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

Conservative · May 21, 2010

UtahBill said:
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?

It makes no difference where this bill came from, it is a POS that does nothing to lower healthcare costs, improve quality, and access. Dems are appealing again to the hearts of individuals who want to believe the rhetoric. Facts however prove that faith misguided.

I am not a Republican, I am a Conservative however and used to be a Conservative Democrat until the party left me. I haven't voted for a Democrat since 1976 and based upon what I am seeing now won't be voting for another on the national stage for a long time to come.

This isn't a Republican or Democrat Issue, it is a logic and common sense issue. Everytime the govt. gets involved in social engineering it costs more than intended, does less than intended and does nothing but increase the size and scope of the govt. I see no logical reason to force healthcare on people who can afford it but CHOOSE not to buy it. Boo's entire argument is about ER usage and as I have posted here and on other threads the insured are using the ER's and the insured are getting the bills paid.

If someone doesn't have insurance but can afford to pay then go after them regardless of the cost. Don't burden the taxpayer because a hospital cannot collect from a deadbeat.

UtahBill · May 21, 2010

Conservative said:
It makes no difference where this bill came from, it is a POS that does nothing to lower healthcare costs, improve quality, and access. Dems are appealing again to the hearts of individuals who want to believe the rhetoric. Facts however prove that faith misguided.

I am not a Republican, I am a Conservative however and used to be a Conservative Democrat until the party left me. I haven't voted for a Democrat since 1976 and based upon what I am seeing now won't be voting for another on the national stage for a long time to come.

This isn't a Republican or Democrat Issue, it is a logic and common sense issue. Everytime the govt. gets involved in social engineering it costs more than intended, does less than intended and does nothing but increase the size and scope of the govt. I see no logical reason to force healthcare on people who can afford it but CHOOSE not to buy it. Boo's entire argument is about ER usage and as I have posted here and on other threads the insured are using the ER's and the insured are getting the bills paid.

If someone doesn't have insurance but can afford to pay then go after them regardless of the cost. Don't burden the taxpayer because a hospital cannot collect from a deadbeat.

I can agree that all attempts of social engineering are doomed.....especially if run by the govt. But what are the alternatives? We don't have debtors prisons to put all the dead beats, and we are not likely to let any of them die. Like I have said many times, I know too many who CAN afford insurance but would rather have an extra cell phone, Cable TV, more car than they need, etc.....

Conservative · May 21, 2010

UtahBill said:
I can agree that all attempts of social engineering are doomed.....especially if run by the govt. But what are the alternatives? We don't have debtors prisons to put all the dead beats, and we are not likely to let any of them die. Like I have said many times, I know too many who CAN afford insurance but would rather have an extra cell phone, Cable TV, more car than they need, etc.....

The product of liberalism where there are no consequences for poor choices. I really don't know how much of the problem rests with people who can afford insurance but refuse to buy it then skip out on payments when services are provided. No one can answer that question.

I do know however that the insured are using the ER's in increasing numbers because of a doctor shortage and those bills are getting paid by the insurance companies. I also know that illegals are using the ER's for medical care and to me that is where the problem lies. My county alone spent 600,000 last year on illegal healthcare that my taxdollars funded.

Boo is overreacting based upon feelings without actual facts. Outdated surveys are used to support his point of view but none actually address individual finances where people do buy what they want instead of what they need.

My point always has been that no politician will ever address the true costs of healthcare without identifying all those costs. There doesn't seem to be any interest in doing that but they have no problem demonizing profits but never their own regulations which affect those profits. in addition there is appetite by Democrats to address tort reform. Granted that may be a low cost but it is a cost and there is no way you can reduce costs without addressing ALL costs.

cholla · May 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
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.

How is it "done through taxes"

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

With all the posts here, I must have missed your question.:3oops:

cholla · May 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
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.

Don't you mean a fine, you can't be taxed for not doing something, only punished.

Boo Radley · May 21, 2010

cholla said:
Don't you mean a fine, you can't be taxed for not doing something, only punished.

Doesn't matter. Either way, the point is you do pay. Right?

cholla · May 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Doesn't matter. Either way, the point is you do pay. Right?

It very much does matter.

One is allowed by the constitution (taxes) and one is not ( punishing without due process).

cholla · May 21, 2010

Boo Radley said:
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.

I have searched the texts of both the health care bill and the reconciliation bill and can not find where this amendment is included.

It was proposed, as was the buying insurance across state lines amendment, but I don't see where it was adopted. Do you have any information on this?

Simba · May 21, 2010

Let them quit. There's an Indian and Chinese doctor waiting in line to take their place.

Boo Radley · May 21, 2010

cholla said:
I have searched the texts of both the health care bill and the reconciliation bill and can not find where this amendment is included.

It was proposed, as was the buying insurance across state lines amendment, but I don't see where it was adopted. Do you have any information on this?

Only what I posted earlier:

The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- the far-more innovative health care reform legislation he authored with Republican co-sponsors. In that bill there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place. All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.

That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday. And if there is any confusion about how much leverage it gives states to drop the mandate, Wyden cleared it up months ago during a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee.

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

Boo Radley · May 21, 2010

cholla said:
It very much does matter.

One is allowed by the constitution (taxes) and one is not ( punishing without due process).

Missed this earlier. I don't think you're correct. But we'll see, won't we?

digsbe · May 22, 2010

The law passes, and I haven't seen any doctors quit because of this.

I don't see why people are upset, especially conservatives.

Isn't it a good thing to have people off medicare and on private insurance?

Isn't it a good thing to have companies extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions?

Isn't it good for the private sector to have more customers and also good for the government who no longer has to pick up the tab for people without insurance?

BWG · May 22, 2010

cholla said:
It very much does matter.

One is allowed by the constitution (taxes) and one is not ( punishing without due process).

It's not a fine, it's incorporated into the tax code.

Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of
$695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phased in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014, 2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf

cholla · May 23, 2010

BWG said:
It's not a fine, it's incorporated into the tax code.

Penalty is a comprehensive term with many different meanings. It entails the concept of punishment—either corporal or pecuniary, civil or criminal—although its meaning is usually confined to pecuniary punishment. The law can impose a penalty, and a private contract can provide for its assessment. Pecuniary penalties are frequently negotiated in construction contracts, in the event that the project is not completed by the specified date.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

penalty n. 1) in criminal law, a money fine or forfeiture of property ordered by the judge after conviction for a crime. 2) an amount agreed in advance if payment or performance is not made on time, such as a "late payment" on a promissory note or lease, or a financial penalty for each day a building contractor fails to complete a job.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

You can say its not a fine, that doesn't change the meaning of what they passed.

A punishment, without due process. That is why it is unconstitutional.

BWG · May 23, 2010

cholla said:
Penalty is a comprehensive term with many different meanings. It entails the concept of punishment—either corporal or pecuniary, civil or criminal—although its meaning is usually confined to pecuniary punishment. The law can impose a penalty, and a private contract can provide for its assessment. Pecuniary penalties are frequently negotiated in construction contracts, in the event that the project is not completed by the specified date.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

penalty n. 1) in criminal law, a money fine or forfeiture of property ordered by the judge after conviction for a crime. 2) an amount agreed in advance if payment or performance is not made on time, such as a "late payment" on a promissory note or lease, or a financial penalty for each day a building contractor fails to complete a job.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

Never said it wasn't a penalty. You don't have to be convicted to incur a penalty.

Main Entry: pen·al·ty
1 : the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense

cholla said:
You can say its not a fine, that doesn't change the meaning of what they passed.

A punishment, without due process. That is why it is unconstitutional.

You can call it a fine all day long, but they wrote it, along with other provisions of the bill, into the tax code for a reason.

Notwithstanding your assertion, be sure to let me know when it's actually proven to be unconstitutional.

cholla · May 23, 2010

BWG said:
Never said it wasn't a penalty. You don't have to be convicted to incur a penalty.

Main Entry: pen·al·ty
1 : the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense

You can call it a fine all day long, but they wrote it, along with other provisions of the bill, into the tax code for a reason.

Notwithstanding your assertion, be sure to let me know when it's actually proven to be unconstitutional.

Your own definition says that you must be convicted.

BWG · May 23, 2010

cholla said:
Your own definition says that you must be convicted.

Main Entry: pen·al·ty
1 : the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense

I'm going to assume you were in a hurry and simply missed the or.

cholla · May 24, 2010

BWG said:
Main Entry: pen·al·ty
1 : the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense

I'm going to assume you were in a hurry and simply missed the or.

Are you claiming then, that a person can be annexed? And that that is what the health care bill is doing?

Please lay out your case in full, so I can understand which part of the definitions you are trying to use.

And no, I didn't miss the or

BWG · May 25, 2010

cholla said:
Are you claiming then, that a person can be annexed? And that that is what the health care bill is doing?

Please lay out your case in full, so I can understand which part of the definitions you are trying to use.

And no, I didn't miss the or

Annexed by law means, as a condition or attached to.

The law says if you don't obtain insurance the penalty is a tax.

The penalty is a condition of or attached to the law, no need for a conviction or a fine.

I gave both definitions so that one could see that a penalty could be one or the other, not tied to one specific definition.

Hope that clears things up for ya. Have a good one...

zimmer · May 26, 2010

Partisan said:
Idle threats from all but the ones who should have retired already or fleeced the public enough to be able to afford to retire.....

Fleece my ass.

Almost a decade of expensive schooling, if they open a practice they have to buy expensive equipment and keep it updated. Then if you make an error you get you ass sued off, or you settle because the time and cash don't warrant the court battle.

These are not idle threats.
They can leave practicing medicine and go into other medical areas where the people are not slaves to the state.

I hope they do.
The first to pay the high price with their lives will be the Kanuckistani's.
If they want to come down and take advantage of our system... I say they can go to hell. America and Americans first and only in government rationed care.

Then Americans.

.

Regicollis · May 26, 2010

There are no catastrophic shortage of doctors in neither Britain nor France. More doctors could always be needed but people in Europe are not dying because there are not enough doctors. Italy and Cuba has the highest number of doctors compared to their population.

The poll in the OP simply don't reflect the reality of a public health care system.

zimmer · May 26, 2010

Regicollis said:
There are no catastrophic shortage of doctors in neither Britain nor France. More doctors could always be needed but people in Europe are not dying because there are not enough doctors. Italy and Cuba has the highest number of doctors compared to their population.

The poll in the OP simply don't reflect the reality of a public health care system.

These systems may have worked when the economies were booming in the 60's to 80's and population young, the doctors abundant and well paid, but as the population ages, the government looks to doctors as state slaves... fewer people will choose the profession.

You need to bone up on the facts. Europe's socialist systems are in in serious decline.

Doctor shortage is threat to care, warns BMA
Doctor shortage is threat to care, warns BMA | Society | The Guardian

Their system is so shabby the ernment passed a law for the length of time patients could wait.
The hospitals left patients in ambulances outside the hospital to comply.
Which didn't solve the problem, and added another; a shortage of ambulances.

Switzerland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, Germany all have known shortages of doctors practicing medicine.

France too... hell... in 2003 14,000 people died in a heat wave as Doctors were on vacation. Great system.

The French health service, regarded as the world's best, is falling apart, a petition signed by 286 of its most senior hospital doctors claims. Waiting lists, almost unknown in France five years ago, are becoming common, and there is a severe shortage of doctors and nurses.
French health service is falling apart, say doctors - Europe, World - The Independent

With Baby Boomers coming of age, it will be awful.

Denmark:

But Denmark does have some problems to contend with, not least the fact that GPs are getting older — more than half are older than 55 — and they are tiring of their obligations to local after-hours co-operatives. While younger doctors with mortgages are more than willing to take on the load, Dr Gredal says there are not enough of them in some areas.

“In my local council there are 175 GPs and we are forced almost to do after hours. I have to do 20 more hours [a month] after hours to make the system work.”
australiandoctor.com.au

In the US:

The Coming U.S. Doctor Shortage - BusinessWeek

In 1997, lawmakers placed a cap on the number of medical residencies—hospital training required for all doctors—in order to contain costs under Medicare, which pays for most of these training slots. Today the U.S. is in the grip of a nationwide doctor shortage, brought on by an aging population demanding access to specialists. Medical schools have stepped up to the plate, announcing plans to add 3,000 new positions for first-time students by 2018. But because the residency cap is still in place, these efforts may not be sufficient.

The health-care overhaul is certain to compound the problem by flooding doctors' offices with newly empowered medical consumers. "Do the math," says Steven M. Safyer, president and CEO of Montefiore Medical Center in New York. "You give millions more people insurance, and it adds up to a much worse shortage."

.

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

Conservative

UtahBill

Conservative

cholla

Active member

cholla

Active member

Boo Radley

cholla

Active member

cholla

Active member

Simba

Active member

Boo Radley

Boo Radley

digsbe

Truth will set you free

BWG

cholla

Active member

BWG

cholla

Active member

BWG

cholla

Active member

BWG

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant

Regicollis

Active member

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant

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

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Truth will set you free

Active member

Active member

Active member

Educating the Ignorant

Active member

Educating the Ignorant

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency