medical students are going into specialties and not into a primary care practice.
Click to expand...

So then how do we fix this? Medical specialties are more lucrative than primary practice and general care.
 
roguenuke said:
Not me. I don't have a driver's license, so I don't have to buy car insurance. If I choose to never get a driver's license, I will never need insurance.

The only way to not need health insurance is to stop living. Health insurance mandates are not comparable to auto insurance.
Click to expand...

Oh? Or are we just being dishonest. If I want to drive, I have to have insurance. The government forces me to buy that. The statement was "tThe government can't force people to buy something. " But the government forces us to buy a lot of stuff. Car insurance included. Thanks for playing.
 
Ikari said:
Really? Don't they force us all to buy car insurance?
Click to expand...


First of all, that would be the state, and not all states demand that.

Second, Driving is a privilege you don't have to get car insurance if you don't drive a car.

Lastly, Car Insurance is devised to protect others against damages they may incur from your driving.

I would think that if you really were a Libertarian true to the letter, you'd be against both.

j-mac
 
Simon W. Moon said:
But not cars
Click to expand...

Nope, but as soon as I buy the car and want to take it on the road, the government forces me to buy insurance. The government forces me to buy a lot of things. A standing military, a medicade/medicare system, social security system, etc. I don't get a choice in this, I don't get to say where my tax dollars go. If I want to be a doctor, I have to have malpractice insurance. Who enforces that? Government. I could very well not be a doctor, but that doesn't mean that the government still doesn't force doctors to have malpractice insurance. I can choose not to have a car, but that doesn't mean the government does not force drivers to have insurance.
 
American said:
The next step after consolidation will be for Big Government to go after Big Hospital.
Click to expand...

Because the sole goal of health care reform is to decimate all health care so that Americans die early deaths. And you'll never stop us! Mwahahahahahahaha! *twirls moustache*
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
I disagree. The problem is not fewer medical school students due to not enough medical schools... it's that more and more graduating medical students are going into specialties and not into a primary care practice.
Click to expand...

That is also true, and is another problem that needs to be addressed. But I think it might be easier to simply increase the total number of doctors (by increasing the number and capacity of medical schools) than it will be to reform the incentives so that general care is as lucrative as specializations. Not to say that we shouldn't work on incentives too...but I think any effort to make general care relatively more attractive for aspiring doctors is going to face a lot of resistance in Congress among those who don't want any government involvement in health care at all. Whereas building more medical schools, or increasing the capacity of existing ones, should be relatively non-ideological and uncontroversial (despite intense opposition from the AMA).
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
If anything, one would think they would have better access to diagnostic equipment.
Click to expand...


Better equipment, better hours plus there are other doctors around if they need to consult with them.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
First of all, that would be the state, and not all states demand that.

Second, Driving is a privilege you don't have to get car insurance if you don't drive a car.

Lastly, Car Insurance is devised to protect others against damages they may incur from your driving.

I would think that if you really were a Libertarian true to the letter, you'd be against both.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I am against both, I think insurance is a scam. But government forces car insurance. It doesn't matter if I "choose" to buy a car (something I should be more than free to do anyway). As soon as I want to use that car, I have to have insurance. Car insurance is devised o protect "others" against damages by aggregating risk of accident over a larger block of people (of course, once you cover everybody, you've no longer aggregated risk as you'll just realize the statistical probabilities of the system). It's the same rational behind health insurance. And the same scam in the end. Obama's package is a give away to the insurance companies.

Also, what State does not require some amount of car insurance in order to legally drive?
 
Ikari said:
Oh? Or are we just being dishonest. If I want to drive, I have to have insurance. The government forces me to buy that. The statement was "tThe government can't force people to buy something. " But the government forces us to buy a lot of stuff. Car insurance included. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

No. I do not pay car insurance or any other insurance because I don't have a driver's license.

The requirement of having to have car insurance or driver's insurance involves another decision on the part of the person that it required of, and that is to actually have a driver's license. If they choose not to have a driver's license, they do not need driver's insurance. You don't have to drive.

There is no actual choice involved though in the matter of requiring health insurance, since it is solely dependent on whether the person is living or not. Unless you are trying to say that a person can choose to die rather than buy life insurance or face the penalty.

I am all for UHC. I think that would be the best way to go. I am against mandating people purchase health insurance. Such a mandate involves an unnecessary middleman.
 
roguenuke said:
No. I do not pay car insurance or any other insurance because I don't have a driver's license.

The requirement of having to have car insurance or driver's insurance involves another decision on the part of the person that it required of, and that is to actually have a driver's license. If they choose not to have a driver's license, they do not need driver's insurance. You don't have to drive.

There is no actual choice involved though in the matter of requiring health insurance, since it is solely dependent on whether the person is living or not. Unless you are trying to say that a person can choose to die rather than buy life insurance or face the penalty.

I am all for UHC. I think that would be the best way to go. I am against mandating people purchase health insurance. Such a mandate involves an unnecessary middleman.
Click to expand...

And people choose to go to the doctor. So what? You can stay at home and silently die as well; you made a choice. Now it may be along the same line as a car, because some people depend on their car for their livelihood. But that aside, the statement, and please read carefully here, was that government can't force someone to buy anything. To which I said, that's false because they do force us to buy a lot. Car insurance is but one example of government mandated purchases for an individual using their own property. It is government forcing the individual to buy something; and it happens a lot.
 
Ikari said:
I am against both, I think insurance is a scam. But government forces car insurance. It doesn't matter if I "choose" to buy a car (something I should be more than free to do anyway). As soon as I want to use that car, I have to have insurance. Car insurance is devised o protect "others" against damages by aggregating risk of accident over a larger block of people (of course, once you cover everybody, you've no longer aggregated risk as you'll just realize the statistical probabilities of the system). It's the same rational behind health insurance. And the same scam in the end. Obama's package is a give away to the insurance companies.

Also, what State does not require some amount of car insurance in order to legally drive?
Click to expand...


New Hampshire, and Wisconsin are two of them, I thought Tennessee but that may have changed since I was there.

But the fact remains that this is a state mandated thing.

Can you tell me what else the Federal Government requires that I buy as a part of being a citizen of the US?

j-mac
 
Ikari said:
And people choose to go to the doctor. So what? You can stay at home and silently die as well; you made a choice. Now it may be along the same line as a car, because some people depend on their car for their livelihood. But that aside, the statement, and please read carefully here, was that government can't force someone to buy anything. To which I said, that's false because they do force us to buy a lot. Car insurance is but one example of government mandated purchases for an individual using their own property. It is government forcing the individual to buy something; and it happens a lot.
Click to expand...

There is a difference though. It is not a good comparison because in the case of car insurance, another choice is involved. A person has to decide to drive (which requires purchasing a license to do so from the government to begin with) and then purchase a car to drive. They are making choices and accepting the terms that come with those choices, including purchasing car insurance. Driving a car is a privilege that many Americans take for granted because of where we live. There are countries where very few people are allowed to have a driver's license. And some of those are countries we would still consider to be very free nations.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who still do not get car insurance and get into accidents they are responsible for and we see what danger and hassles come from these situations.

The purchase of health insurance involves no actual choice in between. A person has to give up life in order to not have to purchase the insurance without facing the penalty, unlike driving where they would merely be giving up their privilege to drive.
 
j-mac said:
New Hampshire, and Wisconsin are two of them, I thought Tennessee but that may have changed since I was there.

But the fact remains that this is a state mandated thing.

Can you tell me what else the Federal Government requires that I buy as a part of being a citizen of the US?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes. You're required to buy over 800 bases in foreign countries as part of our overly aggressive "foreign policy".
 
toddwv said:
Yes. You're required to buy over 800 bases in foreign countries as part of our overly aggressive "foreign policy".
Click to expand...


Red herring. You are equating tax money expenditure, and one that is constitutionally mandated in the enumerated powers, to buying state insurance coverage on a car?

You really think we are that stupid?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
New Hampshire, and Wisconsin are two of them, I thought Tennessee but that may have changed since I was there.

But the fact remains that this is a state mandated thing.

Can you tell me what else the Federal Government requires that I buy as a part of being a citizen of the US?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Medicade, Medicare, Social Security, standing military, infrastructure, subsidies, etc.
 
roguenuke said:
There is a difference though. It is not a good comparison because in the case of car insurance, another choice is involved.
Click to expand...

You choose to go to the doctor, that's another choice which is involved.

roguenuke said:
The purchase of health insurance involves no actual choice in between. A person has to give up life in order to not have to purchase the insurance without facing the penalty, unlike driving where they would merely be giving up their privilege to drive.
Click to expand...

People don't always go to the doctor for life threatening things. That's more emergency room, and we all pay for that via taxes. We don't turn anyone down at the emergency room.
 
Ikari said:
Medicade, Medicare, Social Security, standing military, infrastructure, subsidies, etc.
Click to expand...


Apples to basketballs again. these are things taken out in taxation. Not something you are mandated to pay for of face penalty....Now you can argue that you face a penalty if you don't pay your taxes, and that is correct, but in this health care flap, Obama originally sold it by saying it wasn't a new tax, and only when he was getting hammered in court by the states did he start shifting and saying it was....

Can't have it both ways man....

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
New Hampshire, and Wisconsin are two of them, I thought Tennessee but that may have changed since I was there.

But the fact remains that this is a state mandated thing.

Can you tell me what else the Federal Government requires that I buy as a part of being a citizen of the US?

j-mac
Click to expand...


The National Institute of Health.
 
j-mac said:
New Hampshire, and Wisconsin are two of them, I thought Tennessee but that may have changed since I was there.
Click to expand...

Oh, BTW, minimum required insurance by state (The first two numbers refer to bodily injury liability limits and the third number refers to the property damage liability limit. The first two numbers in 25/50/20 would mean in an accident each person injured would receive a maximum of up to 25,000 with only 50,000 allowed per accident (ex. 2 people needing 25,000, if the need is more such as 3 people needing 25,000 then whoever files first gets first access to the 50,000 limit and you may be sued for the rest if the accident was your fault!). The last number refers to the total coverage per accident for property damage which in this case would be 20,000.)

# Alaska 50/100/25
# Alabama 20/40/10
# Arkansas 25/50/15
# Arizona 15/30/10
# California 15/30/5
# Colorado 25/50/15
# Connecticut 20/40/10
# Delaware 15/30/5
# Florida 10/20/10
# Georgia 15/30/10
# Hawaii 20/40/10
# Idaho 20/50/15
# Illinois 20/40/15
# Indiana 25/50/10
# Iowa 20/40/15
# Kansas 25/50/10
# Kentucky 25/50/10
# Louisiana 10/20/10
# Maine 50/100/25
# Maryland 20/40/10
# Massachusetts 20/40/5
# Michigan 20/40/10
# Minnesota 30/60/10
# Mississippi 25/50/25
# Missouri 25/50/10
# Montana 25/50/10
# Nebraska 25/50/25
# New Hampshire 25/50/25
# New Jersey 15/30/5
# New Mexico 25/50/10
# Nevada 15/30/10
# New York 25/50/10
# North Carolina 30/60/25
# North Dakota 25/50/25
# Ohio 12.5/25/7.5
# Oklahoma 10/20/10
# Oregon 25/50/10
# Pennsylvania 15/30/5
# Rhode Island 25/50/25
# South Carolina 25/50/25
# South Dakota 25/50/25
# Tennessee 25/50/10
# Texas 30/60/25
# Utah 25/65/15
# Virginia 25/50/20
# Vermont 25/50/10
# Washington 25/50/10
# Wisconsin 25/50/10
# West Virginia 20/40/10
# Wyoming 25/50/20

I don't see any 0 values for New Hampshire nor Wisconsin.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom