Hahahaha. You think the Post Office is efficient? Gruber approves of you.
ACA Upheld
- Thread starter naturalmwa
- Start date
Hahahaha. You think the Post Office is efficient? Gruber approves of you.
I don't want to post any misinformation -- like claiming you can keep your doctor, or you can keep your insurance plan, or your premiums will go down, or anything like that. Lying about Obamacare is the president's job.
So far the numbers on emergency room visits do not bare out your central point. They are up or flat compared to where they were.
And do what - leave health insurance to the government... oh that would work out so very well...
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,187
- 208,076
- 113
Maybe you should move. Both my wife and I had to see our internist last month. I got in the next day. She got in the same day.
The problem is that your issue is not the case across the country. It certainly could be a function of where you live. The scheduling may not be as efficient; the ability to manage the 'paper-work' may be less efficient; more patients trying to see said doctor. There are many reasons for the delay, only some of which may be an unintended result of the ACA; certainly not 100% of the reasons.
I believe I said "long-term". Short-term, I doubt there would be much change. I know Obama et al touted there would be a sudden drop in emergency department visits, but I wasn't sold on that part of the benefits of the ACA. It will take time for people to actually change their behavior; using family doctors or 'insta-care clinics' vs. emergency departments for everyday needs. I don't think you'll see a marked decline for at least another 3-5 years.
Now, one thing about the static (if not increased) number of ER visits, hospitals are getting reimbursed at a somewhat higher rate under the ACA for each of these visits (at least according to some data I've had access to).
Last edited:
Before the Republicans dedicated themselves to destroying it, we used to have twice daily delivery. But don't let reality get in the way of your delusions and dogma.
Twice daily delivery isn't a very good example of efficiency.
Actually, quite the opposite.
Why is efficiency the appropriate measure. Twice daily may not scream efficiency but you know what it does scream? SERVICE to the people and businesses.
I don't know why I let Dawg get away with that criterion shift.
You guys were biting back and forth and efficiency was the term used.
I tried to stay on topic.
No . . . Actually, he was talking about delays. Here's the part I responded to:
"Just so I'm clear the delay in seeing a doctor is not a "bit" longer, it's two months longer. This is not an acceptable side effect of Obamacare. It is a de facto rationing which is a natural by product of socialization of an industry. "
I challenged the common wingnut meme that "socialization" causes delays and rationing by using obvious counter-examples.
I see how your coming to this point but in reality the government is not making any new laws. Congress does not even operate anymore. The president and congress havent spoken in about 4 years so i guess the SCOTUS is the only functioning arm of the federal government.
There have to be ways to mold the ACA into a working universal health system. This current government will not find anything close to that.
I dont see how the ACA is anything like a single payer. Its a gift to insurance companies. I dont think its really that big a change for most people from the old system.
If we went single payer, You just expand Medicare to everyone. Its pretty simple. You have a baseline level of care for everyone and allow for supplemental insurance for higher levels of care or specialized care. It would take it off the backs of employers for the most part. I have no idea why people are soooo opposed to this. The countries that have it have better outcomes, spend less on care as a % of GDP, and are more satisfied. Canada is not a true single payer system. The UK is.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/nhs-even-more-cherished-monarchy-and-army
If we went single payer, You just expand Medicare to everyone. Its pretty simple. You have a baseline level of care for everyone and allow for supplemental insurance for higher levels of care or specialized care. It would take it off the backs of employers for the most part. I have no idea why people are soooo opposed to this. The countries that have it have better outcomes, spend less on care as a % of GDP, and are more satisfied. Canada is not a true single payer system. The UK is.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/nhs-even-more-cherished-monarchy-and-army
Sooooo...the admin included this turn of phrase to force the states to set up their own exchanges then kept it secret even AFTER states opted for the feds to set up their exchanges and nary a single one of those states bothered to expose the admin strong-arming?
Sure...that's EXACTLY what happened.
In see her every day (I'm married to her). She is as flabbergasted as me about the inability to see a doctor. In fact she tells me she can prescribe the medicine I need with no problem as dogs use it as well but won't.
In her practice no animal has to wait more than a couple of days to see a doctor. Ever.
Roberts will always side with what is best for big business and this is a big big win for big business.
Then you need a different doctor. I have never had to wait more than a week to see mine when it was "urgent". Ever. And if it is truly "urgent", I can go to "urgent care" and it's covered.
You keep posting this nonsense. Insurance and care are intertwined into this country. There really is no debate. Six months ago, I needed a new physician as mine retired. I called the office of my first choice whose receptionist said he wasn't taking new patients but she would give him my information and see what he said. Part of my information was insurance status. Two days later I was accepted as a new patient. Do you really think I would have been accepted if I would have said I was private pay?
There should be a simultaneous debate in this country about healthcare delivery, quality, and cost (paying for it). They cannot or at least shouldn't be separated.
Yeah, that's more cynical, but probably more accurate than what I said. But then why didn't Alito vote the same way?
I don't think so. Alito, Thomas and Scalia were the bad guys this time. BAU
Because Alito is a petulant little man who will never ever vote left of center on an issue.
You know. I am not that pleased with this. I want a single payer system.
When did people in this country stop having access to health care? They can go to a hospital, their doctor or urgent care at any time. No one is preventing them from doing so.
I think you're referring to health insurance as that's what this is about. Again, anyone can buy health insurance in this country. There is no one physically preventing them from getting insurance.
That's exactly right. If you already have a working relationship with your physician he or she should always be able squeeze you in. If one of my pts has an issue I can always work them in on my clinic days within a week or so. Otherwise, I don't hesitate to consult with a colleague and ask if he or she can work the pt into one of their clinic slots. Granted we have residents doing much of the exam, but there are always ways around "delays."
So are you saying don't believe your post?
The ACA isnt a government system. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
No, he is saying you are spreading a lie, was it intentional or in error?
Quotation: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."
Variations:
- "If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."
- “Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."
- "Government that is big enough to give everything you need and want is also strong enough to take it away."
- "Any government powerful enough to give the people all that they want is also powerful enough to take from the people all that they have."
Earliest known appearance in print: 1952 1
Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Jefferson: 20052
Comments: Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Its first known appearance in print was in 1953, although it is most likely older. It appeared frequently in newspapers in the 1950s (usually unattributed), and was even used in political cartoons. It was copyrighted in 1957 by the General Features Corporation, as part of a syndicated newspaper feature called "Today's Chuckle." It later became a popular saying among Republican politicians. Governor Harold W. Handley of Indiana used it in his annual message to the Indiana General Assembly in 1961;3 Barry Goldwater was quoted using it in his 1964 run for president;4 and Gerald Ford is on record using it in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.5 It was attributed to Ford as early as 1954, however,6 and Ford's assistant, Robert Hartmann, said that Ford claimed to have heard the quotation "early in his political career" from Harvard McClain at the Economic Club of Chicago.7
This quotation was not attributed to Jefferson until relatively recently. It is sometimes followed by, "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," which is most likely a misquotation of Jefferson's comment, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."8
- Anna Berkes, 2007; revised 1/21/13
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/government-big-enough-give-you-everything-you-wantquotation
So is he spreading lies as well (intentionally or in error)? Or are you just too deep into him that you have to post for him?
It was on the internet so it must be true...
And honestly, I don't care whose picture is next to the quote - the meaning of the quote holds true.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
