Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Doctor seeking Illinois Senate critiques ObamaCare

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Doctor seeking Illinois Senate critiques ObamaCare
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is a pretty pithy critique of Obamacare. However, I'm not sure it's going to help her win an election in Illinois. [Wink]

quote:
She's a former nun, an Army major, a lawyer, a college professor and a physician. Now Dr. Barbara Bellar wants to be a state senator from Illinois, and she has one question about ObamaCare.

“What the blank could possibly go wrong?” Bellar asks, tongue in cheek, after delivering a one-sentence indictment of President Obama's health care law.

"So let me get this straight. This is a long sentence.
We are going to be gifted with a health care plan that

(1) we are forced to purchase, and

(2) fined if we don't,

(3) which reportedly covers 10 million more people, without adding a single new doctor,

(4) but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,

(5) written by a committee whose chairman doesn't understand it,

(6) passed by Congress, that didn't read it, but exempted themselves from it, and

(7) signed by a president who smokes,

(8) with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which

(9) we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,

(10) by a government which has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,

(11) all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that is broke.

So what the blank could possibly go wrong?"

FoxNews
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not worrying about irrelevant qualifiers and half truths, he managed to get through it with only this half of his statements being outright lies:

quote:
(3) which reportedly covers 10 million more people, without adding a single new doctor,
Funding for training additional doctors is in the bill. But, even more than that, a bigger paying customer base will mean that more people will choose to become doctors. Basic market principles there. Increase demand and more suppliers will step up to meet it.

quote:
(4) but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
This is an outright lie. There is an allocation to the IRS that would represent that many salaries, but that allocation is for the IRS to pay out the insurance subsidies that are part of the bill, not to hire anyone.
(This is also a telling aspect of how money works- the IRS has to be directly allocated money to pay out tax credits and rebates because it has no actual inflow to work with. Money that's paid in taxes is simply written out of the books.)

quote:
5) written by a committee whose chairman doesn't understand it,
An absurd distortion.

quote:
(6) passed by Congress, that didn't read it, but exempted themselves from it, and
Again a distortion, now with a lie tacked on, given that Congress does have employer provided healthcare that meets the standards of the law, and thus is fully in compliance with it already, just like the majority of everyone else is.

quote:
(9) we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,
Benefits have already taken effect; the taxes in question aren't related to the exchange system which is the piece that kicks in after four years (and, given the rate some states are moving it up, that may not be enough time for them to get the infrastructure set up)

quote:
(10) by a government which has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
Pure nonsense, both from the fact that are both still currently funded and that "bankrupt" is meaningless to the issuer of currency.

quote:
(11) all to be overseen ... by a country that is broke.
Again, complete meaningless nonsense.

[ October 05, 2012, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is why it is so hard to listen to the critics of Obamacare. You want to find out what is really wrong with it, and you're instead given half-truths and distortions. [Mad]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's just plain FOX. Unfortunately, people *do* believe what they say uncritically.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin,

actually the reason we don't have enough doctors isn't lack of economic motivation - but deliberate restriction on supply by the AMA for probably 40+ years. We would have about triple the number of doctors, and they would get paid (and charge) about 1/2 as much for services, and med school would cost about half as much.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
This is why it is so hard to listen to the critics of Obamacare. You want to find out what is really wrong with it, and you're instead given half-truths and distortions. [Mad]

[LOL] Good one.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
but deliberate restriction on supply by the AMA for probably 40+ years.

Can you define exactly what you mean by "restriction of supply" here. I've seen that claim before, but the most that I've ever seen anyone point to as evidence for it is the fact that we require accreditation- effectively an argument that we should go back to the days when anyone could claim to be a doctor by just adding "Dr" to their business card without any independent verification of their credentials or quality control.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't have a link but I have heard the way the AMA has done it is through the accreditation of medical schools. By limiting the number and size of medical schools they can limit the number of new doctors.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin,

AMA refused to accredit any new medical schools till a few years ago and they lobbied congress to limit the number of medical school students that could be accepted by schools. (Basically schools were paid to accept a number of students far below their capacity to limit the number of doctors graduated).

I've provided links to such information before, but don't have time to google it right now.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the past (80's and 90's) they were trying to limit the number of new doctors because of the impending oversupply.

balitmore.com from 1997

quote:
The American Medical Association and representatives of the nation's medical schools said yesterday that the United States is training far too many doctors and that the number should be cut by at least 20 percent.

"The United States is on the verge of a serious oversupply of physicians," the AMA and five other medical groups said in a joint statement. "The current rate of physician supply -- the number of physicians entering the work force each year -- is clearly excessive."

The groups, representing a large segment of the medical establishment, proposed limits on the number of doctors who become residents each year.

More recently they are realizing that they were wrong and trying to get caught back up.

usatoday.com from 2005

quote:
The country needs to train 3,000 to 10,000 more physicians a year — up from the current 25,000 — to meet the growing medical needs of an aging, wealthy nation, the studies say. Because it takes 10 years to train a doctor, the nation will have a shortage of 85,000 to 200,000 doctors in 2020 unless action is taken soon.

The predictions of a doctor shortage represent an abrupt about-face for the medical profession. For the past quarter-century, the American Medical Association and other industry groups have predicted a glut of doctors and worked to limit the number of new physicians. In 1994, the Journal of the American Medical Association predicted a surplus of 165,000 doctors by 2000.

Isn't this an almost perfect example of the problem with central planning?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not really - if it truly does take 10 years to train a functional doctor, then there would be at least a 10 year delay based on a pure market based solution.

There's also the question of whether the AMA was being completely honest.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Not really - if it truly does take 10 years to train a functional doctor, then there would be at least a 10 year delay based on a pure market based solution.

So, you're saying that if the AMA and Congress had NOT imposed limits to medical schools in the 80s and 90s, that we would still have a shortage of physicians today? That a "free market" approach to letting medical schools decide for themselves how many students to teach, would have lead to less trained doctors?
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That a "free market" approach to letting medical schools decide for themselves how many students to teach, would have lead to less trained doctors?
Not less or more necessarily, but a supply that significantly lags demand. There's a similar issue with every profession that requires a degree- students that enter school when the market is hot and the position is in high demand, often graduate to finds that it's oversaturated by the time they're done- the increased time for medical training just makes the lag issue worse.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My point was that the failure in planning was not a failure of central planning in and of itself - each medical school, given the same information inputs, could have come to the same conclusions on their own, and market forces themselves would only kick in at the time when the supply no longer met demand (or vice versa - a significant fraction of 10 years too late.)

Now, if we assume that the reasoning provided by the ACA was dishonest, that is another question altogether.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
That a "free market" approach to letting medical schools decide for themselves how many students to teach, would have lead to less trained doctors?
Not less or more necessarily, but a supply that significantly lags demand. There's a similar issue with every profession that requires a degree- students that enter school when the market is hot and the position is in high demand, often graduate to finds that it's oversaturated by the time they're done- the increased time for medical training just makes the lag issue worse.
I would agree, if schools accepted students into programs based on demand. A medical school would presumptively accept as many medical students as it could teach. It would hire more teachers based on demand. Demand would simply be based on how many kids wanted to become doctors.

It's true that the supply of kids who want to become doctors is tied to demand, but only to a point where the job does not meet income expectations or job availability does not meet expectations BEFORE deciding to enter medical school. Doctors will have a job as long as there are people being sick or stupid. The only question is how much they are able to charge due to increased competition, which does not really exist today in the brotherhood of physicians.

Hospitals may compete to some extent, but doctors do not. Doctors are colleagues, not competitors.

I'm not certain why the majority of medical students wish to become doctors. I'm sure a great deal of them are expecting to live well. I do NOT think, and the AMA has proven this, that there was a shortage of students during the 80s and 90s, otherwise they wouldn't have had to lobby congress to restrict the number of students medical schools could accept. The supply was there. Perhaps the demand was not pressing at the time, but now it is. What is the worst that could have happened in the 90s or early 2000s? Too many doctors? Have you been to an ER or a doctor's office lately? What happens when there are too many doctors? The same thing that happens when there are too many graduates with M.A.s in French Literature.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You want to see what doctors do when there's a glut, go to Cuba. Would you like a BJ with this checkup?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You want to see what doctors do when there's a glut, go to Cuba. Would you like a BJ with this checkup?

You win, Pete. You actually made me google "cuban doctors giving ****jobs".
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You want to see what doctors do when there's a glut, go to Cuba. Would you like a BJ with this checkup?

You win, Pete. You actually made me google "cuban doctors giving ****jobs".
[Big Grin] My specific example was figurative, an exaggeration.

But try "Cuba doctors supplement income"

a surprisingly high number of cuban physicians do moonlight as prostitutes to European tourists.

But no; I haven't actually heard of them doing it at the office; that was an exaggeration.

[ October 06, 2012, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Weirder things have happened. In Korea it was barber shops.

Intial search did not provide answers so "cuban doctors" led to a Grey Hooker article that was informative.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1