He sees only the difference between what he'd like to charge and what he can charge. He doesn't see the complete loss of business from those sectors without the subsidies and the market forces that would force what he charges to others dropping substantially because of the lowered demand for his services. His standard of living would be reduced substantially if his wish came true.

The fact that he's a physician by no means gives him any special insight into this process, and I can dig up plenty of quotes from other physicians to counter him if it did.

 

-----signature-----

Actually make a point, please. You have yet to offer anything to this discussion. Feel free to dissect anything I've posted, or make a rational point of your own. You can do neither, and I insult you because you are completely incapable of doing so yet still think you have any purpose on this thread.

 

-----signature-----

Again you manage to do both at once. Astounding.


But let's look at what your 5 items.

1. Requires all health coverage providers to accept all customers, regardless of preexisting conditions.
This will either drive the cost of coverage WAY up or drive insurers completely out of the business.

2. Mandates that everyone buys some form of coverage.
This is completely consistent with the idea of "government control of the health care industry".

3. Defines what health coverage is.
If the government is who gets to decide on what policies are offered, the public hardly has a free choice on what to buy. (see "government control of the health care industry", above)

4. Subsidizes people who can't afford the insurance with vouchers.
Because of the effects of the three items above, government's direct funding of people's health coverage will be almost complete because more people will be unable to afford it and fewer policies will be available.

5. Creates an exchange where it's easy to compare and purchase private plans.
A meaningless and useless tool when the market is so completely horked by the government's over-involvement.

All five of these items point out why Obamacare's "reform" is bad for America's health care as well as wasting even more of our public money than we are already.


Rho

 

-----signature-----

Assuming this is a factually accurate statement...thank you for admitting that we have gone down the road of fascism.

Wow if you can't see the wrong in Obama care just kill yourself now, rofl

 

-----signature-----

Nice call.



Rho

 

-----signature-----

There have been some interesting unintended consequences to medicare/medicaid's reimbursement scheme. (Keratometry?)

But considering that 70% of bankruptcies in the US are now due to medical bills, and 75% of those people have private insurance, it seems a grave injustice to do nothing about health care costs and insurance in this country.

I do not know the ultimate answer, but if the banking industry is any indication (and it most certainly is given how crooked physicians can be, based on how they treat patients based on what they can get back from medicare), the worst thing we could possibly do is to deregulate the insurance industry and basically guarantee only those who do not need insurance will be the ones who pay for it and those who need it die, and it's a shame that 45,000 people a year already do die because they lack insurance and access to care.

 

-----signature-----

Obama wanted to create a safety net for healthcare for everyone. I accept that point.

The problem is his solution for it (or was it really Congress' solution that he went along with?) attempt to control too much. People measure healthcare by the fact that it costs them $10, $15, or $20 to see a doctor and when they get their lab results they are told they are "fine" and get a bill for $300.

Catastrophic healthcare coverage for everyone at some high threshold provided by the government through a dedicated tax or fee would more palatable to most of the country than either doing nothing or mandating 100% of everything would do.

Perhaps something akin to the National Flood Insurance program. Reduces the risk for insurance companies to provide affordable insurance policies and protects everyone against catastrophic medical bills.

 

-----signature-----

Arc... give up. They won't support it until Romney's version (the exact same thing mind you) takes it's place. I wonder at what point the Repubs are going to realize that Romney = 4 more years of Obama, just a different skin color.

 

-----signature-----

problem with that is the insurance companies would stop covering hospital all together when they can get the gov to pay it.

 

-----signature-----