• 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!

A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public heal

Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

RightinNYC said:
Reread the poll question.

45% will consider leaving the medical profession or retiring early.

Setting aside the fact that this obviously includes a large percentage who would not consider retiring now, but might consider it later, what percent of practicing physicians do you think could retire from full-time practice tomorrow and live off their savings? I'd say it's probably pretty significant.
Click to expand...

Then about half of all doctors have right-wing sentiments and have no problem making empty threats. Saying you will consider quitting when a poll to that effect comes your way is a pretty easy thing to do, but it isn't a very credible warning if anything else in your life is important to you aside from your politics.

As for your concern: no, the number is not significant. Doctors tend to lead more expensive lifestyles than those of other professions. Those up to their mid-40s might be able to retire, but only at the expense of the kind of golden years they have been envisioning for themselves for the last couple of decades, which would kind of ruin part of the point of being a doctor -- they would have an average middle class retirement, which would involve a higher degree of frugality than they are likely accustomed to (one modestly priced vacation a year, probably not removing themselves to a more expensive state like California). Those in their late 50s/early 60s would just retire a few years earlier, and their absence won't be missed, because those doctors already retiring early due to bitterness with the system would lose their incentive to close up shop.

In the end, none of it means anything.
 
Last edited:
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

Morality Games said:
Then about half of all doctors have right-wing sentiments and have no problem making empty threats. Saying you will consider quitting when a poll to that effect comes your way is a pretty easy thing to do, but it isn't a very credible warning if anything else in your life is important to you aside from your politics.
Click to expand...

Not that I believe people back these things up either, but how does saying that you would be unlikely to be eager to work a difficult job for (presumably) less wages = "right-wing sentiments"? Seems like that reaction is more human than partisan to me.

As for your concern: no, the number is not significant. Doctors tend to lead more expensive lifestyles than those of other professions. Those up to their mid-40s might be able to retire, but only at the expense of the kind of golden years they have been envisioning for themselves for the last couple of decades, which would kind of ruin part of the point of being a doctor -- they would have an average middle class retirement, which would involve a higher degree of frugality than they are likely accustomed to (one modestly priced vacation a year, probably not removing themselves to a more expensive state like California). Those in their late 50s/early 60s would just retire a few years earlier, and their absence won't be missed, because those doctors already retiring early due to bitterness with the system would lose their incentive to close up shop.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the lifestyle that doctors live, but the fact remains that due to the age of their profession and their salaries, they generally have more freedom to make these choices than the average person. And where on earth are you getting the idea that the retirement of doctors in late 50's/early 60's wouldn't be missed? We need pretty much every doctor we can get, and those doctors are often among the best.
 
Last edited:
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

PogueMoran said:
Yeah because then all 8 immigrants who got snuck onto medicaid would be able to pay their doctors
Click to expand...

Don't be silly, okay? :roll:
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

American said:
Don't be silly, okay? :roll:
Click to expand...

Who's being silly? We spent $8 million dollars to uncover illegal alien fraud in Medicaid, and caught exactly 8 illegals. The article was posted here somewhere in the last couple weeks.
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

DrunkenAsparagus said:
Of course more government will do wonders with this
Click to expand...

Nevermind the fact that her assertion is not true...:2razz:
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

jackalope said:
Who's being silly? We spent $8 million dollars to uncover illegal alien fraud in Medicaid, and caught exactly 8 illegals. The article was posted here somewhere in the last couple weeks.
Click to expand...

The problem is that their children are eligible, which is a big loophole in our constitution that is unlikely to change.

The constitution was written when it was very difficult to cross the ocean, and the nation was mostly unpopulated. So every child born on American soil was automatically a citizen. That was before the days of welfare handouts.

Now people can sneak across the border and their children are citizens and eligible for any and all benefits, with plenty of social workers to help them along the way.

Hardly the vision of the founding fathers, I've no doubt...
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

MyOwnDrum said:
The problem is that their children are eligible, which is a big loophole in our constitution that is unlikely to change.

The constitution was written when it was very difficult to cross the ocean, and the nation was mostly unpopulated. So every child born on American soil was automatically a citizen. That was before the days of welfare handouts.

Now people can sneak across the border and their children are citizens and eligible for any and all benefits, with plenty of social workers to help them along the way.

Hardly the vision of the founding fathers, I've no doubt...
Click to expand...

You don't even have to sneak, fwiw.

My girlfriend is on her ob/gyn rotation right now and at least 1/3 of the babies she's delivered have been to mothers who simply flew to the US from somewhere in the carribbean a month or two before they were due, stayed with friends, and then delivered the baby here.
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

MyOwnDrum said:
The problem is that their children are eligible, which is a big loophole in our constitution that is unlikely to change.

The constitution was written when it was very difficult to cross the ocean, and the nation was mostly unpopulated. So every child born on American soil was automatically a citizen. That was before the days of welfare handouts.

Now people can sneak across the border and their children are citizens and eligible for any and all benefits, with plenty of social workers to help them along the way.

Hardly the vision of the founding fathers, I've no doubt...
Click to expand...

Actually, The Constitution does not say any child born on US soil is automatically a citizen.... the 14th amendment has been perverted by the courts to give us anchor babies.

14th Amendment:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

The part perverted of course is the "jurisdiction thereof".

Jurisdiction
jurisdiction n the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised Source: NMW
Click to expand...

How do you apply the law to someone here illegally?

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005: Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty
The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”

This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. But we don’t have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution (use his link for footnotes):
It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Click to expand...
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

Crunch said:
Actually, The Constitution does not say any child born on US soil is automatically a citizen.... the 14th amendment has been perverted by the courts to give us anchor babies.

The part perverted of course is the "jurisdiction thereof".

How do you apply the law to someone here illegally?

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Click to expand...

"Jurisdiction" means that someone is subject to the laws of the country. Anyone on the soil of the US is subject to the laws of the US.

jus soli.
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

RightinNYC said:
"Jurisdiction" means that someone is subject to the laws of the country. Anyone on the soil of the US is subject to the laws of the US.

jus soli.
Click to expand...

These guys disagree with you... but what do they know, one is just a Constitutional scholar, and the other is just the guy that wrote the 14th amendment. :2wave:

Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005: Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty
The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”

This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. But we don’t have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution (use his link for footnotes):
It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Click to expand...

Did you read it this time?
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

Crunch said:
These guys disagree with you... but what do they know, one is just a Constitutional scholar, and the other is just the guy that wrote the 14th amendment. :2wave:



Did you read it this time?
Click to expand...

Setting aside the fact that the first guy didn't go to law school and that the floor statements of one of the authors of the 14th amendment are not dispositive of its meaning or of the intent of Congress as a whole, the fact remains that jus soli has been part of the English common law for centuries and that the current interpretation of the amendment has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court since the 19th century.
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

RightinNYC said:
Setting aside the fact that the first guy didn't go to law school and that the floor statements of one of the authors of the 14th amendment are not dispositive of its meaning or of the intent of Congress as a whole, the fact remains that jus soli has been part of the English common law for centuries and that the current interpretation of the amendment has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court since the 19th century.
Click to expand...

Pssss....... we are talking about the US, not England.

PS..... we fought England to win our freedom.... just saying.
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

CaptainCourtesy said:
Most doctors in my area refuse to accept most private insurance, the issues with them are so bad. They even prefer Medicare over them. As does my practice.
Click to expand...

Insurance should only cover catastrophes, not day to day medical and dental upkeep.
Is this not common sense ?

Administrative costs are high, BlueCross is very inefficient, uses far too much silly paperwork. Our government and the legal "profession" can ease this - people just need to think and work....and care.
We will probably be better off with government insurance for medical catastrophes.
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

I believe we do in fact respect common law in regards to judicial precidence. Trumbull was not the author but was considered a sponsor. Trumbull authored the 13th Amendment.
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

Crunch said:
Pssss....... we are talking about the US, not England.

PS..... we fought England to win our freedom.... just saying.
Click to expand...

Wow. Ok.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law]Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Read this and come back when you understand what common law is and how it develops.
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

Is anyone aware of anything in the bill that will force doctors to take patients in the public option? I suspect that it will be much like medicare and many hospitals and doctors will simply refuse to treat people on the plan due to payment caps and long reimbursement times.

So while you may be covered you may not recieve treament any place you wish.
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

Baralis said:
Is anyone aware of anything in the bill that will force doctors to take patients in the public option? I suspect that it will be much like medicare and many hospitals and doctors will simply refuse to treat people on the plan due to payment caps and long reimbursement times.

So while you may be covered you may not recieve treament any place you wish.
Click to expand...
That's a good point. There's actually already a shortage of Family practice physicians. Many doctors already are not able to take new patients. Many people moving into my area are not able to establish a relationship with a local doctor and need to go to the emergency room for any problem.

So, we may be back to square one, and those on the so called public option will be forced to use the more expensive ER by necessity which will drive up the price of the insurance.
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

Baralis said:
Is anyone aware of anything in the bill that will force doctors to take patients in the public option? I suspect that it will be much like medicare and many hospitals and doctors will simply refuse to treat people on the plan due to payment caps and long reimbursement times.

So while you may be covered you may not recieve treament any place you wish.
Click to expand...
good question
 
Re: A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public

Not that I believe people back these things up either, but how does saying that you would be unlikely to be eager to work a difficult job for (presumably) less wages = "right-wing sentiments"? Seems like that reaction is more human than partisan to me.
Click to expand...

A left wing doctor would not believe that they would end up with substantially less money in the end, because any overhaul would include provisions amenable to their profession, such as reduced capacity for malpractice suits. Indeed, as is the case now, whether or not a doctor will actually receive more or less money in the end will depend largely on their position within the medical community's network; it is inevitable that many doctors, both talented and untalented, good and bad, are going to lose more money or gain more money at least somewhat arbitrarily. Hopefully more talented, ethically minded doctors will be receiving greater sums of money after the reform, but that's not really the point. The end-all-be-alls are greater affordability and coverage.

I'm aware of the lifestyle that doctors live, but the fact remains that due to the age of their profession and their salaries, they generally have more freedom to make these choices than the average person. And where on earth are you getting the idea that the retirement of doctors in late 50's/early 60's wouldn't be missed? We need pretty much every doctor we can get, and those doctors are often among the best.
Click to expand...

"shrug" The need is contrived both by circumstance and certain doctor's organizations who attempt to limit the number of graduates to maintain the value of the doctors currently employed. Among other things, pass legislation to the effect of reducing medical school fees and you can accommodate any shortage. Probably (although not necessarily) expensive, but in comparison to what's being proposed, you may as well just tack it on for the sake of maximizing the reform's effectiveness. Indeed, it doesn't have to be expensive, if you are willing to be authoritarian and more or less force an end to the rampant factionalism.

Unless a person is overflowing with compassion and prefers the life of a doctor to a retirement, any doctor would retire in their 50s/60s. There is simply nothing more to be gained from the practice after that which couldn't be acquired from investing whatever you have saved.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom