• 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!

Dr. Carson: Obamacare The Worst Thing That Has Happened Since Slavery

That hasn't been done. Doctors treat and deliver as they always have. All that has been done is to have more people insured with better insurance, thus making sure more things get paid. It's actually addressing the problem. More like if I had a leak in the bathroom, costing me tons of money on my water bill, and a found a way to fix the leak.

Says you. Although to use your particular analogy, it would be more like a leak in the bathroom, and going to take a shower, and the water doesn't work....heh, heh....
 
Says you. Although to use your particular analogy, it would be more like a leak in the bathroom, and going to take a shower, and the water doesn't work....heh, heh....

Yeah, says me. Lord knows doctors have a lot of hoops to jump through for insurance, and having to keep track of who the payers are. But there is really nothing changing in care in delivery, . . . .just payers.
 
Yeah, says me. Lord knows doctors have a lot of hoops to jump through for insurance, and having to keep track of who the payers are. But there is really nothing changing in care in delivery, . . . .just payers.

Plenty has changed in HC delivery....And will continue to change negatively.

"While much has been said about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), lengthy debates have failed to adequately address the impact that the 2,800 pages will have on doctors, patients, and the practice of medicine. This Galen Institute white paper does just that. This paper examines in detail how the government already hinders physicians’ abilities to provide good care for their patients and how these harmful trends will only worsen under the PPACA.

Medicare’s physician reimbursement regimen is fraught with underpayments and perverse incentives. During the health care debate, supporters of the PPACA praised Medicare’s ability to exploit its size to obtain lower fees with providers. While it is true that Medicare can bludgeon down physician fees, this is not one of the program’s greatest strengths, but actually one of its greatest weaknesses. These underpayments are ultimately shifted to patients in the form of shorter visits, less doctor face time, quick hospital discharges, and compromised care. Rather than reforming the government’s flawed reimbursement regimen, the PPACA merely expands its scope to more people."

The New Health Law: Bad for Doctors, Awful for Patients | The Institute for HealthCare Consumerism
 
Plenty has changed in HC delivery....And will continue to change negatively.

"While much has been said about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), lengthy debates have failed to adequately address the impact that the 2,800 pages will have on doctors, patients, and the practice of medicine. This Galen Institute white paper does just that. This paper examines in detail how the government already hinders physicians’ abilities to provide good care for their patients and how these harmful trends will only worsen under the PPACA.

Medicare’s physician reimbursement regimen is fraught with underpayments and perverse incentives. During the health care debate, supporters of the PPACA praised Medicare’s ability to exploit its size to obtain lower fees with providers. While it is true that Medicare can bludgeon down physician fees, this is not one of the program’s greatest strengths, but actually one of its greatest weaknesses. These underpayments are ultimately shifted to patients in the form of shorter visits, less doctor face time, quick hospital discharges, and compromised care. Rather than reforming the government’s flawed reimbursement regimen, the PPACA merely expands its scope to more people."

The New Health Law: Bad for Doctors, Awful for Patients | The Institute for HealthCare Consumerism

This is pay, not delivery. We don't treat a heart attack differently. We don't have to spend less time. No one has to change anything concerning care.

BTW I'm going over your article, and I see a lot of pronouncements, but few to no specifics. is it possible this is just another overreaction that can't point to anything that actually is happening?

Just a question.
 
This is pay, not delivery. We don't treat a heart attack differently. We don't have to spend less time. No one has to change anything concerning care.

BTW I'm going over your article, and I see a lot of pronouncements, but few to no specifics. is it possible this is just another overreaction that can't point to anything that actually is happening?

Just a question.

No. It is from a respected HC industry watch group.. Face it Joe, you are just unwilling to talk any negative news, without attacking the messenger of that news...You chose to chastise me for presuming I knew more than the SCOTUS in the other thread, yet here you are presuming you know more than the HC individuals speaking on the negative impact of the law....I see you don't practice what you preach, so your credibility is nil.
 
No. It is from a respected HC industry watch group.. Face it Joe, you are just unwilling to talk any negative news, without attacking the messenger of that news...You chose to chastise me for presuming I knew more than the SCOTUS in the other thread, yet here you are presuming you know more than the HC individuals speaking on the negative impact of the law....I see you don't practice what you preach, so your credibility is nil.


respected by who? But, they say it will happen not because it is dictated, but because doctors will want to make up pay. not sure I buy that. But the point is, they don't say that the care has been changed.

And I am saying they did not show anything in law that has changed, and they didn't because it hasn't.

And j, I have and can link doctors who say the opposite. I can and have linked doctors who favor UHC. If our standard is do doctors like it, I can likely match you.

BTW, As I've told, the family is rather heavily employed in medicine. ;)
 
respected by who? But, they say it will happen not because it is dictated, but because doctors will want to make up pay. not sure I buy that. But the point is, they don't say that the care has been changed.

And I am saying they did not show anything in law that has changed, and they didn't because it hasn't.

And j, I have and can link doctors who say the opposite. I can and have linked doctors who favor UHC. If our standard is do doctors like it, I can likely match you.

BTW, As I've told, the family is rather heavily employed in medicine. ;)

Good, ask your family whom are practicing doc's, how their ability to care for their patients will change when they have to double the amount of people they see in a day? Sometimes Utopian dreams have to give way to common sense.
 
Good, ask your family whom are practicing doc's, how their ability to care for their patients will change when they have to double the amount of people they see in a day? Sometimes Utopian dreams have to give way to common sense.

I have. Not much is what I get. And don't be silly about Utopian dreams as no one has made a case for Utopia. That too is just one more cheat.
 
Then I have to say that your family is NOT representative of the industry as a whole. :coffeepap

Sure they are. As I told, we can throw different opinions from doctors, including those who would support UHC. But none have reported that anything as actually happened yet.
 
Sure they are. As I told, we can throw different opinions from doctors, including those who would support UHC. But none have reported that anything as actually happened yet.

Oh brother, are you really saying that because the ACA hasn't been fully implemented yet that we can't look at what is written into law, and make practical assumptions in a business sense of what is to come? That's absurd.
 
Oh brother, are you really saying that because the ACA hasn't been fully implemented yet that we can't look at what is written into law, and make practical assumptions in a business sense of what is to come? That's absurd.

I'm really saying that nothing has happened yet. I've also said, quoting your article, that nothing in the law makes doctors do anything. You're article argues they will not because the law makes them, but because they will work the system to get more money. I have a little more faith in most doctors. Some always milk any system, but most will do their job. I'm also saying pay doesn't dictate practice. A heart attack requires the same treatment regardless of who is or isn't paying. If you were at all worried that low pay would would influence care, I'd have thought that you'd be concern about all those people who can't really pay right now. I'm sure you will miss this logic, but it's there for you anyway.

The fact, and it is a fact, the law does not require a change in care.
 
I'm really saying that nothing has happened yet. I've also said, quoting your article, that nothing in the law makes doctors do anything. You're article argues they will not because the law makes them, but because they will work the system to get more money. I have a little more faith in most doctors. Some always milk any system, but most will do their job. I'm also saying pay doesn't dictate practice. A heart attack requires the same treatment regardless of who is or isn't paying. If you were at all worried that low pay would would influence care, I'd have thought that you'd be concern about all those people who can't really pay right now. I'm sure you will miss this logic, but it's there for you anyway.

The fact, and it is a fact, the law does not require a change in care.

Joe, I know that your method of approaching anything that may be negative is to wait and see if indeed it turns out that way...It always has been. But, I am telling you that stalling to entrench the law so that it can not be removed for something better is IMHO, a mistake. We know from HC professionals, and business people that this won't work. But as always, you are not willing to concede to the professionals that do this for a living, (your own family members aside) instead opting to use stalling tactics leads me to believe that you, (being in favor of SP) are willing to destroy the system to rebuild it....
 
Joe, I know that your method of approaching anything that may be negative is to wait and see if indeed it turns out that way...It always has been. But, I am telling you that stalling to entrench the law so that it can not be removed for something better is IMHO, a mistake. We know from HC professionals, and business people that this won't work. But as always, you are not willing to concede to the professionals that do this for a living, (your own family members aside) instead opting to use stalling tactics leads me to believe that you, (being in favor of SP) are willing to destroy the system to rebuild it....

J, anyone can whine the sky is falling. Anyone. But the fact remains, and it is a fact, nothing demands any doctor change care. It's just not there. And it takes a serious skewing of logic to say more people with payers means less care.

And no, you hear it from cherry picked contrarians. You ask no questions of them, as it fits your narrative. When such people give testimony contrary to your belief, you have no trouble questioning then, but fail to see the inconsistency in your approach.
 
J, anyone can whine the sky is falling. Anyone. But the fact remains, and it is a fact, nothing demands any doctor change care. It's just not there. And it takes a serious skewing of logic to say more people with payers means less care.

And no, you hear it from cherry picked contrarians. You ask no questions of them, as it fits your narrative. When such people give testimony contrary to your belief, you have no trouble questioning then, but fail to see the inconsistency in your approach.

Do you feel better? Now that we have had that little critique of each other based on our opinion and nothing else, would you like to resume on the topic?
 
LOL. What made that lady's coverage "useless"? Is it because she might have had to fork over $9 a month to buy birth control pills?

That lady made clear part of her "issue" was the monthly fee. Where in Obamadon'tcare does it state you get to decide her "issues"?


Her old policy won't pay for her getting psychiatric counseling for being a drug addict alcoholic, won't pay her prenatal and birthing bills, nor medical treatment for breastfeeding difficulties.

Of course, none of that applies to her so she might as well be prepaying for a flight aboard a starship, but what does actually getting anything for what you are paying for have to do with anything?

WHY CAN'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS THE SLOGANS OF GOODNESS THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS? Sure, the ACA devastates millions and millions of people - particularly the poor - and is more hundreds of billions in corporate welfare at the middle and lower class expense by allowing companies to abolish emplyee insurance. BUT IT IS THE SLOGANS OF GOODNESS that matters. Not the reality. Everything else is irrelevant.

Plus, if you are a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN, you will support your president - unless you are a racist. More important, if you are a Democrat you would be a Christie-style traitor to not support the ACA named after the the president of your political party. A Democrat not supporting the ACA would be like a New Yorker cheering the Dodgers. Loyalty is everything!
 
Last edited:
It's actually addressing the problem. More like if I had a leak in the bathroom, costing me tons of money on my water bill, and a found a way to fix the leak.

Multiple times now, you've stated this while completely ignoring my powerful and hard-hitting post that demonstrates the "problem" lacked the severity needed to justify passing a bill without anybody reading it as if there was some state of emergency disaster and they quickly needed to appropriate funds. Here it is again: .....fact is, there was no such crisis, and to prove it, I asked for anyone who did not have access to free or low cost medical, to give us the city and state they live in, and we could look into it. There was one single response by someone who said the free clinic in Chicago was not to their liking. This doesn't justify a monstrously expensive bill at a time of possible financial collapse. It doesn't justify top priority status. It doesn't justify violating the constitution to pass it.
 
Multiple times now, you've stated this while completely ignoring my powerful and hard-hitting post that demonstrates the "problem" lacked the severity needed to justify passing a bill without anybody reading it as if there was some state of emergency disaster and they quickly needed to appropriate funds. Here it is again: .....fact is, there was no such crisis, and to prove it, I asked for anyone who did not have access to free or low cost medical, to give us the city and state they live in, and we could look into it. There was one single response by someone who said the free clinic in Chicago was not to their liking. This doesn't justify a monstrously expensive bill at a time of possible financial collapse. It doesn't justify top priority status. It doesn't justify violating the constitution to pass it.

Claiming that nobody read the bill is a false claim.
 
Don't take it from us....Listen to your hero Connyers...

I'm curious as to how John Conyers is "my hero," considering that I've never voted for him and don't belong to his party.
 
Do you feel better? Now that we have had that little critique of each other based on our opinion and nothing else, would you like to resume on the topic?

Addressing your claim was on topic j. Just go back and respond it.
 
Multiple times now, you've stated this while completely ignoring my powerful and hard-hitting post that demonstrates the "problem" lacked the severity needed to justify passing a bill without anybody reading it as if there was some state of emergency disaster and they quickly needed to appropriate funds. Here it is again: .....fact is, there was no such crisis, and to prove it, I asked for anyone who did not have access to free or low cost medical, to give us the city and state they live in, and we could look into it. There was one single response by someone who said the free clinic in Chicago was not to their liking. This doesn't justify a monstrously expensive bill at a time of possible financial collapse. It doesn't justify top priority status. It doesn't justify violating the constitution to pass it.

I disagree that it wasn't large enough. Truly, where the most expensive in the world, with access issues, which is evidence that it was in fact large enough.
 
I'm curious as to how John Conyers is "my hero," considering that I've never voted for him and don't belong to his party.

:lamo. I know, I'd be ashamed to own up to it too. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom