US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[Grave_n_idle]

Ouch.

Seriously, its bad. Go back and look at his OP. The guy posts a thread (looking for what he later claims is "intelligent debate", because apparently its "silly" to expect "cogent debate" on this megathread).

Then, when his points are systematically addressed and refuted, he has no source. So, finally, he goes and gets sources, quote after quote of which actually work against his claims, he ignored that, too.

Aye. I've been watching. That wasn't debate - it was demolition.

So you deny the claim that when 45 million go on Obamacare, given the sources we have both read, that the burden of actually paying for thier own healthcare will be eased on those who have no healthcare currently?

Simple yes or no.

I can't 'simply answer' a question that has more clauses than the Santa family tree.

[Milks Empire]

I can't 'simply answer' a question that has more clauses than the Santa family tree.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Ouch.

Seriously, its bad. Go back and look at his OP. The guy posts a thread (looking for what he later claims is "intelligent debate", because apparently its "silly" to expect "cogent debate" on this megathread).

Then, when his points are systematically addressed and refuted, he has no source. So, finally, he goes and gets sources, quote after quote of which actually work against his claims, he ignored that, too.

Aye. I've been watching. That wasn't debate - it was demolition.

So you deny the claim that when 45 million go on Obamacare, given the sources we have both read, that the burden of actually paying for thier own healthcare will be eased on those who have no healthcare currently?

Simple yes or no.

I can't 'simply answer' a question that has more clauses than the Santa family tree.

So what you are saying is that you cant answer my points, nor inject any of your own. All you can do is simply mock, belittle, and attack, without offering any thing real to the discussion? Nice.

Why dont you head on over to the "boxer or briefs" thread.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ouch.

Seriously, its bad. Go back and look at his OP. The guy posts a thread (looking for what he later claims is "intelligent debate", because apparently its "silly" to expect "cogent debate" on this megathread).

Then, when his points are systematically addressed and refuted, he has no source. So, finally, he goes and gets sources, quote after quote of which actually work against his claims, he ignored that, too.

Aye. I've been watching. That wasn't debate - it was demolition.

So you deny the claim that when 45 million go on Obamacare, given the sources we have both read, that the burden of actually paying for thier own healthcare will be eased on those who have no healthcare currently?

Simple yes or no.

I can't 'simply answer' a question that has more clauses than the Santa family tree.

So what you are saying is that you cant answer my points, nor inject any of your own. All you can do is simply mock, belittle, and attack, without offering any thing real to the discussion? Nice.

No, I'm saying if you want a simple yes or no answer, you're going to have to simplify the question considerably.

What is the actual part of the question you want answered? Will costs go down? Will I deny it? Whether "the sources we've both read" support what you say?

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Ouch.

Seriously, its bad. Go back and look at his OP. The guy posts a thread (looking for what he later claims is "intelligent debate", because apparently its "silly" to expect "cogent debate" on this megathread).

Then, when his points are systematically addressed and refuted, he has no source. So, finally, he goes and gets sources, quote after quote of which actually work against his claims, he ignored that, too.

Aye. I've been watching. That wasn't debate - it was demolition.

So you deny the claim that when 45 million go on Obamacare, given the sources we have both read, that the burden of actually paying for thier own healthcare will be eased on those who have no healthcare currently?

Simple yes or no.

I can't 'simply answer' a question that has more clauses than the Santa family tree.

So what you are saying is that you cant answer my points, nor inject any of your own. All you can do is simply mock, belittle, and attack, without offering any thing real to the discussion? Nice.

No, I'm saying if you want a simple yes or no answer, you're going to have to simplify the question considerably.

What is the actual part of the question you want answered? Will costs go down? Will I deny it? Whether "the sources we've both read" support what you say?

I will pose the question as simply as I can. When 45 million currently un-insured people get insurance from the government, will thier burden of paying for thier own medical care be reduced?

I am not asking whether they will GET care. I am asking whether they will be able to pay for the care they receive, either through paying cash, because the doctor does not take the insurance, or through the insurance itself?

[Grave_n_idle]

Ouch.

Seriously, its bad. Go back and look at his OP. The guy posts a thread (looking for what he later claims is "intelligent debate", because apparently its "silly" to expect "cogent debate" on this megathread).

Then, when his points are systematically addressed and refuted, he has no source. So, finally, he goes and gets sources, quote after quote of which actually work against his claims, he ignored that, too.

Aye. I've been watching. That wasn't debate - it was demolition.

So you deny the claim that when 45 million go on Obamacare, given the sources we have both read, that the burden of actually paying for thier own healthcare will be eased on those who have no healthcare currently?

Simple yes or no.

I can't 'simply answer' a question that has more clauses than the Santa family tree.

So what you are saying is that you cant answer my points, nor inject any of your own. All you can do is simply mock, belittle, and attack, without offering any thing real to the discussion? Nice.

No, I'm saying if you want a simple yes or no answer, you're going to have to simplify the question considerably.

What is the actual part of the question you want answered? Will costs go down? Will I deny it? Whether "the sources we've both read" support what you say?

I will pose the question as simply as I can. When 45 million currently un-insured people get insurance from the government, will thier burden of paying for thier own medical care be reduced?

I am not asking whether they will GET care. I am asking whether they will be able to pay for the care they receive, either through paying cash, because the doctor does not take the insurance, or through the insurance itself?

The question still doesn't qualify for a 'simple yes or no'.

Many of the people who would suddenly be enfranchised, would be paying premiums - this might be more or less than other premiums they might have to pay.

Of the rest - whether or not the assistance towards paying premiums would be a reduction or an increase, depends on how much medication or attention they need, and how much they have been paying.


Someone who is eligible for Obamacare, doesn't qualify for assistance on the premiums, and isn't normally paying anything (on average) for healthcare - will pay a considerable amount MORE.

SOmeone who qualifies, gets assistance, and normally pays for a lot of healthcare - may be paying considerably less.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Ouch.

Seriously, its bad. Go back and look at his OP. The guy posts a thread (looking for what he later claims is "intelligent debate", because apparently its "silly" to expect "cogent debate" on this megathread).

Then, when his points are systematically addressed and refuted, he has no source. So, finally, he goes and gets sources, quote after quote of which actually work against his claims, he ignored that, too.

Aye. I've been watching. That wasn't debate - it was demolition.

So you deny the claim that when 45 million go on Obamacare, given the sources we have both read, that the burden of actually paying for thier own healthcare will be eased on those who have no healthcare currently?

Simple yes or no.

I can't 'simply answer' a question that has more clauses than the Santa family tree.

So what you are saying is that you cant answer my points, nor inject any of your own. All you can do is simply mock, belittle, and attack, without offering any thing real to the discussion? Nice.

No, I'm saying if you want a simple yes or no answer, you're going to have to simplify the question considerably.

What is the actual part of the question you want answered? Will costs go down? Will I deny it? Whether "the sources we've both read" support what you say?

I will pose the question as simply as I can. When 45 million currently un-insured people get insurance from the government, will thier burden of paying for thier own medical care be reduced?

I am not asking whether they will GET care. I am asking whether they will be able to pay for the care they receive, either through paying cash, because the doctor does not take the insurance, or through the insurance itself?

The question still doesn't qualify for a 'simple yes or no'.

Many of the people who would suddenly be enfranchised, would be paying premiums - this might be more or less than other premiums they might have to pay.

Of the rest - whether or not the assistance towards paying premiums would be a reduction or an increase, depends on how much medication or attention they need, and how much they have been paying.


Someone who is eligible for Obamacare, doesn't qualify for assistance on the premiums, and isn't normally paying anything (on average) for healthcare - will pay a considerable amount MORE.

SOmeone who qualifies, gets assistance, and normally pays for a lot of healthcare - may be paying considerably less.

Thank you for a cogent, intelligent response.

I think this reponse is an example of what I was looking for.

I am not sure I agree with the response.

1. "Many of the people who would suddenly be enfranchised, would be paying premiums - this might be more or less than other premiums they might have to pay."

They arent paying any premiuims now, so any more premiums is a net negative.

2. "Of the rest - whether or not the assistance towards paying premiums would be a reduction or an increase, depends on how much medication or attention they need, and how much they have been paying."

True, a healthy, 20 something male is OK, but what about the 20 something female who is having kids? Sure, the hospital MUST deliver the baby. What about the prenatal care that probably wont be paid for, because OB/GYN wont take Obamacare. Or the well baby care from birth to like 2 years old, same thing.

3. "Someone who is eligible for Obamacare, doesn't qualify for assistance on the premiums, and isn't normally paying anything (on average) for healthcare - will pay a considerable amount MORE."
I agree, see 1.

4. "SOmeone who qualifies, gets assistance, and normally pays for a lot of healthcare - may be paying considerably less."

This one is the one where, frankly, my family and I are. I used to pay a crap load for insurance because of my wife's health. She is currently on Medicare. The only reason her doctors take her is because she was a patient before we got on Medicare. Now, she just had a kidney transplant, paid for entirely by Medicare PLUS a national kidney charity organization. I still haven't seen any kind of bills. I dont think I expect to. This is the case in which Medicare is supposed to work. This is a success story for Medicare, because without it, my wife would still be on dialysis (still paid for by Medicare, but standard of living sucks).

That said, my wife is sort of a rare case. I, quite frankly, wonder if someone else in her situation, when Obamacare is put into effect, will be able to get the same outcome, simply because of the volume of additional participants.

[Grave_n_idle]

I think this reponse is an example of what I was looking for.

I am not sure I agree with the response.

1. "Many of the people who would suddenly be enfranchised, would be paying premiums - this might be more or less than other premiums they might have to pay."

They arent paying any premiuims now, so any more premiums is a net negative.

They aren't paying premiums now, but they are (more than likely) paying for medicines and or healthcare.

There's a doughnut-hole in existing medical care now - people who can't afford to pay for insurance (at least partly) because they're ALREADY paying for medical care they've had or are getting.

2. "Of the rest - whether or not the assistance towards paying premiums would be a reduction or an increase, depends on how much medication or attention they need, and how much they have been paying."

True, a healthy, 20 something male is OK, but what about the 20 something female who is having kids? Sure, the hospital MUST deliver the baby. What about the prenatal care that probably wont be paid for, because OB/GYN wont take Obamacare.

I don't see why the OB/GYN wouldn't tkae 'obamacare' - it's insurance, and just about everyone takes insurance.

Or the well baby care from birth to like 2 years old, same thing.

Well, that's the problem with America. 'Babies' are ultra-important until they pop out, then no one gives a shit till they join the workforce.

This one is the one where, frankly, my family and I are. I used to pay a crap load for insurance because of my wife's health. She is currently on Medicare. The only reason her doctors take her is because she was a patient before we got on Medicare. Now, she just had a kidney transplant, paid for entirely by Medicare PLUS a national kidney charity organization. I still haven't seen any kind of bills. I dont think I expect to. This is the case in which Medicare is supposed to work. This is a success story for Medicare, because without it, my wife would still be on dialysis (still paid for by Medicare, but standard of living sucks).

That said, my wife is sort of a rare case. I, quite frankly, wonder if someone else in her situation, when Obamacare is put into effect, will be able to get the same outcome, simply because of the volume of additional participants.

The important thing to highlight here - is that this is what Medicare, etc are supposed to fix - and these stories are real. The idea is commonly circulated (and, I'm going to have to point the finger mainly at the Republicans for this one - this last year it's been their main mantra) that people who are claiming assistance are scroungers who don't want to put anything in to the system, and that - if you remove any kind of assistance, the lazy buggers will have to get a job. Or something.

The thing to remember about what is being called Obamacare, is that - at elast at this moment - all it's talking about is insurance. Which means it's only talking about enfranchising people buying insurance, it's theoretically not making any direct impact on healthcare itself.

That's good and bad. It's good, in that it makes all the arguments about communism and social healthcare obvious lies. It's bad because it means that we're likely to see some sort of result that's disproportionately punitive on the people that need help most.

I wish we were talking about some kind of NHS model, like the UK has. I wish, if we MUST talk about insurance, we were talking about a model that scaled premiums based on income, so that EVERYONE paid an equal share of their income into health insurance.

But, we're not. Hopefully, the people who need help most will still get it.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

I think this reponse is an example of what I was looking for.

I am not sure I agree with the response.

1. "Many of the people who would suddenly be enfranchised, would be paying premiums - this might be more or less than other premiums they might have to pay."

They arent paying any premiuims now, so any more premiums is a net negative.

They aren't paying premiums now, but they are (more than likely) paying for medicines and or healthcare.

There's a doughnut-hole in existing medical care now - people who can't afford to pay for insurance (at least partly) because they're ALREADY paying for medical care they've had or are getting.

2. "Of the rest - whether or not the assistance towards paying premiums would be a reduction or an increase, depends on how much medication or attention they need, and how much they have been paying."

True, a healthy, 20 something male is OK, but what about the 20 something female who is having kids? Sure, the hospital MUST deliver the baby. What about the prenatal care that probably wont be paid for, because OB/GYN wont take Obamacare.

I don't see why the OB/GYN wouldn't tkae 'obamacare' - it's insurance, and just about everyone takes insurance.

Or the well baby care from birth to like 2 years old, same thing.

Well, that's the problem with America. 'Babies' are ultra-important until they pop out, then no one gives a shit till they join the workforce.

This one is the one where, frankly, my family and I are. I used to pay a crap load for insurance because of my wife's health. She is currently on Medicare. The only reason her doctors take her is because she was a patient before we got on Medicare. Now, she just had a kidney transplant, paid for entirely by Medicare PLUS a national kidney charity organization. I still haven't seen any kind of bills. I dont think I expect to. This is the case in which Medicare is supposed to work. This is a success story for Medicare, because without it, my wife would still be on dialysis (still paid for by Medicare, but standard of living sucks).

That said, my wife is sort of a rare case. I, quite frankly, wonder if someone else in her situation, when Obamacare is put into effect, will be able to get the same outcome, simply because of the volume of additional participants.

The important thing to highlight here - is that this is what Medicare, etc are supposed to fix - and these stories are real. The idea is commonly circulated (and, I'm going to have to point the finger mainly at the Republicans for this one - this last year it's been their main mantra) that people who are claiming assistance are scroungers who don't want to put anything in to the system, and that - if you remove any kind of assistance, the lazy buggers will have to get a job. Or something.

The thing to remember about what is being called Obamacare, is that - at elast at this moment - all it's talking about is insurance. Which means it's only talking about enfranchising people buying insurance, it's theoretically not making any direct impact on healthcare itself.

That's good and bad. It's good, in that it makes all the arguments about communism and social healthcare obvious lies. It's bad because it means that we're likely to see some sort of result that's disproportionately punitive on the people that need help most.

I wish we were talking about some kind of NHS model, like the UK has. I wish, if we MUST talk about insurance, we were talking about a model that scaled premiums based on income, so that EVERYONE paid an equal share of their income into health insurance.

But, we're not. Hopefully, the people who need help most will still get it.

The OB/GYN's dont lilke Medicare/Medicaid. I suspect because given the nature of thier business, they see a lot of it. But, also, think about this. Lower income mothers are more likely to be living an unhealthy lifestyle when they get pregnant, not get prenatal care, and sue the OB/GYN because the baby is born with birth defects. I admit that I havent ACTUALLY talked to an OB/GYN in about 16 years, but I have read/heard the debate lately and this seems to be the reason why OB/GYN's are most apt to not take public insurance. Not to mention illegal immigrants who cross the borders to have thier babies. That MUST be a big drain on OB/GYN's.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

I'm going to leave it here I guess. It seems not many people are really interested in talking about this, in this thread at least.

Time will tell. I hope I'm wrong.

Night.

[Grave_n_idle]

The OB/GYN's dont lilke Medicare/Medicaid.

But the Obamacare mechanism is just insurance, like any other insurance policy. Why would OB/GYN's refuse that?

[KiloMikeAlpha]

The OB/GYN's dont lilke Medicare/Medicaid.

But the Obamacare mechanism is just insurance, like any other insurance policy. Why would OB/GYN's refuse that?

Well isnt Medicare/Medicaide just insurance? The point is the that Medicare dictates how much doctors get paid for thier services. Private insurance then pays a certain percentage over what medicare pays. Plus, Medicare increases what they pay onthe rate of about 1% per yer, while the costs of running a practice go up about 4% per year. This also kills doctors.

I was just talking to a doctor friend of mine today and he is seriously considering becoming a teacher because they make more money and put in far fewer hours than he does. This is a real concern that needs to be addressed.

Also, from this same doctor, if a Doctor opts out of Medicare, they cannot take any insurance or apply to take Medicare again for 2 years after the opt out. This means that unless they run a 100% cash practice, they are essentially un-employable for 2 years.

I respecfully request that some of you who call bullshit on my arguement, sit down with some doctors in your area and discuus this with them. Take the discussion to those who know.

[The Rifle Brigade]

I will pose the question as simply as I can. When 45 million currently un-insured people get insurance from the government, will thier burden of paying for thier own medical care be reduced?

I am not asking whether they will GET care. I am asking whether they will be able to pay for the care they receive, either through paying cash, because the doctor does not take the insurance, or through the insurance itself?

We've shown even by your sources, that the vast majority of doctors do take Medicare, the example you thought would show they didn't. You completely dodged and ignored the quote from your own source showing that.

Now if you're saying they will "GET" the care, but not be able to pay for it, that's the whole point of another government program, to give them a way to pay for it. If you seriously think the doctors would provide the care but then not get the payment from the program when its available, you don't understand basic economics.

Moreover, same fraud auditing and system compliance techniques can be used for Obamacare that are used for private insurance companies. That point was made before, but you had no ability to respond.

[The Rifle Brigade]

The OB/GYN's dont lilke Medicare/Medicaid.

But the Obamacare mechanism is just insurance, like any other insurance policy. Why would OB/GYN's refuse that?

Well isnt Medicare/Medicaide just insurance? The point is the that Medicare dictates how much doctors get paid for thier services. Private insurance then pays a certain percentage over what medicare pays. Plus, Medicare increases what they pay onthe rate of about 1% per yer, while the costs of running a practice go up about 4% per year. This also kills doctors.

I was just talking to a doctor friend of mine today and he is seriously considering becoming a teacher because they make more money and put in far fewer hours than he does. This is a real concern that needs to be addressed.

Also, from this same doctor, if a Doctor opts out of Medicare, they cannot take any insurance or apply to take Medicare again for 2 years after the opt out. This means that unless they run a 100% cash practice, they are essentially un-employable for 2 years.

I respecfully request that some of you who call bullshit on my arguement, sit down with some doctors in your area and discuus this with them. Take the discussion to those who know.

Why do you wrongfully assume we haven't? Both my father and stepmother are physicians, as are many of my colleagues. They don't concur with your argument.

You've already tried your "EVERY doctor I've talked to says" attempt at anecdotal evidence. When we finally convinced you to look up actual information, it should the vast majority of peole on medicare have no problem finding someone who accepts it, and that at worst only 1 out of 4 had any trouble at all finding someone (with no claim on those who weren't able to find someone to accept it at all).

Now, you're regressing. You ignore even your own sources and revert to anecdotal evidence.

I respectfully ask that you learn to read your own sources, try to remember what your original claim was in the OP, and realize that your "Six out of six doctors told me this" argument died painfully when confronted with the actual numbers bigger than six.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Clintonite Labor Secretary and current Obamunist Robert “Third” Reich apparently is a closet Republican:

http://www.infowars.com/robert-reich-on ... ve-to-die/

N.b. at 1:20: “If you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you, maybe, going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive, so we’re going to let you die.” (Emphasis added.)

And since this monstrosity was presented in Berkeley, naturally the audience applauded this declaration.

Your thoughts?

Of the many things I could say about RTR, the following leaps immediately to mind:

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/swjp ... ny-Fremont

Well, I see I'm not the first to want to post about Reich's Berkley comments.

I think it's a hoot! I don't believe that he's being joking or being sarcastic. Every once in a while, someone, liberal or conservative, makes a truthful statement in an environment where they think they're totally among compatriots and that it won't come back to haunt anyone.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

The OB/GYN's dont lilke Medicare/Medicaid.

But the Obamacare mechanism is just insurance, like any other insurance policy. Why would OB/GYN's refuse that?

Well isnt Medicare/Medicaide just insurance? The point is the that Medicare dictates how much doctors get paid for thier services. Private insurance then pays a certain percentage over what medicare pays. Plus, Medicare increases what they pay onthe rate of about 1% per yer, while the costs of running a practice go up about 4% per year. This also kills doctors.

I was just talking to a doctor friend of mine today and he is seriously considering becoming a teacher because they make more money and put in far fewer hours than he does. This is a real concern that needs to be addressed.

Also, from this same doctor, if a Doctor opts out of Medicare, they cannot take any insurance or apply to take Medicare again for 2 years after the opt out. This means that unless they run a 100% cash practice, they are essentially un-employable for 2 years.

I respecfully request that some of you who call bullshit on my arguement, sit down with some doctors in your area and discuus this with them. Take the discussion to those who know.

Why do you wrongfully assume we haven't? Both my father and stepmother are physicians, as are many of my colleagues. They don't concur with your argument.

You've already tried your "EVERY doctor I've talked to says" attempt at anecdotal evidence. When we finally convinced you to look up actual information, it should the vast majority of peole on medicare have no problem finding someone who accepts it, and that at worst only 1 out of 4 had any trouble at all finding someone (with no claim on those who weren't able to find someone to accept it at all).

Now, you're regressing. You ignore even your own sources and revert to anecdotal evidence.

I respectfully ask that you learn to read your own sources, try to remember what your original claim was in the OP, and realize that your "Six out of six doctors told me this" argument died painfully when confronted with the actual numbers bigger than six.

You guys talk about evidence like I am on trial. This is not a trial nor and I being indicted. You and others may be taught that antecdotal evidence is rubbish, but in the real world, that is what most of us have to determine our points of view.

Again, time will tell.

[Treznor]

You guys talk about evidence like I am on trial. This is not a trial nor and I being indicted. You and others may be taught that antecdotal evidence is rubbish, but in the real world, that is what most of us have to determine our points of view.

Again, time will tell.

Actually, we talk about evidence in terms of debate or empirical testing. I can talk about how in my experience doctors who focus on profit are slip-shod quacks more interested in making a buck than helping me get well, but you would dismiss that as faulty evidence and rightly so. Why should I be any more convinced by your argument than you by mine?

[KiloMikeAlpha]

You guys talk about evidence like I am on trial. This is not a trial nor and I being indicted. You and others may be taught that antecdotal evidence is rubbish, but in the real world, that is what most of us have to determine our points of view.

Again, time will tell.

Actually, we talk about evidence in terms of debate or empirical testing. I can talk about how in my experience doctors who focus on profit are slip-shod quacks more interested in making a buck than helping me get well, but you would dismiss that as faulty evidence and rightly so. Why should I be any more convinced by your argument than you by mine?

Doctors who dont focus on profit are out of business and not helping anyone. Do you expect them to work for free? Do you expect them to work 80-100 hours week for less than 40K/yr? Do you execpt thier employees/nurses to work for free?

[The Rifle Brigade]

You guys talk about evidence like I am on trial.

No, we talk about evidence because it has a role in supporting ones arguments in a discussion. That's what "intelligent debate" is. Words have context, please learn them.

This is not a trial nor and I being indicted.

Nobody said you were. You put forward a claim, and it has been roundly refuted by both evidence and reasoning. You called for "cogent debate", and when confronted with it, you're unable to cope.

Also, if you're going to use words like "trial" and "indictment", please learn that they would apply to a person. What you've repeatedly ignored is that information which addresses your claims, and the several failings therein.

You and others may be taught that antecdotal evidence is rubbish, but in the real world, that is what most of us have to determine our points of view.

Actually, on national scope issues like healthcare and economics, many people are able to see past their own "real world" (i.e., their assumption that all the world is how their little section works) and look at the broader "real world" as reflected in larger and more encompassing information. This includes doctors, who base treatment protocols not only off individual cases, but on a careful examination of peer-reviewed research that measures method efficacy on numbers larger than six.

As an example, your own "real world" observation that your 6 out of 6 doctors don't accept medicare wound up not matching the REAL "real world", that the vast majority do, and that the number is increasing. (Again, I respectfully plead with you to either read your own sources, or stop blatantly ignoring when someone reads them for you).

Again, time will tell.

Time has told. For eight years, up to the most recent year for which complete numbers are available, the report showed your assumption was false. While it may change, the trend is clear, and starkly illustrates flaws in your original line of reasoning (which you've shown no ability to support).

[The Rifle Brigade]

You guys talk about evidence like I am on trial. This is not a trial nor and I being indicted. You and others may be taught that antecdotal evidence is rubbish, but in the real world, that is what most of us have to determine our points of view.

Again, time will tell.

Actually, we talk about evidence in terms of debate or empirical testing. I can talk about how in my experience doctors who focus on profit are slip-shod quacks more interested in making a buck than helping me get well, but you would dismiss that as faulty evidence and rightly so. Why should I be any more convinced by your argument than you by mine?

Doctors who dont focus on profit are out of business and not helping anyone. Do you expect them to work for free? Do you expect them to work 80-100 hours week for less than 40K/yr? Do you execpt thier employees/nurses to work for free?

First, go back to the numbers, even the ones you posted. They show that isn't happening, that the number of doctors accepting medicaid is going up. Second, the vast majority of medical practices remain economically viable, nurses continue to receive salaries, and you continue to provide no actual information to support your claims.

Lastly, notice how you completely miss the point he was making about your use of the term evidence and its function in discussion. Your responses continue to show that you don't even grasp the way in which you are being refuted.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Again with banging my head against a wall. This is frustrating. 2 people have offered debate. Not much of a debate. So I will recind my claim and will sit back and watch. I'm not the kind of person who says "I told you so" because when it becomes blatently obvious that you were wrong, I will have no need.

I will be the first to admit I was wrong when within a year of Obamacare being instituted doctors and patients dance happy in the streets and are praising Obama as our savior. Not holding my breath.

KiloMikeAlpha, over and out.

[The Rifle Brigade]

Again with banging my head against a wall. This is frustrating. 2 people have offered debate. Not much of a debate.

Not much? Enough so that you couldn't come up with any substantive response.

So I will recind my claim and will sit back and watch.

Again, using words you don't understand. "Rescind" means you withdraw the assertion, but obviously continue to think its true. You have no ability to support it. So much for wanting "intelligent debate". I respectfully ask you to stop calling for things you can't handle.

I'm not the kind of person who says "I told you so" because when it becomes blatently obvious that you were wrong, I will have no need.

This is exactly the argument religious folks use when they can't make a reasonable argument.

I will be the first to admit I was wrong when within a year of Obamacare being instituted doctors and patients dance happy in the streets and are praising Obama as our savior. Not holding my breath.

Since that's not the claim that was being debated, your respiration needn't be an issue. What you claimed was that because people (supposedly) can't find a doctor who accepts medicare, they wouldn't find a doctor who accepts Obamacare. That's been shown to be a clearly faulty claim.

(This ignores the several other issues in your further reasoning, such as your claim that hospitals treat people out of compassion (they treat uninsured usually because of legislative impetus), that doctors would then treat Obamacare patients but for some reason not then file for the money (as if treating them for free makes more sense than treating them for whatever they get from Obamacare), and several other utter logical failures that were pointed out.)

KiloMikeAlpha, over and out.

Again, don't start what you can't finish.

If you can't handle two (or even one, since you were losing badly on both fronts) people giving you the cogent debate you asked for (something which you will hopefully learn includes use of evidence), you were "over" before you started.

[Grave_n_idle]

The OB/GYN's dont lilke Medicare/Medicaid.

But the Obamacare mechanism is just insurance, like any other insurance policy. Why would OB/GYN's refuse that?

Well isnt Medicare/Medicaide just insurance? The point is the that Medicare dictates how much doctors get paid for thier services. Private insurance then pays a certain percentage over what medicare pays. Plus, Medicare increases what they pay onthe rate of about 1% per yer, while the costs of running a practice go up about 4% per year. This also kills doctors.

I was just talking to a doctor friend of mine today and he is seriously considering becoming a teacher because they make more money and put in far fewer hours than he does. This is a real concern that needs to be addressed.

Also, from this same doctor, if a Doctor opts out of Medicare, they cannot take any insurance or apply to take Medicare again for 2 years after the opt out. This means that unless they run a 100% cash practice, they are essentially un-employable for 2 years.

I respecfully request that some of you who call bullshit on my arguement, sit down with some doctors in your area and discuus this with them. Take the discussion to those who know.

Why do you wrongfully assume we haven't? Both my father and stepmother are physicians, as are many of my colleagues. They don't concur with your argument.

You've already tried your "EVERY doctor I've talked to says" attempt at anecdotal evidence. When we finally convinced you to look up actual information, it should the vast majority of peole on medicare have no problem finding someone who accepts it, and that at worst only 1 out of 4 had any trouble at all finding someone (with no claim on those who weren't able to find someone to accept it at all).

Now, you're regressing. You ignore even your own sources and revert to anecdotal evidence.

I respectfully ask that you learn to read your own sources, try to remember what your original claim was in the OP, and realize that your "Six out of six doctors told me this" argument died painfully when confronted with the actual numbers bigger than six.

You guys talk about evidence like I am on trial. This is not a trial nor and I being indicted. You and others may be taught that antecdotal evidence is rubbish, but in the real world, that is what most of us have to determine our points of view.

Again, time will tell.

The 'real world' is actually a lot of smaller real worlds.

In my 'real world', Obama's plan is described - even by doctors - as being an appropriation of healthcare, to disenfranchise the sick and elderly, as part of a powergrab and an invasion of socialism.

In my world - even by doctors - it is held up as evidence of 'what happens when you let a nigger in the whitehouse'. In my world, it is used as evidence of how Democrats want to kill veterans and old people, and to deny coverage to Republicans.

If you asked 6 doctors in my world, what they thought about Obamacare, they'd give you horrible answers, ranging from simple denial of healthcare, to seizure of the reins of power by communists and muslims.

That's because 'my world' is rural Georgia, and that's EXACTLY the kind of stupid shit I hear every day.


However - I am aware, that my experience of 'the real world' (around here) is not representative of ALL of the 'real world'. I'm aware that my 'anecdotal' evidence is not backed by the bulk of the evidence. Which is why debate DEMANDS support for arguments. Because we all have different experiences, but you can't argue with the cold hard certainties.

You are not on trial. Your argument is.

[The_pantless_hero]

In my world - even by doctors - it is held up as evidence of 'what happens when you let a nigger in the whitehouse'. In my world, it is used as evidence of how Democrats want to kill veterans and old people, and to deny coverage to Republicans.

Because doctors are obviously all apolitical and none have idiotic right-wing agendas or arn't whipping boys for capitalism and don't give a shit about anything but the next dollar.
The relevant point is that major medical unions (ie, groups of doctors and nurses) want healthcare reform.

If you asked 6 doctors in my world, what they thought about Obamacare, they'd give you horrible answers, ranging from simple denial of healthcare, to seizure of the reins of power by communists and muslims.

There is no account for idiots.


On a related note, there is at least one politician I have to give respect to: Roland Burris

The Illinois Democrat, appointed by disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, says he'll only vote for a bill to provide health care to millions more Americans as long as it allows the government to sell insurance in competition with private insurers.

And he says he won't compromise.

The only one with really nothing to lose is the only one with any balls it seems. Even if it is solely out of spite.

[Surote]

Grave_n_idle wrote:
In my world - even by doctors - it is held up as evidence of 'what happens when you let a nigger in the whitehouse'. In my world, it is used as evidence of how Democrats want to kill veterans and old people, and to deny coverage to Republicans.

A nigger really man how racist is that, two I think if the democrats want to do that more people would be against it then they are now.