@niceguy:

The percentages may sound small, but that $31.2 BILLION(in 2006 BTW) has to be made up somewhere(maybe by increasing the prices on goods and services, effecting everyone?)...And that was in just one year...A whopping $235.4 BILLION(almost a quarter of a trillion) in the previous ten years(1997-2006) according to your "fact sheet"...

My favorite part of the report was, under the section entitled "CBO's Estimates of the Longer-Run Effects of This Year's Legislation", the line "The legislation will reduce budget deficits by about $140 billion during the 2010-2019 period and by an amount in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP during the following decade..."
This report seems to be a matter of controversy, and by people that know much more about it than I:
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Healthcare_cost_inflation

I said "there were cries", I never said you were the one crying...
Please re-read the statement as it says "most of these sites" which is plural and doesn't single out any, part of the point was that there were many sites...Why would you assume I'd be referring to the "Huffington Post" site?
I guess just like the auto accident scenario above, the patient didn't ask to be involved in the medical mistake(accident)...Doctors and drivers make mistakes(accidents), right? Seems only right that victims of medical mistakes should be compensated just as victims in auto accidents are...As for less lawsuits in other countries, I'd say they're doctors are probably motivated more by passion and less by money, but that's just my guess....
I don't know, there's a pretty large patient-to-doctor ratio here...

@EddieFree:
I am afraid that we are arguing "theory versus actual" here. $31.2 billion is a big number - unless you look at it from the perspective of 300 million people. If you figure $31.2 Billion into the 300 million people that live in this country - to erase the TOTAL uncompensated expenses would mean that every person in this country has to absorb less than $9.00 per YEAR per person. Or $36.00 per YEAR per family of four. Or, if you only want to count the families that have a high enough income to pay taxes, we are talking $72.00 per YEAR for a family of four. And, if you use my theory that about half of those who are uninsured would be eliminated after Obamacare, and half still remain uninsured (but still requiring medical services), would mean that the total uncompensated costs would also be cut in half. Which means that each person in the U.S. would have to absorb about $4.33 per YEAR per person. Or $17.32 per year per family of four. Or $34.64 per taxpaying family of four per year. Are you really trying to make the argument that we should have mandatory healthcare coverage so that a taxpaying family of four can have one extra dinner at Denny's PER YEAR? The average American taxpaying family probably spends more on Starbucks than this. We have much bigger fish to fry than this.
Yes, it does seem as though they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. And, unfortunately, there is no real track record upon which to base a strong assessment of whether Obamacare will work or not. However, in your quote, $140 billion dollars is projected to be saved (I assume through reduced premiums) in a 10 year period. We are entering year #4 of that 10 years, and I have not seen anything that even resembles a decrease in healthcare premiums. Granted, Obamacare is just kicking in, but, the projection said from "2010 through 2019", not from the "date of the law going into effect and for the next ten years". OK. I thought there was an implication that I was one of the people that "cried" about Obamacare covering or not covering illegals. To be clear, I believe that Obamacare, nor any government program should cover illegal aliens.Because it was first on the list. I agree, you did say "sites". But it does not change my response. And because their doctors are more motivated by passion than money, they are better doctors and don't make mistakes? Hardly. And because American doctors are motivated by money they make more mistakes? Nah, I don't buy that.I am all for compensating patients for mistakes. The problem is "What is a fair compensation"? What is a human life worth? Or an arm? Or an eye? As for lawsuits in other countries, you don't hear about them because there aren't nearly as many and they are much less costly. The rules in the U.S. are set up to give a distinct advantage to the plaintiff. (Source). "The U.S. is among the few countries that put medical liability cases almost exclusively in the hands of jurors, whereas elsewhere -- in Canada, Japan and most of Europe, for example -- such issues are decided by judges. The benefit in those nations is the elimination of a largely adversarial process that can encourage extreme claims and awards, Epstein said. In Germany, judges often run their courtrooms on tight schedules to resolve disputes quickly. "Their entire framework is designed to reduce it to routine administration, whereas our system is high drama," Epstein said. ..... and, "Beyond costly payouts, however, critics of the U.S. legal system point to expensive contingency fees that encourage lawyers to chase big awards when they can collect 30% to 40% if they win. That's something most European countries prohibit, said Otmar Kloiber, MD, secretary general of the World Medical Assn., a group of national medical societies. The U.K. limits lawyers to collecting twice the amount of their fees. "So there is not that much incentive to make a commodity out of the business of law. ... That would be seen as completely unethical in Europe." (Source). You really don't believe that Jim Adler and Steve Lee are out there suing everyone just because they are nice guys, do you?As an aside to this lawyer thing, I find it very interesting that Adler and Lee are really nothing more than speakers and pitch men. If you read their advertisements on TV closely, they put a statement - in fine print at the bottom - that "Most cases are likely to be referred". They are not even likely to handle your case!Above, you are trying to make the argument that $36.00 per family is a significant cost savings to the country. A doctor who loses a patient or two loses much more than that each year. So, yes, doctors will voluntarily become more efficient.

@niceguy:
This is simply an attempt to dilute or water down the figures because they are so large...Might as well go the extra mile and suggest putting it on a 12 month payment plan at $2.89 per month...Or even amortize it out for a decade at very low interest? A better look at the picture would be to take the $31.2 billion and divide it by the number of providers losing money, then consider how much each of those providers would have to raise their prices just to make up for it...Then consider that prices generally go up with ease but come back down very slowly if ever, and it's cumulative yearly with each set of losses....
It's not MY figure, it's in the document...The $140 billion is government budget deficit savings as stated in the report...
All I can say about this is that just as Doctors invest much in their education and development to earn high compensation, so do attorneys...Attorneys are simply taking advantage of the free market system aren't they? The key difference here is that the institutions of creating laws(rules) are dominated by attorneys, so naturally attorneys are going to create laws favoring attorneys and compensation thereof...Maybe if more doctors became legislators, they could swing things in their favor...
Yes, this is true...I'm sure they only take the easiest, most rewarding, and/or high-profile cases and pass the rest on to new attorneys and such...It's a "small business" type of representation I guess...If I remember correctly, I think on the medical side the Brown Hand Center did the same thing(when Brown was alive and doing his thing) having doctors other than brown doing the procedures...
No, what this means is if a doctor loses a patient, they could probably care less because there are 10 or 20 more waiting to take their place and all their money is green too...

@EddyFree:Yes. It is an attempt to "dilute" the figures because they are so large. But when you wrote "maybe by increasing the prices on goods and services, effecting everyone", I was attempting to quantify the "effect on everyone". And when you wrote "you'll have the resources available to compensate your healthcare provider so that they won't pass those costs on to me and everyone else." again, I was trying to make the point that the "costs on you and everyone else" are very small. So, my question remains, "Are you trying to make the argument that we should mandate healthcare coverage for everyone to avoid inflicting the cost of one dinner at Denny's, PER YEAR on a taxpaying family of four?" With the national debt at $193,000 per person, or $772,000 per family of four, or $1,544,000 per taxpaying family of four, (October 2013 numbers), and growing every day, how did we decide that one of the critical solutions to the problem would be mandating healthcare for everyone, saving $36.00 per year per taxpaying family? To me, this would be analogous with mandating that every person on the Titanic be forced to get a shot glass to start bailing out the flooding seawater - then praising the person (or persons) who decided that it was a great idea! I did not say it was YOUR figure, I said it was the figure you QUOTED. And it doesn't answer the question I implied "When are the cost savings going to start"? And if $140 billion over ten years ($14 billion per year) is such a great thing, why don't we impose a $4/month ($48/year per person or $172/year per family of four) "debt reduction tax" on EVERY person living in America? That would more than double the reduction in the budget deficit. Absolutely correct. Yes, attorneys are using the free market system - and quite well. As I have said before in this thread, I believe that governments role should be more in the line of regulating markets to insure that there is fair competition and that the end result is better for the whole of society. This not effecting how the "free market" works, it is merely defining the rules and boundaries of the market. Yes, I believe that this is a common practice. Just thought it was interesting that they promote themselves as being the "Hammer" to attract clients, then hand them off to someone else.It is possible. I really do not know. But do you really think that there are 10 or 20 patients for each doctor, just trying to get in to see him (or her)? I do not. I do not recall anyone saying to me "Gee, I really want to go see Dr. So-and-So, but he will not give me an appointment". I am sure that it happens, especially with the very good doctors, but I really doubt that there are 10 to 20 patients for EACH doctor.

@niceguy:

First off, the whole watered down figures and deficit argument(it's so big, nothing we do will make a difference, etc.) is:I'm making the argument that for the market based approach, you have to include the insurance companies since they are so integrated into the medical finance system as it is now(and has been)...To keep from putting medical insurance companies out of business(destroying an industry), you have to adopt the shared-risk strategy and that means everyone has to "buy in"...Systems of shared-risk will NOT work if people are only allowed to buy-in when they get sick(thus the mandate)...It would be like a poker game where you don't have to ante but can still play and win the pot...And regardless of the national debt rhetoric, there is still this blistering fact for many families(again, multi source):
www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=how+many+families+are+bankrupt+each+year+from+medical+costs&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1That's a hell of a lot more than a "Denny's Dinner" to those families....Now you have me totally confused!!..Are you really saying you want more taxation and more regulation?? You've got to be kidding me...I thought *I* was the pro-regulator around here! Now I'm deeply offended...This competition thing is going a bit too far...
The 10 to 20 patients figure is only for illustration, it's actually larger than that...Look here(take your pick):
www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=united+states+patient+to+doctor+ratio&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1That doesn't necessarily mean that there is "a line" outside of the doctor's office containing patients waiting to get in but can't(an extreme view), it means potential patients...Have you heard of any doctors calling or writing letters to patients begging them to come back?

@EddyFree:
I did not say that nothing will make a difference. I asked why we are making a big hoopla over a plan that will only reduce (hopefully reduce, although we haven't seen any savings yet and are in year four of ten) our deficit by less than $100 per taxpaying family, when the total debt is $1.5 million per taxpaying family.I am not sure how to answer this. I thought that this section of our debate was about mandated auto insurance coverage. You were arguing that you should not have to have auto coverage and I was arguing that you should. I made the claim that the amount of money that goes uncompensated to hospitals was relatively small and the Obamacare would do little to affect this. You then went on to say "The percentages may sound small, but that $31.2 BILLION (in 2006 BTW) has to be made up somewhere (maybe by increasing the prices on goods and services, effecting everyone?)". And I responded by saying that, while large, the $31.2 billion dollar per year number, when amortized over 310 million people is a very small impact on individuals. Then you come back with shared-risk pools and everyone has to buy in - even when they are not sick." ???So, to get us back to where we were with this segment, I guess that I have to ask (and this is a yes or no question) - Do you believe that everyone should be mandated to have auto insurance as a condition of operating a motor vehicle?As for your links about families going bankrupt due to medical bills, yes, that happens. And, if you re-read my posts, I have never said that I do not believe that everyone should have ACCESS to medical insurance. Everyone SHOULD have access to medical insurance to avoid the situations your links pointed out. In fact, I put out an alternative proposal that I believe accomplishes this, while maintaining a persons right to choose. But, as I said before, it should not be just handed to them.In my opinion, people who are not free to make choices (and live with the consequences) in their lives are not truly free. They are more like robots, who are programmed to do what the programmer instructs. Like China, where people are told how many children to have (although this is lightening up recently), what job they will perform, etc. They are not truly free. As for taxes, I believe that I am stating the inevitable - taxes must go up. The person who says that they will not raise taxes is either saying they will not be doing anything if elected, or does not understand the problem.There is no way around it. If you have read some of the previous posts on this board about national debt, you would realize that this is true. Please watch this video. My point is that we need to include everyone in the repayment program. And we need to cut off the government "money spigot".As for regulation, I do not think that I have ever spoken against regulation of a market. We have to have some ground rules, just as in a football game, you have to have certain rules. The victory comes to those who play the game best, within the rules. I have said before in this thread that government should be taking steps to insure that there is fair competition in a market.No, there probably won't be a line. And yes, there is a shortage of doctors in the U.S. But, from what I read from your links, one of the biggest problems causing the shortage is the fact that "a third of all doctors plan to retire this decade." Source. And, "Doctors saying they will leave the profession cited economic reasons (56%) and healthcare reform (51%) as the biggest culprits and 55% of those who said so are younger than age 55." Source. And, "Most people assume that more health care, that is, more treatment by more doctors, translates into better health. There is evidence however that disputes this notion." Source. But, what I find most telling is "Primary Care Shortage Worsens with Obamacare as Medical Students Specialize" ... and ... "While the primary care shortage worsens with the Affordable Care Act, also know as Obamacare, three-quarters of medical school graduates choose to pursue highly specialized fields. This leaves only 5,000 new grads going into primary care training each year." Source.

@niceguy:
The plan is the Affordable Health Care Act...It's about trying to make healthcare more affordable...It's not the "Deficit Reducing Healthcare Act"...In other words, that's not it's main objective...Although it should aim to be as deficit friendly as possible(and according to the CBO document you provided it's projected to be)...You can put the deficit numbers up again almost anything to try and dwarf it...Try it will Bill Gates' net worth and see how much of a pauper you can make him appear to be...

Your main objection about the Affordable Healthcare Act was that you didn't have a choice about participating in buying health insurance and that counteracts your desire for individual freedom...Auto insurance was brought into the discussion to show that your choice here in Texas is mandated in that respect...But, you accepted a restriction in your individual freedom in this situation because you feel it is beneficial to you...There is no argument from me against mandating auto insurance or healthcare coverage because I know that insurance is based on shared risk...I know that the more people in any insurance pools(the more SHARED risk), the cheaper the premiums for everyone(a reason why allowing $$ people an exception in Texas is not favorable to the concept)...And, of course, as Spock on Star-Trek would say "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few"...

"Relatively small" means you tried to dwarf the figure by putting an elephant(the nation debt) next to it and then diluting it with the size of the entire population without considering that at any one point in time, the entire population is not subject to it...The point is that those losses(31.2 billion) are made up for by increasing prices period...Prices go UP FAST, down VERY SLOWLY if ever....

There are absolutely no ("yes or no") questions outside of a courtroom because we all have BUTts...

And the best way to have ACCESS is to make it affordable by having as large a pool as possible contributing...

So have you heard anything back from your Congressman about your proposal?

Ok, here we go with the choices thing again...Do you agree in mandating seat belt use here in Texas? Do you think kids(who are people) should be forced(mandated) to go to school? Why or why not?
As for China, it's been "leader of the world" several times in it's long history and it's on the rise again(maybe their system is working for THEM)...The U.S. is a relatively young country compared to China, and hasn't experienced it's FIRST fall YET...

Good...These are the doctors that the industry needs to be purged of anyhow...Doors will now open for real doctors, those who care more about the healing and less about the yacht...

Yeah, the whole point of the bundled payment strategy is to incentivize more efficient(often resulting in less) treatment...

Wouldn't this be corrected by the "free market"?..Wouldn't there eventually be an overload of "specialists" who will then have to compete harder against each other and thus drive their own compensation down? And on the other side, the demand for Primary Care Doctors will be so high since they are in such short supply that they will be able to command more money???

@EddyFree:[quote-tag-mismatch]The plan is the Affordable Health Care Act...It's about trying to make healthcare more affordable...It's not the "Deficit Reducing Healthcare Act"...In other words, that's not it's main objective...Although it should aim to be as deficit friendly as possible(and according to the CBO document you provided it's projected to be)...You can put the deficit numbers up again almost anything to try and dwarf it...Try it will Bill Gates' net worth and see how much of a pauper you can make him appear to be.[quote-end-tag-mismatch]Agreed.
[quote-tag-mismatch]Your main objection about the Affordable Healthcare Act was that you didn't have a choice about participating in buying health insurance and that counteracts your desire for individual freedom...Auto insurance was brought into the discussion to show that your choice here in Texas is mandated in that respect...But, you accepted a restriction in your individual freedom in this situation because you feel it is beneficial to you...There is no argument from me against mandating auto insurance or healthcare coverage because I know that insurance is based on shared risk...I know that the more people in any insurance pools (the more SHARED risk), the cheaper the premiums for everyone (a reason why allowing $$ people an exception in Texas is not favorable to the concept)...And, of course, as Spock on Star-Trek would say "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few".[quote-end-tag-mismatch]I accept the limitation on my freedom because, in return, I am assured protection from incidents caused by you. And, in return, I must give you the same protection. Quid pro quo. I DO support mandating insurance coverage to protect others from your actions. I do NOT support mandating insurance coverage to insure that there are enough people in the risk pool. So, if the intent of the law is to provide protection to people from accidents that they do not create, I support it. I do not buy into the "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" concept. That is pure, unadulterated socialism. I don't think we need Spock to be setting social policy. In most cases, I believe in INDIVIDUAL freedoms over collective needs.
[quote-tag-mismatch]"Relatively small" means you tried to dwarf the figure by putting an elephant (the nation debt) next to it and then diluting it with the size of the entire population without considering that at any one point in time, the entire population is not subject to it...The point is that those losses (31.2 billion) are made up for by increasing prices period...Prices go UP FAST, down VERY SLOWLY if ever.[quote-end-tag-mismatch]I do realize that "at any one point in time, the entire population is not subject to it". That is why, when I "diluted" the numbers, I used taxpaying families, realizing that there are a significant amount of families that are not subject to it because they are not paying for healthcare (either because they get it for free or that they don't have any). I put the dwarf next to the elephant because the dwarf (the amount of savings created by mandating insurance for everyone) and the elephant (the national debt) both live in the same household and, like every other household, they will meet each other at some point. And I "dilute" the numbers because I want to have the numbers to have a common basis - the impact of those numbers on a family. Yes, the unreimbursed costs are made up for by increasing prices. But, compared to other issues, the amount of increase is minimal. And, if you refer back to the source I referenced, you will see that it is a relatively constant percentage over many years.
[quote-tag-mismatch]There are absolutely no ("yes or no") questions outside of a courtroom because we all have BUTts.[quote-end-tag-mismatch]Actually there are "yes" or "no" questions. You (EddyFree) either believe something or you do not. Yes or no.
[quote-tag-mismatch]So have you heard anything back from your Congressman about your proposal?[quote-end-tag-mismatch]Unfortunately, no, I have not. My concern is (and I do not know this because I have not had a response yet) that my Congressman and my Senators realize that to implement my proposal, would require repealing significant portions of Obamacare, and we all know where that will get us. My hope is that, in the next election, the power will shift in the Senate and then we can begin to modify Obamacare to make it a more workable piece of law.
[quote-tag-mismatch]Ok, here we go with the choices thing again...Do you agree in mandating seat belt use here in Texas? Do you think kids (who are people) should be forced (mandated) to go to school? Why or why not?[quote-end-tag-mismatch]Yep. I am a big believer in choice. I do NOT believe in mandating seat belts. I DO believe that we should strongly encourage/educate about the advantages of using them. But you should not be fined for not using them. Yes, I believe in mandating education. Because, according to law (a law I agree with), children, up to a certain age, are defined as not being able to make good decisions for themselves. And I believe that this is correct - young children do not always make good choices and do need help and direction from older persons. So, to allow a child to decide whether to go to school or not, would be folly.[quote-end-tag-mismatch]
[quote-tag-mismatch]Good...These are the doctors that the industry needs to be purged of anyhow...Doors will now open for real doctors, those who care more about the healing and less about the yacht.[quote-end-tag-mismatch]How can you make such a broad, unsubstantiated statement like that??? Just because a doctor is interested in his income, he is a bad doctor??? Because he is not willing to put up with increased government bureaucracy his medical skills must also be suspect??
[quote-tag-mismatch]Yeah, the whole point of the bundled payment strategy is to incentivize more efficient (often resulting in less) treatment.[quote-end-tag-mismatch]Yep. Pay them a "bundled payment" and let them stick it to the patient through compromised or limited care. Then sue them when they miss something. That is a real incentive to get more doctors into the profession! Maybe what we can do to keep this theme going in our whole society is to tell police officers how many bullets they can shoot at a person who is shooting at them, based upon their location, time of day and how accurate the officer should be able to shoot! Think of the money that society would save on bullets! And we can tell firemen how many gallons of water they can use to put out a fire based upon the size of the fire. I would bet that there could be some real savings on water (which the fire department does not pay for - which are uncompensated expenses for the MUD - which gets passed on to you and me through higher prices for water!). Doctors should be allowed to be doctors - and make doctor decisions; police should be allowed to be policemen - and make police decisions; and firemen should be allowed to be firemen - and make firemen decisions! Keep the government out of it!
[quote-tag-mismatch]Wouldn't this be corrected by the "free market"?..Wouldn't there eventually be an overload of "specialists" who will then have to compete harder against each other and thus drive their own compensation down? And on the other side, the demand for Primary Care Doctors will be so high since they are in such short supply that they will be able to command more money???[quote-end-tag-mismatch]Yes, it would be corrected by the free market. Everything you say about the free market is true. The problem is that, with Obamacare and bundled payments, primary care physicians would NOT be able to "command more money" because we have the bundled payments and limits on charges. So, we either live with an insufficient amount of primary care physicians or we have to increase the payments allowed under Obamacare, which is what you have been against all along.That is the problem in most of the countries with socialized medicine. They do not have a sufficient supply of doctors, especially in the primary care segment, and people wait for days or weeks to be seen for even the simplest illnesses. I spent two weeks in China three years ago. I was with a friend who my company was trying to work out a business representation deal with. Sitting around one evening talking about life in China, I asked him about their healthcare. He said that "We basically do not have any healthcare here." Confused, I said "I thought you had socialized medicine - free healthcare for everyone." He responded that they do have this, but if they go to the doctor: 1) you will wait for a very long time - sometimes days - to be seen for even a basic condition like a sore throat (not enough doctors); and 2) you really do not want to go anyway because, it is very likely that the doctor will write you a prescription for a medicine that is very expensive (not covered by the socialized medicine program because it has not yet been added to the government program). The doctor prescribes this medicine because the drug companies give kick backs to the doctor for every prescription they write for that medicine. This way the doctor is able to increase his income - which has been regulated by the government. So I asked him "What do you do?". He said that the wealthier people give the doctor a "tip" - which is a way of paying him more money to see you. If you give him a "tip", you normally will be seen very quickly and he will prescribe anything you want. The poorer people do not have the money to give a "tip", which is why there are so many "herbalists" and "herbal therapies" in China. The poor people go to these herbalists and for a very small fee, they will give you something that they have to treat your condition.I really think that Americans should be able to have better healthcare than a store front herbalist and taking tree bark tea and mustard poltices instead of medicine!

@niceguy:
No, that would be considered majority rules and is one of the basic principles in a democracy..Socialism would be when the government owns all major industry...Be careful not to insult Spock, he has that nerve grip you know!...
I cherish individual freedoms too, but I also realize that with 300+ million people in this country(each of which being different), there are bound to be mutual issues that effect us all and need to be solved as a group...

Don't forget those price increases are cumulative(compounding)...I don't think all those families drowning in debt and/or going bankrupt because a family member got sick would agree that it's "minimal."

OK, let me try one(read carefully)...Do you think Barack Obama is the GREATEST U.S. President that this country has had in the last 4 years (yes or no)?

You say "WE" in the above sentence, are you running for Senate also?

I think Doctors who would leave the profession over disputes about money or the Affordable Care Act have no respect for the profession anyway...The medical profession has been built by the contributions of hundreds of people over the course of thousands of years...It has given those Doctors way more than they will ever give it...Those Doctors need to realize that their industry has serious issues when the government has to step in...In this case, they either help to find solutions or to me they are part of the problem...If it's money they are overly concerned about, I'd suggest a fine career in politics as I've heard that those politicians are extremely compensated...

Didn't you just cite an article saying less care(by less doctors) may be just as effective or more effective?...

Don't Doctors have the choice NOT to accept insurance that enforces "bundled payments? Don't they also have the choice NOT to use hospitals that use "bundled payments"?...

Keep the government out of it? Aren't most police departments and fire departments government run? Would you be for privatizing the police departments and/or fire departments...How about private policing companies competing for your dollars and charging you and/or the state by the incidents they resolve...Or maybe private fire departments charging for putting out your fire, you call and get quotes(really fast) then pick the company you want...

The term "socialized medicine" is generally a derogatory term for "universal health care" and shouldn't be confused with "socialist countries"...China is in the same boat as the United States as far as lagging FAR behind other "developed nations" in healthcare...
Here's an interesting map(take note of who our "peer countries" are, rather embarrassing):
www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/
And there's nothing to be proud of when we're below Mexico:
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_health_insurance_coverage

@EddieFree:Right. Democracy does say majority rules. But America is not a "democracy", it is a "constitutional democracy". Google it to find out the minute details, but it basically means that the majority rules only when the Constitution allows for the "majority" to speak. Eg. If I went out today and got 50.1% of the population (a majority) to sign a petition saying that I should be President - starting Monday - I would not be President on Monday. Even though the "majority" of America agrees that I should be President on Monday, the Constitution over rules that and says that we only vote for a President every four years. In the interim, if the current office of the President goes empty, through death, resignation, impeachment, whatever, we have laws that state how that position is filled, even if the "majority" does not want it that way. We do not hold an election to fill it - we wait until the next election cycle to allow the "majority" to determine who they want. Or, if the "majority" (or even 60% of the population) says that we should not be allowed to own guns, we still are allowed to own guns because the Constitution says that to amend the Constitution (which is what is required to vacate the 2nd Amendment) you need a majority vote in two-thirds of the states to approve it. That is why, even though a majority of likely voting Americans (56% - unfavorable; 42% VERY unfavorable) (Source) have an unfavorable opinion of the ACA, it still is going into effect. For the Democrats, they should be happy that American IS a constitutional democracy and that majority does not rule! And with socialism, when I used the term "socialism", I probably should have used "Communism".
Agreed. And the Constitution provides us with the framework of how we work to resolve these issues. You are confusing your arguments here. The amount that is "minimal" is the amount that uninsured people who obtain healthcare services are adding to the overall cost of healthcare. The people that are going bankrupt would not be saved by a decrease of 3% in the amount of the debt that they have - forcing the bankruptcy. The people that are going bankrupt are doing so because of the remaining 97% of that debt which comes from not having insurance.
Yes.
No. I am acknowledging that, as Americans, WE have an obligation to this country that does not end when we walk out of the polling station. WE have an obligation to talk to our Congressmen, rally people of similar opinions, and generally help to run OUR country. Congress is employed by us and paid by us. It is OUR country and we should use OUR employees to run OUR country.
In my opinion, there are very few doctors who do not think that our system of distribution of healthcare is broken. And I believe that the majority of them truly believe that our system of distribution needed to be fixed. I arrive at this belief from reading articles like this one. Their objection to Obamacare is not what it does, it is how it does it. Please see Here and Here and Here. Note all of these articles are written by doctors.
Actually, the article says that more healthcare does not mean better health - i.e. if you go to the doctor every day, you will be no healthier than the person who only goes when there is something wrong. What I am talking about is the treatment that is received when something IS wrong.
Yes. But what does that have to do with being able to "command more money"?
Police - yes. Fire departments - No. 87% of all fire departments are volunteer. (Source) . Our current fire defense system is just fine with me. As for the police, if private firms can do a better job, fine. I do not know how you can test this or quantify this, but, if it can be done and can be proven to be better, or at least the same at a lesser cost, let's go! BUT, if you re-read my entire paragraph, you will see that what I am objecting to is the government telling doctors how to be doctors. If they are going to tell doctors how to be doctors, shouldn't they also tell policemen what limits they have and firemen what limits they have?
"Universal health care" - "refers to a health care system which provides health care and financial protection to all its citizens." (Source). "Socialized medicine" - "is a term used to describe and discuss systems of universal health care—that is, medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health care and subsidies derived from taxation" (Source), which is, ironically, Obamacare! I do not know where the "derogatory" part comes in.
Yep. As I have said all through our discussion, the U.S. has a problem with healthcare DISTRIBUTION. Doctors agree we have a problem with healthcare distribution. I believe that we have a problem with healthcare distribution. But, again, the debate is not about covering everyone, it is HOW we cover everyone.

@niceguy:

I was kind of hoping the "IS ONE OF"(meaning there are many others) and "BASIC PRINCIPLES IN" would have avoided this response when I posted it, ooooppppssss...While you were at it, you should have probably brought up the electoral college process where candidates for President can actually lose the popular vote but win the election, such as what happened in the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore (this would really drive home your point as it blows a lot of people's minds who don't know about the electors and all)...
As for the poll numbers(and I won't attempt to criticize Rasmussen Reports here), it's still early, and the smear campaign is still going strong...We'll see what happens once the insurance pools get full and the true numbers start to come in..Plus, we're still in "buy time" and I'm sure the IRS doesn't have a favorable poll number during tax time either...

Sadly, many of those bankrupt people had insurance...

That sounds good...But what if those "well-paid" employees(Congressmen) only listen to the money? I mean, I know we can vote them out and all, but it hasn't worked yet considering the number of cash-grabbers still in there...When you sent your healthcare idea to your Congressmen, did you mail a big fat wad of cash with it? If not, maybe that's why you haven't heard back from him...


BUT, you were talking about Doctors that would up and leave, not those that would stick around and work it out!
As for the objections, one of your links is to an an article entitled "Better health not about Obamacare, it's about you" which is encouraging people to take personal responsibility for their health because insurance alone won't do it for you!! Do you completely read these articles or just the headlines?
The other two links are individual opinions and Doctors, as individuals, will have opinions and political leans just like the rest of us..I'm sure I could find just as many "Pro-Affordable Care Act" Doctors...Maybe if you cited some objections from major medical groups who weren't politically motivated, you would have my ear...

Ok, I went back to read the article again and realized I must have missed it the first time(lucky you)...
You have to be kidding me!...First off, it's in the "Journal Of Chiropractic Medicine"(?) and entitled "Correlation of health outcomes with physician and chiropractor ratios in the United States"
And here is the introduction:
"Most people assume that more health care, that is, more treatment by more doctors, translates into better health.1 There is evidence however that disputes this notion.2 Previous reports note that the use of chiropractic services could be more cost-effective than medical services for common musculoskeletal complaints,3-5 although there is also controversy on this point.6 Most studies comparing chiropractic care with medical care use the outcome of back pain."To me, that sounds like a big sales pitch for the Chiropractics industry...This whole "study" is a group of Chiropractors comparing their specialty to others and basically trying to say "why get more treatment, come to us first."
And read "The Conclusion" part....It was close....But.....Chiropractors win!!!Review it here:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2647090/

It means they don't have to be "shackled" with accepting those terms and can free themselves up to be more competitive in other more lucrative areas that "command more money"...
If doctors have the choice, as you acknowledge above, I can't see where are they being told what to do...
From what I'm reading, "bundled payments" is a pilot program for Medicare..And even if it was completely mandatory for Medicare, I can't find anything that legally compels a Doctor to accept Medicare or any insurance for that matter...

First, the term "generally" doesn't mean always...Second, I can't get your source links to work on this for some reason...But no matter, these are probably better ones anyhow:
(Pay attention to the line with the word "pejorative")
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derogatory
Do you have "contempt, criticism, hostility, disregard and/or disrespect" for socialized medicine? Your story about China sounded like so to me with lines such as "I thought you had socialized medicine - free healthcare for everyone." And also the comment above about "ironically Obamacare" sounds a little testy to me...

I'd say with a strategy to make it more AFFORDABLE, maybe(and this is just off the top of my head) with an "AFFORDABLE Healthcare Act?"

@EddyFree:And what I was pointing out is that in the U.S., majority does not always rule.
It is sad, but it one of the risks of living today.
Maybe, I don't know. But, you should read my post on the Benghazi mess, where I said: "But, who do we have to blame for all of this ineptness, inefficiency and corruption. Everyone just look in the mirror! We elect them, we must live with them. If your candidate did not win, you have to ask yourself "How much did I do to promote and help my candidate get elected?". Did I do all that I could? Did I campaign door-to-door; did I attend the rally's; did I do more than complain on a bulletin board? If so, great - but you still lost. So next time, you better get out and get more people motivated to do what you did. If you did not do all that you could, look in the mirror again."
And you were talking about doctors who only work for the money. I am saying that doctors do understand that the system is broken, as demonstrated in the articles, they just object to how it is being fixed. The entire article. And yes, the one is about taking control of your own health (making choices and living - or not living - with the consequences) because JUST HAVING INSURANCE will not get it done. It also shows how, in one man's case, once he got insurance, he became lazy and quit trying. In this instance, I am pointing out that just giving people insurance, does not directly correlate to better health.How do you think that the authors of these links are making politically motivated statements?
Read it again. And it does point to chiropractic as an alternative treatment course. That does not invalidate the data in the study, however.
If you re-read what you asked, and my response, you will see that we were talking about "primary care physicians. Your statement was that, with fewer primary care physicians, they would be able to "command more money". I refuted that by saying that Obamacare will not allow them to command more money due to Obamacare. Hence, they will go to other areas where they could make more money and we will be short primary care physicians. Doctors do not have to accept Medicare, Medical Assistance, or ANY insurance. I you re-read the link above, the one doctor describes how two of the major medical treatment facilities in the U.S. - Cedar Sinai and Cleveland Clinic are going down to ONE insurance plan per state. Obamacare touts "coverage for all" - Medicaid, Medicare, Medical Assistance, private insurance pools. What they don't say is that, with the way they have the program set up, no healthcare providers will take the coverage you have!
I do not like or, in any way want, socialized medicine. But I did not use the term "derogatory", you did. I just said that I did "not know where the "derogatory" part comes in." And, yes, my opinion of Obamacare is a bit testy. I do not like or want socialized medicine. I feel that it will take this country: 1) significantly backwards in healthcare; and 2) into bankruptcy.Sounds like a plan! Now, just get the inefficient, "money hungry" politicians out of it and implement something that allows the market to drive it, and we will be "sitting pretty"!