- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Why don't you move to one that has more? This country was based on liberty and property.
We all pay for **** we don't want. That's an inherent part of being a society. If you don't like it, move to some country with less government interference like Somalia or Afghanistan.
Um, there's plenty of statistical basis for the idea that the government provides health care more efficiently than the private sector.
The point is, if you don't mind, is that the doctors aren't going into it.
WTF? Medical schools are packed to the brim, admitting as many students as they possibly can and still rejecting most qualified applicants. The bottleneck in our system comes from a lack of capacity. There is no shortage of people who want to go into medicine...if anything we need a lot MORE medical schools to accommodate all the excess demand.
First-year medical school enrollment in 2015-16 is projected to reach 21,041; 27.6
percent above first-year medical school enrollment in 2002-03.
• Almost half (47.8%) of the 2002-2015 enrollment growth has already occurred,
On the other hand, more schools in 2010 (52%) than in 2009 (39%) indicated
concern with their ability to maintain or increase enrollment due to economic
considerations.
• More than half of respondents (58%) indicated being concerned with the
supply of qualified preceptors, and almost three-quarters (72%) indicated being
concerned with the number of clinical training sites.
• There appears to be greater concern with the supply of qualified primary care
preceptors compared to specialty care preceptors (78% and 54%, respectively).
• In response to growing concerns in the health policy community, 94 schools
(75% of the 125 respondents) reported instituting or considering initiatives to
encourage primary care.
link please? nevermind, I doubt you have one.
Here, this reflects reality, not opinion...
https://www.aamc.org/download/251636/data/enrollment2011.pdf
So yes, there is an increase in medical school enrollment...but it is not staggering,
and there are issues with having qualified instructors available. They could fill the schools to the brim, but that won't matter if there is a shortage of instructors... especially primary care instructors.
WTF? Medical schools are packed to the brim, admitting as many students as they possibly can and still rejecting most qualified applicants. The bottleneck in our system comes from a lack of capacity. There is no shortage of people who want to go into medicine...if anything we need a lot MORE medical schools to accommodate all the excess demand.
Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.
Suuuuuurre! What an "accident."
:bs
When I said that "we need more medical schools" I assumed that people would be smart enough to draw the logical conclusion that "we also need to hire people to staff those new medical schools." Sorry if I overestimated your deductive abilities.
That would be great if everyone paid income taxes, buuuut...
in which case we also need to break the power of the Medical Cartel, the AMA, which currently limits those schools and the number of people they can take in. It's in their best interest, after all, to keep doctors expensive.
Not yet, but the Libbos are working on it.
If you want socialized health care move to a country that already has it....oh wait, most of them are trying to get rid of it.
$100,000,000,000,000.00 in unfunded liabilities. (that's NOT counting Obamacare)
Buut.. Places like GE, billion dollar companies don't pay taxes because?
Link it or you are full of it..
Newsvine - GOP tax cut proposal for the rich would cost more than health care reform and the stimulus COMBINED
Now what do you have to say for yourself??
Archived-Articles: Is the US Government bankrupt?Is the US Government bankrupt?
By Pete Morin
Before we continue to debate the merits of any Obama health care plan, we need to consider a few important facts.
By any rational means, we must consider the present condition of our Government's financial situation. An honest look at those finances would have a prudent person conclude that our government is tacitly bankrupt. Our unfunded liabilities far exceed our assets. Adding up all unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Government sponsored pension funds gives us a figure slightly in excess of $100 TRILLION dollars. That's TRILLION with a ‘T'. The Federal budget deficit for fiscal 2009 will be approximately $1.84 TRILLION . That's TRILLION with a ‘T'. Over the next ten years the projected deficit will be $9 TRILLION +. That's $100,000,000,000,000.00 -- TRILLION with a ‘T'. Of course, this projected deficit comes from the Congressional Budget Office and has to be considered a conservative estimate. In 1966 the feds estimated that the cost of the Medicare program by 1990 would be approximately $9 billion dollars/year; the actual cost was $67 billion dollars/year.
Our Debt Is More Than All the Money in the World - By Kevin D. Williamson - Exchequer - National Review OnlineOur Debt Is More Than All the Money in the World
September 9, 2010 5:32 P.M.
By Kevin D. Williamson
Tags: Debt, Deficits, Despair, Fiscal Armageddon, Gloom
Just a reminder: We are in trouble.
I have argued that the real national debt is about $130 trillion. Let’s say I’m being pessimistic. Forbes, in a 2008 article, came up with a lower number: $70 trillion . Let’s say the sunny optimists at Forbes got it right and I got it wrong.
For perspective: At the time that 2008 article was written, the entire supply of money in the world (“broad money,” i.e., global M3, meaning cash, consumer-account deposits, checkable accounts, CDs, long-term deposits, travelers’ checks, money-market funds, the whole enchilada) was estimated to be just under $60 trillion. Which is to say: The optimistic view is that our outstanding obligations amount to more than all of the money in the world.
Global GDP in 2008? Also about $60 trillion. Meaning that the optimistic view is that our federal obligations outpace the entire annual economic output of human civilization.
in which case we also need to break the power of the Medical Cartel, the AMA, which currently limits those schools and the number of people they can take in. It's in their best interest, after all, to keep doctors expensive.
Our Debt Is More Than All the Money in the World - By Kevin D. Williamson - Exchequer - National Review Online
That was a 30 second google.
Wake up to reality, politicians have promised more then we'll ever have the money to afford.
Kevin Williamson can be absolutely brutal - he is quite impressive, and his Exchequer is one of my favorite blogs.
but hey, don't worry. repealing the Bush Tax cuts will get us everything we need, right? :lamo
It is more plausible, given the defense of the issue presented in the OP link, that it was intentional.weren't conservatives complaining about how big, complex, and long the bill was? Seems entirely plausible to me.
You continue to evade the issue I originally presented.Are you willing to turn people away from the ERs?
And Doctors 1) know what they are getting into and 2) can leave at any time they want to.
there is no involuntary servitude.
You may present your citations at any time.Um, there's plenty of statistical basis for the idea that the government provides health care more efficiently than the private sector.
I see a lot of red herring, and a decided lack of argument as to how I am responsble to for providing health care to the people indicated.Do you consider yourself responsible for taking care of our soldiers when they are in harm's way? Do you consider yourself responsible for maintaining Interstate Highways? Do you consider yourself responsible for paying for police? All these things, and more, require taxes? Are we being overtaxed? That is the question that is up for debate, and while we are at it, we should ask ourselves the following questions:
1) Is GE a welfare loafer because it paid no taxes at all in 2010, but received subsidies from the Federal government?
2) How about Morgan Stanley and other banksters, who ran their corporations into the ground, but were given money by the Federal government? Are they welfare loafers?
3) What about corporate farmers, who get paid to grow nothing?
4) How about Congress, who get free health care for life? Are they better than the rest of us? I thought they were supposed to be merely public servants.
5) And how about all those corporations who don't pay a penny of tax because their postal address is a PO box in the Cayman Islands, even though their headquarters are physically located inside the US?
Just a few examples here, which make me wonder why there is so great of an outcry against poor people, while not a whimper about the rich who pay nothing for the services they demand and receive.
Involuntary servitude is, and always has been, the American way?I support it because it is the American way, and always has been.
It's not just you.So the idea is that if you knowingly go into servitude its not servitude? Is it just me or does that not make any sense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?