• 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!

Nearly 50 percent of doctors ready to quit medicine if Healthcare bill passes

Are you trying to imply that after "reform" they will be paying for themselves? Because I haven't seen where the taxpayers in this country will not be still paying for others health care.

Some will be paying for their own, yes. That's the whole mandate to buy insurance. But even those we pay for, in the long run it could be less (don't know if it will yet) as it will be more controlled and less ad hock. Do you know anyone monitoring the charges hospitals charge to make up for those who don't pay? Any possibility they charge more than required?
 
you should also consider there are those that would fall within the "underinsured" definition, who do not utilized their insurance, of which the somewhat ambiguous definiton has led to their grouping with those who may be overusing their insurance..

there are some people that just dont go to the doc, unless they need an appendage sewn back on. these are persons who normally wouldnt choose to be on a medical plan unless strongly impressed upon by an employer..
which ironically on a small scale, is similar to asking someone else to help pay for anothers healthcare..(at least its still voluntary, rather than being required..)

there are those who potentially overuse their insurance for every sniffle/ache/moan imaginable. which they can certainly do, after all they paid for it... so i really havent a complaint about this, with the exception of those who just do not take care of themselves and eventually create costs that others on the same plan must also fund.(you know the ones... smoking 2packs a day at 50+ yrs of age and have a BMI of 60+..)

my vaguely presented point is that statistics are usually manipulated to fit the view of the statustician and often "broad brushed" to include those that effectively are not in actuality adding to the totals being presented.(though i havent the foggiest clue how to separate the "fluff" from the "stuff")

Statistics don't speak for themselves, that's true. We do have to make some judgment as to what they mean, which can lead to some bending. All the same, the problem is real. People come in, get treated, and can't readily pay. The hospital has to recoup the costs, and in turn charge us all more. This effects not only what we pay at the hospital, but our premiums.

And yes, another problem, and I stated earlier there is more than one, is that we've been a system that is designed mostly to be used after something is wrong. This is ineffective. The 2 pack a day smoker does run up costs for everyone. As do other less healthy life styles. As long as we think in terms of medicine being something we do after we're sick, or that requires we spend and have things done that we think needs to be done, but doesn't, we will also contribute to higher costs.

But this requires a change in mind set. That will take time.
 
Some will be paying for their own, yes. That's the whole mandate to buy insurance. But even those we pay for, in the long run it could be less (don't know if it will yet) as it will be more controlled and less ad hock. Do you know anyone monitoring the charges hospitals charge to make up for those who don't pay? Any possibility they charge more than required?

I don't personally know anyone monitering these things, although from a strictly bussines point of view, these costs will not go down even if the rainbow fantasy world view of healthcare reform does make more people pay for insurance.
If you are selling a widgit for 1 dollar and it costs you 97 cents to do that, and all of a sudden a long line of widgit buyers formed in front of your store, are you going to drop the price because you have more customers and you think that at some point you have made enough money.

Of course not, its not in our natures to do that.
 
I don't personally know anyone monitering these things, although from a strictly bussines point of view, these costs will not go down even if the rainbow fantasy world view of healthcare reform does make more people pay for insurance.
If you are selling a widgit for 1 dollar and it costs you 97 cents to do that, and all of a sudden a long line of widgit buyers formed in front of your store, are you going to drop the price because you have more customers and you think that at some point you have made enough money.

Of course not, its not in our natures to do that.

Yes, I have often said I can't say for certain it will go down for exactly that reason, but there's removing the reason it went up in the first place should at a minimum slow the growth. Remember, costs have been growing largely out of control for sometime:


The rising cost of health care is much in the news. Health costs continue to grow faster than national income and, despite research indicating that we the get good value for the increased spending, some policy makers and health analysts question whether governments and private employers can continue to finance the level of care that they do today. This paper illustrates the magnitude of savings that would be needed in order to bring health care cost growth closer to the rate of national income growth, and suggests that none of the usual policy options raised in health policy or political circles is likely to significantly close the gap between the growth of health spending and income.1

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released projected health care expenditures for the 2005 through 2015 period.2 Total health expenditures are estimated to be $2.16 trillion in 2006, and are projected to rise to over $4 trillion in 2015. Per person health spending is $7,110 this year and is projected to increase to $12,320 by the end of the period.

Health spending continues to increase much faster than the overall economy (i.e., gross domestic product, or GDP). Since 1970, health care spending has grown at an average annual rate of 9.9%, or about 2.5 percentage points faster than GDP.3 In recent decades, the growth rates for health spending and GDP have slowed, but health spending growth remains consistently above GDP growth (Figure 1). As a share of the economy, health care has risen from 7.2% of GDP in 1965 to over 16% of GDP today, and it is projected to be 20% of GDP just 10 years from now.4

Slide1.gif


Figure 1

Snapshots: Comparing Projected Growth in Health Care Expenditures and the Economy - Kaiser Family Foundation
 
Last edited:
cholla said:
If you are selling a widgit for 1 dollar and it costs you 97 cents to do that, and all of a sudden a long line of widgit buyers formed in front of your store...
In selling widgets if you don't have a dollar, you don't get a widget. But in health care everyone that comes along gets the product. If health care actually cost 50 cents to provide, but some are paying nothing, you have to charge others $1.00+ to break even or make a profit. If everybody pays 50+ cents, everybody shares in actual costs.
 
I am in favor of making people have insurance, mostly because I know so many people who CAN afford it, but refuse to buy it.

Can any poster here explain why we should allow that?

We don't allow car owners to drive uninsured, do we?
 
I am in favor of making people have insurance, mostly because I know so many people who CAN afford it, but refuse to buy it.

Can any poster here explain why we should allow that?

We don't allow car owners to drive uninsured, do we?

Who forced you to buy health insurance? You don't see a problem here with people being forced by the govt. to buy something that is a personal responsibility? Where does it stop

We force people to buy car insurance to protect us from someone else, not to protect us from ourself. you cannot equate a personal responsibility issue with car insurance.

Unlike with most liberals I understand the consequences of poor choices. If I didn't have insurance and had to go to the ER i would expect to be billed for those services and if I couldn't pay i would find a way to pay or would expect the hospital to go after my assets.
 
Who forced you to buy health insurance? You don't see a problem here with people being forced by the govt. to buy something that is a personal responsibility? Where does it stop

We force people to buy car insurance to protect us from someone else, not to protect us from ourself. you cannot equate a personal responsibility issue with car insurance.

Unlike with most liberals I understand the consequences of poor choices. If I didn't have insurance and had to go to the ER i would expect to be billed for those services and if I couldn't pay i would find a way to pay or would expect the hospital to go after my assets.

As we pay for those who don't have insurance, we protecting ourselves by having them insured.
 
Who forced you to buy health insurance? You don't see a problem here with people being forced by the govt. to buy something that is a personal responsibility? Where does it stop

We force people to buy car insurance to protect us from someone else, not to protect us from ourself. you cannot equate a personal responsibility issue with car insurance.

Unlike with most liberals I understand the consequences of poor choices. If I didn't have insurance and had to go to the ER i would expect to be billed for those services and if I couldn't pay i would find a way to pay or would expect the hospital to go after my assets.

What kind of conservative allows people to live off the income of others?
Those who don't pay for their own medical care are costing the rest of us money.
Car insurance protects us from ourselves as well, so we don't have to pay the full ride when we cause an accident.
 
As we pay for those who don't have insurance, we protecting ourselves by having them insured.

My question is why are taxpayers paying for the insurance of people who can afford insurance but choose not to purchase it?

Are there ever any consequences for poor choices in your world? You simply don't get it, millions of insured are getting treatment in the ER's now and those bills are being paid by insurance. The cost to the taxpayer is much less than you want to admit.
 
What kind of conservative allows people to live off the income of others?
Those who don't pay for their own medical care are costing the rest of us money.
Car insurance protects us from ourselves as well, so we don't have to pay the full ride when we cause an accident.

First of all you didn't answer the question which isn't surprising.

Second why are taxpayers paying for the insurance of those who can afford insurance but CHOOSE not to purchase it?

If you hit a tree and tear up your car how does car insurance forced by the govt. help the taxpayers? You simply cannot defend the position of forcing taxpayers to fund this POS legislation based upon the inability of hospitals and doctors to collect money from those that aren't insured but have the money.
 
My question is why are taxpayers paying for the insurance of people who can afford insurance but choose not to purchase it?

Are there ever any consequences for poor choices in your world? You simply don't get it, millions of insured are getting treatment in the ER's now and those bills are being paid by insurance. The cost to the taxpayer is much less than you want to admit.

They won't under the new system. Being able to afford insurance is not the same as being able to afford care. Once a hospital treats you, they can't take their services back. So, we pay and have been paying for a long time now.

And I often ask if you are willing to let someone suffer, maybe even die, who doesn't have insurance? As a country we've said no. As long as that is the case, our options are limited.
 
They won't under the new system. Being able to afford insurance is not the same as being able to afford care. Once a hospital treats you, they can't take their services back. So, we pay and have been paying for a long time now.

And I often ask if you are willing to let someone suffer, maybe even die, who doesn't have insurance? As a country we've said no. As long as that is the case, our options are limited.

The question is which you avoid is why are the taxpayers paying for those people now? Nice diversion but that is all it is, a diversion from reality.

Doubt anyone will get you to respond to the questions raised. Groundhog Day all over again with you.
 
The question is which you avoid is why are the taxpayers paying for those people now? Nice diversion but that is all it is, a diversion from reality.

Doubt anyone will get you to respond to the questions raised. Groundhog Day all over again with you.

I told you why. They have no choice. It is done through taxes. No one to vote out for doing it. Hospitals merely hike their charges to cover them. Insurance companies hike their premiums to cover those, and you and your employer cover the cost. This rises prices everywhere, and even hinders business from competing with other countries that have a more universal health care system.

This is not hard to follow.

And I know no one will answer that question. As i say, there's a disconnect. They think if they are not taxed, they aren't paying for it. That is very false.
 
I told you why. They have no choice. It is done through taxes. No one to vote out for doing it. Hospitals merely hike their charges to cover them. Insurance companies hike their premiums to cover those, and you and your employer cover the cost. This rises prices everywhere, and even hinders business from competing with other countries that have a more universal health care system.

This is not hard to follow.

And I know no one will answer that question. As i say, there's a disconnect. They think if they are not taxed, they aren't paying for it. That is very false.


So we need this POS, higher taxes, higher healthcare costs because your hospital will not go after individuals for their healthcare charges? You really want me to believe that? I cannot believe anyone promoted you to a department head. What department, social welfare?

Why not do this with everything else as well. just don't pay and let the taxpayer bail you out, oh, wait, that is happening now. What a wonderful liberal world we live in.
 
So we need this POS, higher taxes, higher healthcare costs because your hospital will not go after individuals for their healthcare charges? You really want me to believe that? I cannot believe anyone promoted you to a department head. What department, social welfare?

Why not do this with everything else as well. just don't pay and let the taxpayer bail you out, oh, wait, that is happening now. What a wonderful liberal world we live in.

Hospital does go after them. That costs more money and few to none actual ever pay. So, more money is spent, and that leads to the hospital raising their costs, and insurance companies raisng theirs, and so on.

Again, this has been the case for a long, long time. Nothing new. And the entire time republicans controlled congress, nothing was even attempted.

And until we answer my question, there is nothing outside of mandating insurance and seeking to cover everyone that can be done.
 
Hospital does go after them. That costs more money and few to none actual ever pay. So, more money is spent, and that leads to the hospital raising their costs, and insurance companies raisng theirs, and so on.

Again, this has been the case for a long, long time. Nothing new. And the entire time republicans controlled congress, nothing was even attempted.

And until we answer my question, there is nothing outside of mandating insurance and seeking to cover everyone that can be done.

So what is the difference with this POS bill. There is an opt out provision so what changes. Hospitals cannot collect now, the collection agency of the govt, the IRS, will not do anything but deduct the penalty from any potential refund yet for some reason you continue to buy that this is good. Oh, wait, it is a good first step. Do you realize, apparently not, how foolish you stand in supporting something that does nothing to lower healthcare costs?

healthcare is a personal responsibility, not a taxpayer responsibility. Your answer is because hospitals cannot collect now we need another govt. entitlement program and bureaucracy to make the problem worse? You really are very naive, obviously never running a business and obviously having no clue on personal responsibility and obligations.
 
So what is the difference with this POS bill. There is an opt out provision so what changes. Hospitals cannot collect now, the collection agency of the govt, the IRS, will not do anything but deduct the penalty from any potential refund yet for some reason you continue to buy that this is good. Oh, wait, it is a good first step. Do you realize, apparently not, how foolish you stand in supporting something that does nothing to lower healthcare costs?

healthcare is a personal responsibility, not a taxpayer responsibility. Your answer is because hospitals cannot collect now we need another govt. entitlement program and bureaucracy to make the problem worse? You really are very naive, obviously never running a business and obviously having no clue on personal responsibility and obligations.

States can opt out, but must provide another plan to handle it. Individuals can opt out, but must pay in some other form, like taxes. So, there is a system in place to help address the problem.

And health care has not been personal for decades. Calling it a personal responsibility, but allowing them to not be responsible, and having us pay for their irresponsibility makes no sense.

An no, my suggestion is that there is a more effective method. While the current bill is only marginally better, it is a start. Sooner or later, more will have to be done.
 
States can opt out, but must provide another plan to handle it. Individuals can opt out, but must pay in some other form, like taxes. So, there is a system in place to help address the problem.

And health care has not been personal for decades. Calling it a personal responsibility, but allowing them to not be responsible, and having us pay for their irresponsibility makes no sense.

An no, my suggestion is that there is a more effective method. While the current bill is only marginally better, it is a start. Sooner or later, more will have to be done.

LOL, states can opt out? If states can opt out that means that they buy into the healthcare bill as jammed down their throats, 17 AG's have filed suit against this mandate.

Doctors and hospitals all over the country are opting out of taking Medicare and Medicaid yet for some reason you believe this healthcare bill will increase access. I asked you what happened if you are wrong but apparently people like you cannot admit when you are wrong.

only you are letting people not be responsible for paying their bills. you, sir, are hopeless.
 
LOL, states can opt out? If states can opt out that means that they buy into the healthcare bill as jammed down their throats, 17 AG's have filed suit against this mandate.

Doctors and hospitals all over the country are opting out of taking Medicare and Medicaid yet for some reason you believe this healthcare bill will increase access. I asked you what happened if you are wrong but apparently people like you cannot admit when you are wrong.

only you are letting people not be responsible for paying their bills. you, sir, are hopeless.

Lawsuits not withstanding, the fact is the states can opt out.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.

The Oregon Democrat isn't inviting opponents to defy the newly-enacted health care law. Instead, he's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

Actually, as far as letting people be irresponsible, we've all been doing that for a long time. And you continue to argue for letting them continue to be irresponsible and for us to pay for them. That is what you are arguing.
 
Lawsuits not withstanding, the fact is the states can opt out.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.

The Oregon Democrat isn't inviting opponents to defy the newly-enacted health care law. Instead, he's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

Actually, as far as letting people be irresponsible, we've all been doing that for a long time. And you continue to argue for letting them continue to be irresponsible and for us to pay for them. That is what you are arguing.

States do not pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, people do. People are stuck paying for this POS but apparently you have no concept that you are paying for your own insurance and that for someone else. Why not bypass the middle man, the FEDS, and go directly to those in your community and do the same thing?
 
States do not pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, people do. People are stuck paying for this POS but apparently you have no concept that you are paying for your own insurance and that for someone else. Why not bypass the middle man, the FEDS, and go directly to those in your community and do the same thing?

The lawsuit is over mandating insurance. Buying your own insurance is not a tax. Stay focused.
 
The lawsuit is over mandating insurance. Buying your own insurance is not a tax. Stay focused.

That is your opinion and I am done with you on this issue. You got your healthcare bill and if history is an example you will ignore the failure. Keep buying what you are told by the arrogant liberals in charge. It makes you feel good but never does what it was intended to do. Costs will not go down, quality will not improve, access will be reduced but you got your feel good legislation. history is on my side and this is one slippery slope as Obama continues to transform America into that wonderful liberal model that hasn't worked anywhere else in the world.
 
That is your opinion and I am done with you on this issue. You got your healthcare bill and if history is an example you will ignore the failure. Keep buying what you are told by the arrogant liberals in charge. It makes you feel good but never does what it was intended to do. Costs will not go down, quality will not improve, access will be reduced but you got your feel good legislation. history is on my side and this is one slippery slope as Obama continues to transform America into that wonderful liberal model that hasn't worked anywhere else in the world.


When shown wrong, it is best to leave. So I understand your leaving. :2wave: ;)
 
That is your opinion and I am done with you on this issue. You got your healthcare bill and if history is an example you will ignore the failure. Keep buying what you are told by the arrogant liberals in charge. It makes you feel good but never does what it was intended to do. Costs will not go down, quality will not improve, access will be reduced but you got your feel good legislation. history is on my side and this is one slippery slope as Obama continues to transform America into that wonderful liberal model that hasn't worked anywhere else in the world.

The arrogance, and the name calling, is coming from you, and many other conservatives. You do realize that much of this bill was originated in the past by republicans, right? The DEMS are not the only ones promising health care reform, they are just the ones who are trying to deliver.
Certainly the status quo is not cutting it. And it doesn't matter whether we pay in taxes or inflated costs to those who can and will pay, the fact is that those who are paying are supporting those who do not.
Something has to be done, and I don't see the party of NO offering much...
BTW, I am a republican, always voting that way except for a few local positions, like school board members....
I can almost predict what you will call me, a RINO, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom