Obama Care

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Try giving nearly 50 million more Americans insurance in a short time span and watch how quickly it becomes pronounced.

I generally love your posts GM (even though I am obviously to the left of you, your reasoning is sound and your command of your mother language impressive) but this is an absurd argument. If you are implying that we should keep a large number of people uninsured so as to protect the quality of care for those that do have it, and I think that you are, well I mean, that's a pretty unpalatable position to take.

And First, well it is true that the MA plan is rife with problems, you need to get something straight - it was universally derided by the left as a give away to the insurance companies, a cop out compromise by Romney and company that would do nothing to control costs (which it hasn't). So its failures do not represent the last word on health care reform.

And Beems, there are plenty of services that we give away for free in this country that still manage to be high quality. Had your house catch on fire recently?

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I generally love your posts GM (even though I am obviously to the left of you, your reasoning is sound and your command of your mother language impressive) but this is an absurd argument. If you are implying that we should keep a large number of people uninsured so as to protect the quality of care for those that do have it, and I think that you are, well I mean, that's a pretty unpalatable position to take.

And First, well it is true that the MA plan is rife with problems, you need to get something straight - it was universally derided by the left as a give away to the insurance companies, a cop out compromise by Romney and company that would do nothing to control costs (which it hasn't). So its failures do not represent the last word on health care reform.

And Beems, there are plenty of services that we give away for free in this country that still manage to be high quality. Had your house catch on fire recently?

Not what I'm saying at all. Saden's comment that I bolded in my response was about how Canada is visibly suffering from a shortage of medical practitioners, similar to how here in the USA we have a big shortage of nurses. However that nursing shortage, according to Saden, isn't as pronounced as Canada's practitioner shortage. I agree with that.

My point was our nursing shortage will certainly be much more "pronounced" under Obama care than it currently is today. Nowhere did I say we should keep 50 million people without insurance simply to stave off the pronouncement of said shortage.

EDIT: There are numerous reasons I dislike Obama care. The dilution of quality of care is just one of them.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Not what I'm saying at all. Saden's comment that I bolded in my response was about how Canada is visibly suffering from a shortage of medical practitioners, similar to how here in the USA we have a big shortage of nurses. However that nursing shortage, according to Saden, isn't as pronounced as Canada's practitioner shortage. I agree with that.

My point was our nursing shortage will certainly be much more "pronounced" under Obama care than it currently is today. Nowhere did I say we should keep 50 million people without insurance simply to stave off the pronouncement of said shortage.

EDIT: There are numerous reasons I dislike Obama care. The dilution of quality of care is just one of them.

What I am also saying is that sometime in the next decade or two the United States will also have doctor shortage much like the current nursing shortage if not worse. It will be pronounced and painful whether we have mostly a private healthcare system or mostly a public healthcare system. Regardless of what we have it doesn't look good (a must read).

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by saden1

What I am also saying is that sometime in the next decade or two the United States will also have doctor shortage much like the current nursing shortage if not worse. It will be pronounced and painful whether we have mostly a private healthcare system or mostly a public healthcare system. Regardless of what we have it doesn't look good (a must read).

That was a good read, thanks for the link. I think we need to consider ways to make medical school more affordable so graduates aren't running from lesser paid general surgery and family practices (the crux of rural healthcare). Somehow, we've got to find a way to make the medical profession a more desirable field without cheapening it at the same time.

How many people want to spend a minimum of 4+ years in med school working their ass off only to graduate a quarter of a million dollars in debt?? Sure some can afford it, and others simply have the drive, but the combination of the two is still falling way short.

Such a complex issue.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Not what I'm saying at all. Saden's comment that I bolded in my response was about how Canada is visibly suffering from a shortage of medical practitioners, similar to how here in the USA we have a big shortage of nurses. However that nursing shortage, according to Saden, isn't as pronounced as Canada's practitioner shortage. I agree with that.

My point was our nursing shortage will certainly be much more "pronounced" under Obama care than it currently is today. Nowhere did I say we should keep 50 million people without insurance simply to stave off the pronouncement of said shortage.

EDIT: There are numerous reasons I dislike Obama care. The dilution of quality of care is just one of them.

OK, but this means that you are saying that we should limit access to care for these 50 million people without insurance, at least in part, to protect the quality of care for people with insurance. You can't claim dilution of quality care as a disadvantage of the plan without at least implicitly advocating the status quo.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

OK, but this means that you are saying that we should limit access to care for these 50 million people without insurance, at least in part, to protect the quality of care for people with insurance. You can't claim dilution of quality care as a disadvantage of the plan without at least implicitly advocating the status quo.

Yeah, I guess that's kind of what I'm saying. I'm not saying some kind of reform isn't necessary, and I'm not screaming status quo either. Like I said, I'm far, far from an expert on health care. The opposite really. But if I have the means to pay for my own high quality insurance policy, why should my level of care suffer in order to give insurance to someone who can't/won't pay for it? I guess it boils down to the brass tacks of big/small government, which I don't really care to debate.

I work hard to afford my health insurance. I'm willing to give a few inches to help the uninsured, but not much more than that. By the way, putting some limits on the 50 million people receiving goverment healthcare to protect those who actually pay for it is more than fair in my opinion. You're either willing and/or able to put your hard earned dollars towards your healthcare or you're not. But if you are, you should get to go to the front of line for most things (life threatening situations excluded of course). I'm not saying anyone should be denied care, but if the government is picking up your tab, cry me a friggin a river if you have to wait a while.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Yeah, I guess that's kind of what I'm saying. I'm not saying some kind of reform isn't necessary, and I'm not screaming status quo either. Like I said, I'm far, far from an expert on health care. The opposite really. But if I have the means to pay for my own high quality insurance policy, why should my level of care suffer in order to give insurance to someone who can't/won't pay for it? I guess it boils down to the brass tacks of big/small government, which I don't really care to debate.

I work hard to afford my health insurance. I'm willing to give a few inches to help the uninsured, but not much more than that.

The problem is that you do, you just think you don't. it is all psychological you see for things don't pay for themselves.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by saden1

The problem is that you do, you just think you don't. it is all psychological you see for things don't pay for themselves.

I'm not sure I understand this post. If you're saying I can give more than a few inches, then you're right. I just don't want to. I'm not heartless. I want to help, but not to the extent that I'm on even par with the folks who are getting their tab picked up by Obama care.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I'm not sure I understand this post. If you're saying I can give more than a few inches, then you're right. I just don't want to. I'm not heartless. I want to help, but not to the extent that I'm on even par with the folks who are getting their tab picked up by Obama care.

I'm saying that you don't want to give a few more inches but you are when you pay your taxes and health insurance premium. Your choice is merely a perceived choice. You also think you're at the front of the line when you are not. People who show-up to the emergency room have to wait whether they have insurance or not and your wait time depends on the severity of your ailment. You will also note that most of the cost in uninsured care is in the emergency room care. If it is not an emergency but life threatening if not dealt with (i.e. a diabetic needing insulin) you still pay for it too.

You are just another number who happens to think he is special and fails to realize he is merely pushing the problem back to the emergency room.